« Mid-year thoughts on (slow?) 2011 for sentencing stories | Main | "McCann: Clemens facing 15-21 months in jail" »

July 5, 2011

Casey Anthony found NOT guilty on all felony charges, misdemeanor sentencing later this week

As detailed in this CBS News report, this year's trial of the century concluded with a somewhat surprising verdict today down in Florida:

After deliberating for more than 10 hours, a jury of seven women and five men found Casey Anthony not guilty Tuesday of first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

Anthony was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. She was found guilty of four lesser charges of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.

Here are follow-up sentencing details, about which I will blog more in future posts:

Judge Belvin Perry will sentence Anthony Thursday morning on those charges.  While she could receive up to a year in jail for each count, legal expert Mark O'Mara told CBS affiliate WKMG he expects Perry to give Anthony time served. She has been in the Orange County Jail since October 2008.

July 5, 2011 at 04:02 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e899ef396970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Casey Anthony found NOT guilty on all felony charges, misdemeanor sentencing later this week:

Comments

i know i didn't see this coming. i figured it would be fought in the appeals division. Since this biased judge has given the defense every possible reason to appeal and win. He has been nothing but a acting partner of the Prosecution.

then just how the hell do you have 4 charges for lieing to the police OVER THE SAME CRIME!

can anyone say good golly miss martha!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 5, 2011 5:24:58 PM

"then just how the hell do you have 4 charges for lieing to the police OVER THE SAME CRIME!"

Quite easily. There's nothing at all inconsistent with the jury's verdict. Ms. Anthony, without a doubt, lied to the police during their investigation of the crime. She told them she worked at a place she didn't work; she told them her daughter had a nanny who in reality did not exist; she told them her daughter was kidnapped when, as she now ackowledges was a lie; etc., etc.

Now, the fact that she told these lies does not mean she killed (or abused) her daughter. In fact, that's exactly what the jury's verdict shows. But she most certainly was guilty of the 4 lying counts, even if she wasn't guilty of the 3 "substantive" counts.

Posted by: DEJ | Jul 5, 2011 6:44:52 PM

Fortunately, the jury in this case was not nieve and didn't believe the Hollywood screenplay theory acted out in the court room for all to see. Too many people [mainly women] could not see the forest for the trees and use emotion to come to a decision in cases like this. How anyone can be convicted on circumstantial evidence is beyond me.

Posted by: Huh? | Jul 5, 2011 10:28:59 PM

hmm

"She told them she worked at a place she didn't work;"

that was her fault...should have told them it was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!

"she told them her daughter had a nanny who in reality did not exist;"

maybe and MAYBE not! i've not seen any real evidence either way!

"she told them her daughter was kidnapped when"

i think the NOT GUILTY verdit puts PAID to this one!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 6, 2011 2:08:07 AM

I am none of the above. I am a Process Engineer who thought the verdict was the correct one. In fact I though the Judge should have ordered acquittal when the Prosecution rested without proving its case.

But I can tell this Judge is terribly biased and I am afraid he will sentence her to four years unless there are guidelines preventing that.

Four lies are really one lie. She has already over served her time. The State should never have brought this case and they let the real guilty party walk free with no time and his crime was a truly heinous one.

Posted by: Ron Tripp | Jul 6, 2011 10:56:05 AM

Ron Tripp --

"...they let the real guilty party walk free with no time and his crime was a truly heinous one."

Who was the "real guilty party," of what specific crime was he guilty, and how do you know these things?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 6, 2011 3:52:01 PM

See, I always wonder about cases like this. If she is actually guilty she should pay the price to the fullest. But you can never be certain of the extent of her guilt.

Posted by: how to get rid of acne scars | Jul 17, 2011 2:26:34 PM

Nice blog, lot's of helpful points here. For very helpful information about acne treatment & skin care visit: http://acne16.blogspot.com/

Posted by: acne treatment | Jan 20, 2013 2:22:52 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB