The prosecutors in this case were fantastic. Their crosses of defense experts were nothing short of brilliant and their skill was unmatched by anyone on the defense team. They even got a little cocky but who can blame them as public opinion was on their side. They ran a textbook case. It really was the State’s case to lose. And lost they did.
It was not about truth or justice. It was about winning.
They presented a theory with unlikely murder weapons: duct tape and chloroform. Never before had either been used to kill a child, especially by a mother with a nonviolent past.
They presented analysis which had never before been testified to in Florida such as decomposition odor analysis, postmortem root banding, and cadaver dog hits. There was seemingly a trial within a trial: acceptance of the State’s theory and acceptance of the State’s evidence.
They presented a contradictory motive: Casey killed her daughter to seemingly continue living a life she was already living. They concocted a few other theories from the child becoming verbal to Casey being jealous of the child’s attachment to her grandmother, Cindy.
In actuality, the State faced tremendous hurdles in getting an unbiased jury to accept their theories of murder that the general public viewed as infallible.
What should they have done differently?