" 

 == Did the jury understand that they did not have to impose the death penalty? == 

 Juror #3 said, ""But it's someone else's life, and if I'm wrong and I kill someone else  I can't live with that."" The suggests that the jury may have held a misunderstanding. In Florida, a jury is able to recommended a life sentence instead of death. A reporter on AC360 had a similar impression, saying, ""Did the jury really understand their role?"" and suggested the judge may have been at fault. This alone may not warrant inclusion in the article, but more substantive references to this issue may be out there.    
 :It would probably be OR to make such an assertion right now based on that statement.  More indepth interviews may take place in the future.    
 :::This should have been a bench trial. The jurors clearly did not understand the law.  It is complicated in a circumstantial case.  I also think that a death penalty case is always a difficult case for jurors to decide.    
 ::::Trial by jury is a right; given the facts of this case and the prosecution putting the death penalty on the table, it would have been foolish for the defense team to ask for a bench trial.    
 :::::That is not what I meant. If my life were hanging in the balance, I would much rather put it in the hands of a judge. This should never have been a death penalty case.  Not enough evidence to meet the criteria.  A jury is too unpredictable.  Most of the time, the defense team thinks about how much money they will make and the publicity they will get - which is also about money, and lastly, they think about the defendant.  To the prosecution and the judge, it is about the truth and the proof.  Of course the defense team would not want a bench trial.     
 ::::::It would be best if we stay on topic then as our common goal here is to improve the article; opinions that you'd rather face a judge yourself, or that the jurors didn't understand the law in this case, or that most defense lawyers put their clients last to focus on fame while for prosecutors its about ""the truth"" isn't constructive on article talk pages.  However, there are lots of forums on other sites that would welcome commentary. Back to Xerxesnine's point, perhaps relevant material will show up in the near future.  Regards,    
 :::::::Both of us were engaged in speculation Xerxesnine's point is just as speculative and mine.  Both of us have made several suggestions if you will look over this page.   All of us, including youself should take your advice.    
 ::::::::Excellent - I'm glad you agree and appreciate that you're going to work on that.  Regards,    

  
 Is there a Florida law that could counter the verdict (guilty, not guilty) if it is found that the jurors did not follow the jury instructions? On Nancy Grace there was mention of ""jury fraud""; the only example given was that if it was proven that their decision was based on what the bible says is right/wrong. Jennifer Ford clearly didn't understand that this was the ""guilt phase"" and not the ""penalty phase""; furthermore, there were plenty of other degree-options surrounding the murder charge that would not have inflicted the death penalty for which she couldn't live with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 :With all due respect to Nancy Grace, there isn't a chance in H*** that will happen.  The law of Double Jeopardy will prevent her of ever being criminally tried to these offences again.  She could be sued in civil court for wrongful death for money (like OJ was) but her parents seem to be delighted that she was found not guilty so I doubt that would happen.  I know this is speculation and will probably be told about it, but I think this may not be the last time Casey Anthony will commit a crime.  ([[User talk:Mugginsx