Photo: Reuters

Many comparisons have been drawn between the O.J. Simpson murder trial in the early 1990s and Casey Anthony's infanticide trial from this summer. 

Like the Simpson trial, the Anthony jury's verdict left most Americans scratching their heads, wondering about the state of the criminal justice system in America, and in their local community.  Unlike the Simpson case, however, the Orlando, FL trial was placed on the fast-track and, fortunately for everyone, the judge delivered.

In the Anthony case, the accused mother was acquitted of all murder charges, but convicted on four counts of lying to the police.  She has been incarcerated for about two years; she could get maxed-out on Thursday to 4-years (a year for each count), with credit for time served.  Her out date could be weeks, or even days away.

Tuning-in to the trial while grinding around town tending to my own clients, I was first struck by the possibility of an acquittal when the prosecutor's case in chief was taking two days to clear a so-called "expert" on foul odors; apparently captured in special containers for later sampling.  They had experts on top of experts.

The jury, filled with non-Orlando out-of-towners, made the prosecution pay.  When she earns a 7-figure income next year, Ms. Anthony will be sticking it in all our faces.

Meanwhile, in September, Michigan begins a probationary period for a series of innovative new court rules.  These rules, designed to encourage more detailed juror involvement and participation in a case, may have changed the Anthony verdict.  Click here for a detailed discussion of the specific changes.

One of the primary innovations is the ability of jurors to discuss the case among themselves and to ask their own questions of the witnesses, as the proofs are going in.  In a huge case like Casey Anthony, you have to wonder if the new rules would make a difference in the outcome if the case was to be tried here in Michigan.

If I had to guess, I would think most Casey Anthony jurors would attest to their frustration spending half the summer listening to a parade of junk scientists. Jurors have fine antennae for junk science.

In the end, all the junk scientists in the world could not overcome the fatal flaws in this case: lack of a cause of death; and the all-in gamble of a first degree murder theory.

Here is a great take on this trial by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

This week, the Michigan Supreme Court integrated one of its pilot projects, involving the specific tasks of trial jurors, into the Michigan Rules of Court.  The significant changes take effect September 1st.

The MSC order, with only Justice Diane Hathaway dissenting, essentially revolutionizes the role of the jury.  Trial lawyers will note a sea change under the new rules. 

Some of us have already utilized these rules by conducting trials in Oakland Circuit Judge Potts' courtroom.

The new rules are significant in that, for the first time, standard jury instructions will be supplemented with legal theories of the issues, submitted to the court by the opposing lawyers, distilled by the judge, then supplied to the jury.  A trial judge thus retains all "editorial" powers relative to the theories and issues submitted by the lawyers, and consequently has great control over the content of each case as it goes in.  Under the old rules, in addition to a reading of a series of standard instructions, the parties requested various "special instructions" applicable to their specific case.

Here are the other significant changes:

• In addition to the standard opening statement, parties may now request making an "interim commentary" as the evidence is going in.  This creates the possibility of editorializing the content of the evidence as it is entered into the record; the old rules limited all pre-evidence commentary to the opening statement. 
• Also, a distinct possibility of in-trial interactive dialogue with a jury is possible given the new provisions allowing jurors to submit their own questions to witnesses.
• Where appropriate, litigants will submit trial notebooks to jurors containing witness lists and relevant documents.
• In civil cases, where depositions will be read into the record at trial, the parties must submit joint deposition summaries to the jury.
• In cases utilizing expert testimony, one party's expert will be allowed to hear the testimony of the other party's expert, rather than sitting in the hallway of the courtroom under the usual sequestration order.
• Perhaps most significant, jurors will be permitted to discuss the case amongst themselves during regularly scheduled breaks in the trial rather than waiting until formal deliberation when the proofs are completed.

In her dissent, Justice Hathaway commented that the rules allowing for interim jury questions, interim deliberations, and the submission of deposition summaries, will poison the trial process with unnecessary complications.

We here at the Law Blogger must admit that, with lawyers being, er, lawyers, the new rules do have fantastic potential to complicate the trial process.  On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog applauds these developments to the extent that they treat jurors as thinking adults; not a bunch of kindergartners.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com