Punditry at its worst
For those living under a rock, Casey Anthony was found not guilty Tuesday in the death of her baby, Caylee. I have never offered an opinion on the case and will not start now. Others were not as reserved. Celebrities, columnists and Facebook enthusiasts offered their thoughts on how the case was litigated and its outcome. Noted legal scholar and recurring pop singer Mandy Moore tweeted in part: "i'm [sic] from orlando [sic] and have been hooked on the trial the last few weeks. The defense team was abysmal! this [sic] is shocking! i [sic] thought the prosecution was stellar, obv [sic] not enough to convince the jury tho [sic]." Once the verdict came out, the talking heads graced each of the various news channels. Lawyers were the usual suspects. Inherently, it smacks of impropriety for a member of the bar to appear on such shows and offer opinions on a case he or she knows little about. It degrades the profession, and more importantly, jeopardizes the fundamental principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. In that respect, Casey Anthony's defense lawyers got it right when they offered their repudiation of the entire process. What really grabbed my attention on the news channels, though, were the "jury consultants." These "experts" were often asked how the jury would react to certain questions or evidence, such as the allegations made against Casey's father, George Anthony. Notable examples were the jury consultants often paraded on the Nancy Grace Show.