Doubt

This country appears to be having an apoplectic fit over the acquittal of Casey Anthony in the apparent homicide of her daughter, Caylee. Now, I'm not going to wade here into the swamp of controversy over this case ... other than to cringe at the miasma being emitted on talk radio and cable TV. Is Casey guilty? Most probably ... certainly of aggravated manslaughter. But that is not my point. My issue arises from a statement made by one of the jurors. She said that Casey Anthony clearly was not guilty beyond "a shadow of a doubt." Now, this is not the standard that was supposed to be applied in such a case. Our legal system should not allow some kooky possibility to be used to explain away felonious behavior.  The pet dog seldom if ever eats the homework.

Surely, the rule of reasonableness must be applied. And I don't think it was in this case. Just like it clearly wasn't in the O.J. Simpson trial. I found it more than curious that Alan Dershowitz (an O.J. dream-team lawyer) named his book about the O.J. trial, Reasonable Doubt. So, I make the following suggestion --before any serious future headline trial, I would hope that the prosecution would make inquiry of all prospective jurors and ask them to define "reasonable doubt." And any who suggest that "any doubt" applies should be rudely excused from jury duty. The problem that then will apply is ... will any jurors ever be seated?