http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/05/02/effert-alberta-couirt-of-appeal.html

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html

 

WTF?

That's not really accurate.

Do clarify then.

The appeal court said that the initial decision did not accurately weigh the expert witnesses who testified that she was mentally disturbed at the time. Not because the ruling was too harsh.

See the point of a jury, at least in this country, which I know is different from Canada but still, is to listen to the experts but ultimately it is the jury's decision whether the person is guilty or not. The jury head the experts and they thought there wasn't justification so they convicted. The conviction should have stood.

In its written decision Monday, the court acknowledged jury verdicts should not be overturned lightly.

 

 

"Juries are an important part of the criminal justice system and the integrity of their verdicts must be protected," the court said.

"There are however cases where the verdict of the jury cannot be sustained," it said.

 

"Where a verdict is unreasonable, in the sense that it cannot be supported by the evidence before the jury, then the jury must have made an error in its analysis or failed to understand the instructions given."

 

It's not possible to know the jury's reasoning in their deliberation, the ruling said.

 

"Perhaps this jury was distracted by the tragic circumstance of the death of a newborn infant."

 

I'm not an expert on law, but I think this can happen in America as well.

I believe the standard in the U.S. is more stringent. We live in a big country so nothing is impossible, but this conviction most likely wouldn't be overturned in the U.S.

In its written decision Monday, the court acknowledged jury verdicts should not be overturned lightly.

 

 

"Juries are an important part of the criminal justice system and the integrity of their verdicts must be protected," the court said.

"There are however cases where the verdict of the jury cannot be sustained," it said.

 

"Where a verdict is unreasonable, in the sense that it cannot be supported by the evidence before the jury, then the jury must have made an error in its analysis or failed to understand the instructions given."

 

It's not possible to know the jury's reasoning in their deliberation, the ruling said.

 

"Perhaps this jury was distracted by the tragic circumstance of the death of a newborn infant."

 

I'm not an expert on law, but I think this can happen in America as well.

 

Ok then, let's get that judge to overturn Casey Anthony's Not Guilty verdict.

In its written decision Monday, the court acknowledged jury verdicts should not be overturned lightly.

 

 

"Juries are an important part of the criminal justice system and the integrity of their verdicts must be protected," the court said.

"There are however cases where the verdict of the jury cannot be sustained," it said.

 

"Where a verdict is unreasonable, in the sense that it cannot be supported by the evidence before the jury, then the jury must have made an error in its analysis or failed to understand the instructions given."

 

It's not possible to know the jury's reasoning in their deliberation, the ruling said.

 

"Perhaps this jury was distracted by the tragic circumstance of the death of a newborn infant."

 

I'm not an expert on law, but I think this can happen in America as well.

 

Ok then, let's get that judge to overturn Casey Anthony's Not Guilty verdict.

 

I vote for it

Judges cannot vacate not guilty verdicts.

In its written decision Monday, the court acknowledged jury verdicts should not be overturned lightly.

 

 

"Juries are an important part of the criminal justice system and the integrity of their verdicts must be protected," the court said.

"There are however cases where the verdict of the jury cannot be sustained," it said.

 

"Where a verdict is unreasonable, in the sense that it cannot be supported by the evidence before the jury, then the jury must have made an error in its analysis or failed to understand the instructions given."

 

It's not possible to know the jury's reasoning in their deliberation, the ruling said.

 

"Perhaps this jury was distracted by the tragic circumstance of the death of a newborn infant."

 

I'm not an expert on law, but I think this can happen in America as well.

 

Ok then, let's get that judge to overturn Casey Anthony's Not Guilty verdict.

 

The justice system isn't perfect, but I'm sure you can understand the problems that would arise if it would give in to public opinion and the media. It's about what you can prove, and I'll take that any day.