Casey Anthony prosecutors cheated and still lost the trial . . .

I’ve made it this far without blogging a single word about Casey Anthony. I’ve listened to my barber, and people on Facebook, and even my clients, talk about how she was obviously guilty and the jury let her go anyway. I’m pretty sure these are all people, like myself, who were not in the courtroom and did not hear the witnesses or see the evidence, and so I’ve declined to comment.
One thing I heard was how she googled Chloroform 84 times. Obviously chloroform was used to kill the child, since Casey Anthony googled it not once, but 84 times before the child disappeared. But yesterday the N.Y. Times reported that the software designer who testified at Anthony’s trial is saying that there was an error in the analysis of the computer, and that chloroform was actually googled one time from the computer.
1) The software designer was never told by the police or prosecutors that another report had already determined that there was only one search for chloroform; the software designer learned this only after he took the stand and testified; and 2) When the software designer realized the mistake in his program, he called the police and prosecution and told them about the error – a fact that was apparently never disclosed by the prosecutors to the defense, the judge, or the jurors in the case.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office had used the software to validate its finding that Ms. Anthony had searched for information about chloroform 84 times, a conclusion that Mr. Bradley says turned out to be wrong. Mr. Bradley said he immediately alerted a prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June through e-mail and by telephone to tell them of his new findings. Mr. Bradley said he conducted a second analysis after discovering discrepancies that were never brought to his attention by prosecutors or the police.
Mr. Bradley’s findings were not presented to the jury and the record was never corrected, he said. Prosecutors are required to reveal all information that is exculpatory to the defense. . . .
. . . Mr. Bradley, fearing that jurors were being given false information based on his data, contacted the police and the prosecution the weekend of June 25. He asked Sergeant Stenger about the discrepancy, and the sergeant said he was aware of it, Mr. Bradley said. He waited to see if prosecutors would correct the record. They did not.

So, the prosecutors not only failed to prove their case and lost the trial, they cheated and withheld critical information from the Court and the jury, and they still lost the trial. As Gideon points out at, despite the clear duties of a prosecutor to disclose exculpatory information to the defense and their responsibility of candor to the Court, it is not likely that any action will be taken against the prosecutors for they did here.
Update: Prosecutors’ response to allegations of Brady violations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *