Casey Anthony: Not Guilty?

In the movie "Legally Blonde," Elle Woods' professor asks her if she would rather defend a client who committed a crime malum in se (a regulatory or civil crime) or malum prohibitum (a crime that is inherently evil or violent).

After listening to her rival Vivian answer malum prohibitum, Elle changes her mind and says she chooses to defend a client accused of the "dangerous one" because she is not afraid of a challenge.

Apparently, Casey Anthony's defense team was not afraid of a challenge either. The prosecution in this case had a lot of DNA evidence, but were unable to connect it to Ms. Anthony. They might have been able to establish motive and opportunity but they did not connect Ms. Anthony to the crime itself, in they eyes of the jury.

Whether you think Ms. Anthony committed the crime (I believe she did), the defense in this case drummed their mantra of reasonable doubt, and it resonated with the jury.

I liken this trial to the OJ Simpson trial, as have many talking heads of late. The prosecution had all of the tools it needed (I'm looking at you, Marcia Clark) , but was unable to establish its case without reasonable doubt. It is a tremendous lesson in our justice system and the US Constitution.

Again, regardless of whether you think Ms. Anthony committed murder or manslaughter, there was room for reasonable doubt, which is the basis of our legal system. The prosecution had a burden of proof, and it did not air tightly demonstrate its case.

The differences in strategies of the defense and the prosecution is striking. The prosecution sought to portray her as a party animal and a whore, but the defense kept to it's mantra of reasonable doubt. The prosecution's major witness, the coroner, apparently did not do an adequate job. Really? An inability to establish cause of death? Didn't even open the skull of the baby? The prosecution did not once say, "This is, with certainty, how Casey killed her baby."

And the hiker who "found" the body? His story changed more often than the horse in Emerald City changed colors in "the Wizard of Oz." although Casey Anthony is clearly a liar and a sociopath, she still worked with her defense team. Whatever happened to Caylee, whether it was drowning or asphyxiation, the defense was able to show to the jurors that there still existed reasonable doubt.

It's unfortunate about the outcome for those who believes she is guilty, no cause or manner of death was established. There exists reasonable doubt. This case will likely be studied in law school for years to come, and perhaps The prosecution will appeal. Oh wait! Can we say double jeopardy? Maybe Casey's parents will be tied to the crime or cover-up. Who cam say? But until then at least one can say: Casey is innocent until proven guilty. And the prosecution couldn't do that.

Don't read too much into it. Take the outcome for what it is: the American justice system at work. like it or not, we want to adhere to the Constitution. It was written for a reason. And to all the lawyers and talking heads offering their two cents, you weren't at the trial; nor were we. The media crucified her, but the sequestration of the jurors clearly, along with the defense's case, led to a conclusion to this circus. You may not like it, but them's the breaks.