David is a highly respected New York defense attorney, so we had a lot to talk about between the Casey Anthony and DSK cases. I ask him non-stop questions and have learned quite a bit about the workings of the law. David calls it “the system.”
Whether or not you agree with the hysterical media–which convicted both of the defendants–isn’t really the issue. The jury in the Anthony trial didn’t feel the prosecutor proved the charges “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And the prosecutors in the DSK case admitted they don’t have enough credible evidence to move forward. Those are the facts.
DSK had to be arrested based on the accusation and the circumstances, because he was, indeed, a flight risk. But unlike the overwhelming majority of accused men and women sitting in jails awaiting trial, DSK’s renown prompted the case to move ahead quickly and the lies of the hotel maid to be exposed.
Scottish juries return verdicts of “proven,” “not proven,” or “not guilty,” David told me. The last verdict means the jury thinks the defendant is more innocent than guilty, but either way, the jury is saying it didn’t get the proof it needed to convict.
Casey Anthony may be a liar. She may even be a murderer, but the prosecutor failed to meet its burden. The jury wasn’t swayed by public opinion or emotion. I think that’s a good thing.