Can you believe that verdict!!!!! Its OJ Simpson all over again!!!!!!
Lets all calm down for a second. The problem with following a trial through the eyes of the media is that they distort and exaggerate certain items for the sake of provocation – to get as much of a reaction from their readership as possible.
I can give a recent example of this phenomenon. A prominent local newspaper was covering our defective-wave-runner trial, almost daily. One day the headline read something along the lines of: PLAINTIFF ASKS FOR $100 MILLION DOLLARS from the jury. This was a gross distortion of reality – when in fact, David Kleinberg was simply giving a colorful example of the incredibly high hourly rates the defendant’s experts were being paid – and if you were to pay those rates to our client – she would be entitled to something approaching $100 Million. The jury, in this particular jet ski injury case, clearly understood that this was not what we were asking them to give our client, rather the jury appreciated that this was just our way of illustrating the lengths the defendants went to in order to defend these cases. But $100 Million Dollars makes for a sexy headline – and that’s what the newspaper went with…and of course, along came all the scathing criticisms of greedy plaintiff’s lawyers.
The reality is, a newspaper article (even if there is an article every day) cannot possibly convey, with precision, the quantity and quality of the information being provided to the jury. It loses that all-important factor: context. This is why I believe, at its heart, the jury system works. With the right context, a jury is best able to distil and separate the important facts and evidence from those that simply make for good sensational headlines.
I did not follow the trial closely. But I can almost guarantee you that if you were to ask one of the Casey Anthony jurors why they returned the verdict they did, you would receive a cogent, rational, and reasonable explanation.