July 5th, 2011
06:00 PM ET

What role did the news media play in the outcome of the Casey Anthony murder trial?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Casey Anthony's defense team is slamming the media over its intense coverage of the case leading up to and during the high-profile trial.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/05/art.caylee.jpg caption="Caylee Anthony"]
Anthony's attorney Jose Baez applauded the jury shortly after leaving the courtroom today for doing what he said they are supposed to – finding their verdict based on evidence and not emotion. Baez said, "You cannot convict someone until they have their day in court."

The defense team believed the public and the media had already decided Anthony was guilty of killing her two year old daughter before the jury even heard arguments in the case. Baez and his colleagues pointed to the seemingly non-stop coverage of the case on cable television outlets, commentary by so-called "legal experts" on various pieces of evidence and testimony on television and in print, as well as the crowds that gathered outside the courthouse daily possibly as a result.

But despite what these and other defense attorneys perceive as a media bias in high profile cases– guilty until proven innocent– many juries simply don't buy in. Many very famous defendants in very high profile cases with the most media coverage have all gotten off. O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and William Kennedy Smith were all acquitted in trials that featured intense media coverage.

And while the defense slams the media, it might be worth taking a moment to think about why so many of these big cases have the same outcome.

Here’s my question to you: What role did the news media play in the outcome of the Casey Anthony murder trial?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

The fact that the media convicted Anthony before the trial even started is disgusting. Listening to people and believing that their opinions are based on what they have heard on TV is outrageous. There were 12 jurors. That is how our justice system works. It doesn't matter what the talking heads think or say. I don't want the media to make up my mind for me. I want them to present the facts. I am capable of making up my own mind.

Rudy in Austin, Texas:
Hey Jack, looks like the media didn't matter in the outcome. While your colleagues, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Nancy Grace, et al were leading Casey to the gallows, the jury found her not guilty of Murder 1. Fair and Balanced, much?

Wasn't the jury sequestered? If so, the media shouldn't have influenced the outcome. The media only influenced us, the public.

J.K. in Minnesota:
I think the media, primarily coming from your sister network, obsessed on this case so much that the prosecutor's office felt compelled to seek a a capital murder conviction, when a lesser charge would have probably been the better choice. I know if I personally were seated on a capital murder trial jury, the evidence had better be undisputable, or I couldn't in good conscience vote to convict a defendant.

Susan in Idaho:
The news media was not a factor. Remember the jury could not watch or listen to the news. The blow for the prosecution was Jeff Ashton himself. Sitting there and laughing while Jose Baez was giving his closing arguments was the kiss of death for his case. Had Casey done that she would have been convicted.

Larry in Denver, Colorado:
If the media would just treat the economy with the same zeal as it did this case and the case of the IMF president perhaps our politicians would rise to urgency of our state of the union. Instead our headlines are full of two criminal cases and little else. Two plus wars, unemployment, deficits through the roof and your question of the hour is the media in a murder verdict? When does the insanity end? Ratings, selling papers that important?

Filed under: Law Enforcement • News Media
soundoff (218 Responses)
  1. JK (Minnesota)

    On paper it sounds like a good idea, but not the way this country likes to get into warts these days.

    July 5, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
  2. Linda in Charleston, SC

    I hope the news media had no effect on this trial but maybe this question is best left for later as this is not over because the media pretty much made this a guilty case for lots of people to stew over.

    July 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  3. Peg in NY

    The news media held no sway in this decision.

    July 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  4. Annie, Atlanta

    I don't know that the media played a part in the outcome. What I do know is the media sensationalizing this case with wall to wall coverage instead of sharing real information with us, news we could use as it were, is turning us into a country of ignoramuses. Where is the real news? Is it gone for good? Are we getting to the point where news stations are no longer relevant other than as additional sources of entertainment?

    July 5, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  5. LynnS

    The fact that the media convicted Anthony before the trial even started is disgusting. Listening to people outside the court and comments on facebook and twitter and believing that their opinions are based on what they have heard on TV is outrageous. There were 12 jurors. That is how our justice system works. It doesn't matter what the talking heads think or say. I don't want the media to make up my mind for me. I want them to present the facts. I am capable of making up my own mind. P.S. Nancy Grace needs to apologize and retire!

    July 5, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

    You can thank Nancy Grace for the trial's publicity. She is the one that propelled this case into the media spotlight. How many other murder trials were going on at this same time? The media has a habit of being judge, jury and executioner with its endless parade of lawyer wanna bes who, as Mr. Mason put it, have no clue as to what is really going on. By the constant bombardment of media coverage, Casey Anthony was judged and and sentenced before the trial even started. Media needs to just reports the news and keep opinions to themselves.

    July 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  7. Rick, Medina, OH


    Once a case begins, the media has no role at all in the outcome ... only how the public reacts to it. It is the initial coverage of a case where media often has a disturbing role; it preys on the sensibilities of people who are outraged, feel violated, and demand answers. Often, the rush to be first gets in the way of the obligation to get it right.

    Medina, OH

    July 5, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  8. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: The tragedy of a child becomes the profits for the media-everyone had their 31 days of fame and fortune--they media adorned the tragedy--except Calyee Anthony-–may she rest in peace.

    July 5, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
  9. Rudy

    Hey Jack,
    Looks like the media didn't matter in the outcome. While your colleagues, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Nancy Grace, et al were leading Casey to the gallows, the jury found her not guilty of Murder 1. Fair and Balanced, much?
    Austin, TX

    July 5, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
  10. dee

    None, because the jury did not wath the stupid media, like Nancy Grace.

    July 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
  11. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    None. The people on the jury did what they believed and that's the way our system works, good or bad, it's still the best system in the world. I believe I would have hung the jury to at least give the prosecution the chance for a new trial. The sad thing is that the little girl is gone forever and the person that killed her is not going to get punished, at least not now.

    July 5, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  12. Dennis north carolina

    Too much coverage and too many experts in the media.

    July 5, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  13. Overby from Melbourne

    The cameras clearly showed what unprofessional antics and buffoonery the prosecutor Ashton was capable of. I hope we didn't see a baby killer go free because of backlash to his offensive behavior today

    July 5, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  14. Bob from Melbourne

    Apparently not much. The media had her convicted and sentenced long ago. Never mind the facts or evidence it was a ratings grabber.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  15. Pete in Georgia

    Oh, it played it's usual role........................total overkill, non stop beating of the drum, and wall to wall nonsense.

    Other than that.................nothing at all.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  16. Bizz, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    This one you cannot blame on the news media. The jury was sequestered so I think the news media played little if any in the decision of the jury. I just think it was a case of the prosecution not making a case of beyond a reasonable doubt.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
  17. Angela, Charlotte, NC

    Hopefully none. To adopt the European "sub judicae" rule seems a better option, to avoid any undue influence and to protect the innocent where appropriate!

    July 5, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

    The media has had a negative effect on this whole trial as usual.
    This will be another OJ.

    The only thing the media did was sensationalize the whole trial, essentionally turning it into one big fantasy where, in the end, there really is no true villains, just a story told for the entertainment of the viewers.
    The mother does not deserve all this attention. Poor Caylee needs to be remembered not her killer.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  19. David Willis

    Seems to me like the news media was somehow told to report on this case to divert attention away from the real news stories such as the rising oil prices which the Federal government doesn't want to do anything about because of the high gas taxes.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  20. Bill Canada

    It would appear from some of the comments I have read that there are people who would declare Casey Anthony not guilty just to spite media types such as Nancy Grace whose 'totmom' perspective on the trial indicated her ultimate opinion. I would not be surprised to see the jury selling their stories. It would explain why they didnt want to give any 'free' comments.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  21. JK (Minnesota)

    I think the media (primarily coming from your sister network) obscessed on this case so much that the proscutor's office felt compelled to seek a a capital murder conviction, when a lesser charge only would have probably been the better choice. I know if I personally were seated on a capital murder trial jury, the evidence had better be undisputable, or I couldn't in good conscience vote to convict a defendant.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  22. Ike

    Nancy DISGrace cost the state Valuable witnesses like the bounty hunter. The States Case was not founded in a Grand Jury but a Court of Public Opinion. Add to that the state based their case on Chloroform. This is something that is VERY hard if not impossible for one to buy on the street. It is illegal to sell to the general public & only a chemist should try & make NOT some Party Girl. IF Cindy or Lee or Casey looked this up they would have passed on this stuff. You Eliminate the Chloroform You look at all of Casey's pics of Caylee are NOT those of a woman who so hates her daughter that she would kill her.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  23. Melissa

    i just delievered the information that was put out there.It made everyone realize how much a liar Casey was and how selfish she really it.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  24. Kevin in CA

    The media had no apparent role in the outcome ... otherwise she'd been convicted of murder one.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  25. Joe CE

    Excessive coverage, probaby no effect on the outcome. Negative effect on sensibilities.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  26. marybeth


    I'm sure that the media influenced the outcome of this trial due to the non-stop coverage. Yes, I know that the jury was sequestered, but there was coverage about this case long before the jury was impanelled. The defendant is young, attractive, white, and middle/upper-middle class. You would have to have lived under a rock and be completely cut off from the world since 2008 in order NOT to have knowledge of this case.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  27. Kim Smith

    The role of the 13th juror. The role of the judge. Take your pick, Jack. With out the media involvement, this would have been just one of hundreds of ongoiong murder trials that we never hear about.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  28. Mitoosense Fort Lauderdale, Florida


    The media exploited the memory of a child for personal selfish gains.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  29. John .....Marlton NJ

    None ... the jury saw thru it all ...However, the media may have 'influenced' some the prosecutors or those involved with investigating the case .....

    Ponder this ..If police can lie or tell non-truths during an invetigation, then why should the woman, Casey, who was found not guilty, be subject to a different standard ??

    July 5, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  30. Dave, Orlando, FL

    The media played no role whatsoever. The blind morons – excuse me – jurors were sequestered, could not watch TV or communicate over the internet or read a paper and therefore could not have been influenced by the “news” or anything else. Maybe they should have.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  31. Dave in Phoenix

    The media played a huge role in the jury not coming out and speaking. The media has become garbage anymore and you people would have crucified them for their decision. Do some reporting on all these corrupt businessmen committing treason by destroying our country and its working class, and less on this junk.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  32. Chris from NY

    Nothing. They hiped the whole murder mystery to the point jurors got spooked and decided to acquit the lady.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  33. RickFromDetroit

    Hopefully None! Even though the case was exploited by the media the rules the jurors were supposed to follow were they could only make decisions based on the testimony provided by the prosecutors, defense lawyers, and the witnesses. If they followed the rules, the media should not have had any influence on the outcome of the trial. If jurors did not follow the rules, then they are guilty themselves and could face charges and this could lead to another trial. [this would depend on what other laws would apply and they differ from State to State]

    The one benefit that the media coverage granted the public is we were are able to see first hand what a failure our biased judicial system is where one person can spend more time behind bars for steeling a candy bar than another person will spend for murder.

    I am proud to be an American!

    July 5, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
  34. Bryan, Co, Spgs.

    Live court room proceedings are the best for interested citizens. You can't get anymore informative than seeing the real thing taking place live. No time of death, no cause of death, no direct evidence linking defendant to remains found in woods. Small bits of circumstantial evidence that that can't prove beyond resonable doubt Casey had anything to do with murdering her child. Witnesses taking the stand that do nothing but cry and lie is a joke. Jose Biaz was a master at watching prosecution fail to prove the case.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  35. Robyn

    The media plays a large role in cases like these. When the spotlight is on a murder suspect (or any criminal for that matter), people can turn anything they read or hear into their own story. It's kind of like the game telephone: you hear one thing, think you heard another and pass that on.

    Before I received my BA in Journalism in 2010, I took a media ethics course. On a quick side note, I like to be as balanced in my stories as possible. So, when I see articles coming out basically saying she's guilty or she's innocent just based off certain facts (but not all of the facts), makes me worried for the future of our country because of what they are paying attention to.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
  36. Keith Wilson

    In my heart, the outcome of the Casey Anthony murder trial, is what is now going to happen to Casey Anthony. I feel shame that we, more than likely, have ruined her life. The "we" I speak of is people like me who did not require the news media to lay off until the jury came forth with a verdict.

    I am a Workamper, my home is Wenatchee, WA.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  37. Scott Stodden

    I Think The Role That The Media Played Throughout The Trial Was The Role Of Keeping The American People Informed About Everything That Was Going On Throughout The Trial Just Like The O.J. Simpson Trial. When You Start Allowing Camera's Inside The Courtrooms Covering Trials It Starts Turning Into A Media Frenzy And Then It Also Turns Into Nothing More Than Entertainment For People To Watch. In My Opinion I Will Always Think That Casey Anthony Is Guilty Of Murder But The Law Of The Land Prevails And Another Murderer Goes Free Just Like O.J.! Had The Media Not Been Allowed Inside The Courtroom Things Probably Would've Been Different.!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport, Illinois)

    July 5, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  38. Richard C.

    The media sucks! This case proves it once again.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  39. Dee in New Paris Ohio

    See answer above!

    The MEDIA led the pack.

    And at some point (I hope) the MEDIA will learn that reporting the news is not the same as reporting a STORY!

    I have quit watching certain media people after they latched onto "stories" like this one and ran them into the ground.

    Like the constant hounding of Patsy Ramsey. The in-your-face interviews of Congressman Condit by media pit bulls. The BULLYING that led one mother to kill herself, and where there apparently was no proof she ever did a thing to her child!

    Too many of those in the media think that because their face is on the boob tube every day, whatever they say has value! No, guys, it merely means that until some other talking head comes along, they have the stage!

    I'm not for censorship in any form, but there are times, and STORIES, that make me doubt that's the best thing for us all.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  40. sherman williams

    Jack, because they KNEW she was guilty!–caring moms don't party for a month while their kids are missing, she did say she was an excellent liar, I guess she fooled her defense team too, (SMH) *shaking my head*

    July 5, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  41. Mark

    Jack, Its who we are. We have to watch because we want answers.
    A better question is did she do it, or were we all just sitting around looking for her to get the chair.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  42. James Jones

    The grandparents need to heal...and Geo and Cindy need to stay away from Casey....she's cold blooded and will kill again. Ashame little Caylee will not get justice.
    Yes, we have become a third world country.
    James J

    July 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  43. Leona

    It was about an innocent child, who lost her life. We were anxious to
    see justice done, and then it wasn't.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  44. Alex in Bremerton, WA

    And don't get me started on Nancy Grace! She gets rating with lurid coverage and assuming the person on trial is guilty! Remember the lacrosse team that were cleared of rape of a stripper? Nancy Grace was all over it for days but took the night off when the boys were cleared.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  45. Leona

    Surely the media had nothing to do with the outcome. Just in keeping
    us informed about a horrific case.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  46. Pete Moore

    The media kept the picture of that beautiful child, that was discarded like so much trash, in front of us daily. I am saddened by the "not guilty" verdict. Nonetheless, I have to assume the jury had reasonable doubt based on the facts presented to them. Pete Moore, Charlotte, NC.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  47. Lana

    Unfortunately, she will sell a book and/or pose in playboy and make millions. A very sad day. WIndsor Ontario Canada

    July 5, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  48. June

    According to the news media, I was surprised at the verdict. As the defense talked about the death penalty, I had to agree. Why would a civilized society wants legalized murder per the death penalty. It's still murder. The court of public opinion will judge and meet out justice to Casey Anthony. Karma, God, whatever–life seems to meet the justice deserved. I would not want to stand in this young woman's shoes.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  49. Charles

    Two reasons:
    1: Courtroom cameras
    2: Irresponsible media that hyped the trial using people like Nancy Grace with her "Tot Mamma" mantra.

    I got hooked by the hype of the O.J. trial, and I vowed Never Again!

    July 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  50. Taylor

    The media just made it accessible. That is their job.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  51. Carol

    Turner, Maine. The role the media played was purely reality entertainment for many. Myself, I did not watch diligently. I am very sad for this little girl who is no longer with us and no justice for her death. It is amazing that Casey can be clearly hiding something in her daughter's Whether she did it or not, she clearly was somehow involved, or knows what happened. It is shameful that she doesnt show anyemotional grief for the loss of her little girl, and the hurt her parents are suffering. She presents no shame in presenting so many lies to cover up what may have happened to that beautiful child, Caylee Anthony. May God bless that baby girl.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  52. Pat

    Obviously very little or none as it should be in a democracy. The jury did their jobs. The sensational media did their jobs and I watched PBS to keep up with the issues that interest me.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  53. shirlee smith

    The courtroom coverage provided viewers an excellent opportunity to think. Did the prosecution convince me that Casey was guilty? The tatoo, the dirty dancing, the having a great time for 31 days, the smell of human decomposition in the car trunk and ten million lies convinced me Casey Anthony is pretty much an unfit person. I wish I had been convinced that she was a murderer because I believe she is. But how and when did the child die? What was the cause of death? There are more questions than answers. But like OJ, if the glove don't fit then you have to acquit. But what turmoil the entire family will now endure BECAUSE they have created so many lies, deceit and distrust they will never be at peace

    July 5, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  54. Jeff in Minnesota

    The media sensationalizes things to keep viewers enthralled and neglects details. Fortunately, most juries weigh all of the details, not just the sordid ones or the innuendo that the media uses to make these trials interesting to their readers and viewers. Juries also do not have the onslaught of so called "legal experts" pummeling the public daily with their take on events. Trials, like movies, need to be taken in total, not in pieces. There are a number of movies that would be rated much differently if they were viewed as their daily rushes versus the completed work. The same is true for trials.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  55. Barbara Foti

    I did not follow the trial religously. But,I did keep up with it in the NY Post. /We find fault with our jury system constantly when a verdict comes down we do not agree with. But apparently the jurors were not
    convinced she was guilty "Beyond a reasonable Doubt" The shame of it all is a baby's life was snuffed out by someone or something she
    had to get in the woods somehow and with the duct tape on hermouth.I hope whoever is involved has a miserable life and nightmares every night. May God Bless her little soul.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  56. dave in nashville

    The role the media did not play was in convicting her, but they did put Hose Chavez on the radar screen...tell the truth, don't they look alike?

    July 5, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  57. David P Vernon

    Tucson, AZ – None whatsoever, as it should be. Perhaps the filing of so weak a case was motivated by media attention, but the jury conclusion is based on the evidence, or rather, the lack of evidence, that Casey killed the baby. In fact, with no evidence showing that anyone killed the baby, a conviction would have to have been based on hype, perhaps media hype, perhaps prosecutorial hype. Why is this a story at all???

    July 5, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  58. Tom salter

    the media had Casey convicted even before the trial. The prosecution went for the sexy trial of a young mom. They oug to look at George A's actions and comments both before and during the trial. as a former cop he sure tried to cover something and I think it was his own behavior with caylee. he is truly a dirt bag. Atty Ashton was a blow hard and a poor actor filled with his own ego.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  59. Patricia Jordan

    I believe that CAYLEE is the victim, not casey. I am disappointed in this verdict, I truly believe that Casey is Guilty. The jury is guilty of being disrespectful to CAYLEE'S memory.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  60. Thom Richer

    Are any media aware we have 3 ongoing wars and deaths of our soldiers each and every day? Do stories such as this trial warrant coverage over war? Play a part? Hell, Media is the stage. Allowing cameras and pseudo reporters into the courtroom has lost its importance and is now merely entertainment at citizens expense. Time to rethink media in the courtroom. Time to get rid of talking heads. Time to act responsible and respectful in the Media.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    July 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  61. Linda Messina

    Although I feel Casey was responsible for Calley's death I could not have ruled her guilty had I been on the jury either. Why? Because the case was so polluted with lies it was impossible to connect any dots whatsoever. Mom lied, Dad lied, meter reader lied, Casey lied. The jury was given an mucky lake of pollution to swim thru and it was impossible. The prosecuter (Linda) told them to use common sense. Can someone be sent to death based on the gut feel of a jury?

    I believe it was an accident that went terribly wrong and when Casey found that Calley was not alive she panicked and the duct tape came out. I read recently that many young parents will use clorofill or form (?) to make their kids sleep longer when they plan on partying with friends. Bad parenting – YES and things can go very wrong as in this case.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  62. john williams

    The media editorialized this horrific event with the perception that the childs death was murder,and that the only possible perpatrator could be her mother. It seems that many of us and the media as well have forgotten that in the the United States of America you are presumed innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt of your guilt. Perhaps the way we do it here in Canada is a bit less sensational and doesnt build the ratings and popularity of particular networks and personalities, but it tends to keep us from predetermining outcomes – especially ones that are not based in fact. I truly do not know whether she murdered her child or not. But there was not enough evidence presented to the jury to take her freedom or her life.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  63. Ray, Retired Navy Chief in San Diego,CA

    The media is quick to be shocked on when a white mother is accused killing their child. "How could this be" they say. Not so much when the mother is of another (black) race. The media gave people false hope that justice and common sense will prevail. Well, according to the jury one did. I guess.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  64. Don Mickelson

    The jury is under much greater scruitiny when it comes to a high profile case like this one. and, in this case, the prosecutors had very little real physical evidence to work with. My feeling is that the pressure the jury was under to "be fair" led them to a bad verdict, because everything I saw lead me to conclude that she was the most likely person to have done it.

    I believe in karma, though, and think she will get here due, perhaps in another way. My guess is that she will party herself to a young death, or crash into someone, killing another as she escapes again. Maybe that time they will have enouigh evidence!

    July 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  65. Kathleen Muller

    None in the verdict. Only Dollar Bills for the Bright News experts/

    July 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  66. Gigi Oregon

    Too much. We the United states is in it's lowest condition in history we should have are attention drawn to the corruption in our government etc. And the apathy of its people.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  67. Bob K Youngstown Ohio

    All the media attention even got you to change your question, Jack. Earlier today the question was about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget Hang your head down in shame.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  68. Michael in Albuquerque, NM

    Nothing at all. I hope the jury wasn't allowed outside information.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  69. Bawhb San Deigo, CA

    The Media is probably sad that :
    1) the trial is over.
    2) they didn't really do anything but turn our "Justice" system into a circus !
    3) they didn't convict her so there would be a retrial...to cover !
    4) they will not sell more air time based on the Anthony case !

    July 5, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  70. Ralph Nelson

    I do not think it had any. CNN coverage may have been excessive but it was honest and fair. Is it really news or a sideshow?

    July 5, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  71. George Nicks, Nashville

    Who knows why, Jack.
    One things for certain, I haven't seen Geraldo Rivera so flustered
    since he opened Al Capone's empty vault!

    July 5, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  72. Ralph Spyer

    I don"t want to know what the law is , I want to know who is the judge is" ROY COHEN the media plays no part ,you can not buy them off

    July 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  73. Daniel Walsh

    I find that the public my have been persuaded by the likes of reports from Nancy Grace. Granted that she has legal experience, she is now a reporter. I'll say that again; reporter. Reporters are supposed to be unbiased, something this "smart cookie" seems to lack the understanding of. She had Casey guilty before the trial began; based solely on her actions after the little girls death. I find Casey's actions deplorable as well, but in a court of law... no evidence was show that merited a conviction of the serious crimes. You can chalk that all up to the prosecution. As for Ms. Grace, someone who moderates a show should leave the opinions to guests and keep her big mouth out of it. Otherwise, go back to practicing law!

    July 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  74. allie

    rest in peace caylee marie .mommy dosnt need a jury god knows.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  75. Dustin

    The media wouldn't cover it if people weren't interested. People can blame Nancy Grace and the like all they want, but check the viewership of those programs.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  76. Barbara Foti

    As to the answer did the m edia play a part,of course it did print and tv it was in your face day after day one way or the other. Sometimes the tvand the print get caught in the profit margin and not what people are deriving out of the story sensational or not.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
  77. Michael Roepke

    Media played no role in the outcome. The media was championing a guilty verdict and they did not get it. Even CNN, which I generally trust, had a legal authority who turned every talking point into another argument for conviction and the death penalty.

    The media made a great deal of revenue but couldn’t effect the verdict.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
  78. Michael Armstrong Sr. Sherman Tx.

    From start to end the media had there nose up this story like a blood hound tracking a rabbit giving up to the minute howl's on how the cow ate the cabbage but now it's over except for Nancy Grace it will go on for months maybe year's .

    July 5, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
  79. Bill in New Mexico

    Yes, the news media did have Casey Anthony guilty
    until proven innocent!

    But, is the American way for a criminal trial correct?

    "Beyond a shadow of doubt!" Does this hold the same meaning for everybody?

    Then there is the statement, "Better that ten guilty people go free, before one innocent person is sent to prison." Allowing "ten guilty people" go free is not being "better". What about the future victims of those "ten guilty people" allowed to go free?

    Why does the jury have to be unanimous?

    Why do we assume that "the way we have always done things is the best way"?

    I think from time to time everything should be reviewed, and sometimes (almost everything) should be changed.

    Look at our form of government. It is ripe to high heaven for change.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
  80. Bruce Quertermous

    We are all only safe to the extent that others (who may be like us) and "not" safe. We are not loved if others like us do not love. And we cannot celebrate each of us our life, over which each of us reigns godlessly it seems; Each of us is without safe happiness, unless we see someone like us who is depraved and guiltlessly naive, takes the life of "her" baby girl.

    We watch and hold safe vigil by watching someone who has strayed. Someone who had the tattoo, The Perfect Live. I think this even sets the stage for all the mudslinging about to commence in the the upcoming presidential campaigns.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  81. Bob in Texas

    Fortunately, none. You people in the media did everything you could to vilify this women without every giving any attention to the pertinent evidence. The jury, on the other hand, apparently weren't swayed by your emotive recitations and chose to examine the facts as presented. Bless them for that.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  82. Joe

    You know Jesus was persecuted by the mass media in force, too. Don't you think Nancy Grace should DONATE ALL her income from the last 3 years to support rehabilitation for Casey persecuted Anthony?

    Sometimes the media shoves an issue wanting a specific verdict (in this case Grace and Company wanted – guilty) down the public's throat, that we are beginning to realize the truth should be based upon facts, not the here-say rants of people who are paid to incite and sensationalize a case or issue.

    Joe, Binghamton, NY

    July 5, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  83. tammy

    they shound find her guilty/ she killed her little girl/i think her dad had something to do with it/ they shoukd keep the case open on her/ their a niether killer walking free like OJ

    July 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  84. Tony From Ga

    The media had reported the facts of the case well before the jury was picked, by then these jurors was already feeling sorry for her and was never going to reach a guilty verdict.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  85. calaurore9

    What made me laugh was the tabloid F-network's inflammatory coverage, convicting and executing for weeks. The "Constitution"?! Defense team was eloquent in its castigation of the press and regard for the exceptionalism of the U.S. legal system.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  86. Karen

    Wasn't the jury sequestered? If so, the media shouldn't have influenced the outcome. The media only influenced us, the public.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  87. Mary

    I'm not exactly sure that the media had any thing to do with the outcome of the trial considering the jury (supposedly) did not have any way of knowing what the media was saying. I do however, believe that the media has been prejudiced and biased. I have not seen any evidence of "innocent until proven guilty" by the media. I have only watched the last two weeks of the trial but the state did NOT prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Casey murdered her daughter. She most certainly has done something wrong but exactly what, HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. I also believe that George is NOT what he would like for all to believe.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  88. Aurora E.

    Bravo to this jury! We have been force fed this story as a murder by parent for 3 years by HLN and the general media. Our nation fought for a citizen's right to a fair trial and God bless Casey, she got one. That isn't always the case. Initially I hoped it would be exposed as an exersize by university students to show the horror of how the media can target and eviscerate any citizen they choose and hat will increase their own ratings. The prosecuters asked who's life was improved by this murder? I submit TV hungry lawyers and Nancy Grace.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  89. Fred(Ontario)

    Sorry, I haven't followed this case deeply. It hasn't done anything to influence me, nor should it influence the outcome of any trial. To be so, would be interference with the judicial system, and that would be a very bad thing indeed.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  90. Karl in Flint

    The news media in this case had no more influence then in any other case in history. They used to say the trial was held in the press, before TV, but it wasn't. The jury isn't exposed to the hype we civilians hear every day of the trial, they only see and hear what happens in court, like it always has been.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
  91. Tim Wilson Jax FL

    Jack, Thanks for Listening and for consciencous reporting!
    I think "Judge" Nancy Grace had her tried, convicted and sentensed Three years ago, making it very hard to get a decent jury and should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice!! At the very least, she should be sued by Ms. Anthony for slander!!! Doesen't she have a responsablity to report the news without bias? In my humble opinion, she definately deserves to be repremanded!!!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  92. Susan from Idaho

    The news media was not a factor. Remember the jury could not watch or listen to the news. The blow for the prosecution was Jeff Ashton himself. Sitting there and laughing while Jose Baez was giving his closing arguments was the kiss of death for his case. Had Casey done that she would have been convicted.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  93. Jeff in Fairdale, KY

    I don't think there is any question the media had an impact on the trial. That's why the television service was removed from the jury's televisions. I don't think the media coverage adversly affected the trial but it may have helped influence the jury in the early going. I'm not the only one who thinks that it's a dangerous game to play though. Many people around me feel as I do, that the jury was under immence pressure to aquitt if there was even a shred of doubt, however unreasonable. Now these jurors have to fear for their safety? What has this great nation come to Jack?

    July 5, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  94. Karen (Alaska)

    The media was exceedingly instrumental in inflaming the passions of the general public. On those occasions that I listened to or watched a media report over the past three years, I became convinced that Casey had to have played a role in her daughter's death. And then, I watched large portions of the trial. A mac truck could be driven through what the media had reported - and continued to report during the trial. The media reports were biased, emotional, and twisted testimony and reports. It's no wonder so many people feel like justice wasn't served; they were sold a false bill of goods by the media.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  95. HURRICANEPAUL from Hawaii

    Jack, the extreme coverage of this case was simply a friendly distraction by the Main Stream Media to keep the heat off of Obama's illegal war in Lybia.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  96. Chad


    Boston, MA

    July 5, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  97. Barbara Milton

    It is evident to me media played very little role in the outcome of this trial. If media had played a role, she'd have been found guilty.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  98. Mo

    I don't think it affected the trial, it just affected the reaction.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  99. Ron, WA

    Thankfully the media played virtually no role in the outcome of this trial ONLY because the jury was sequestered.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  100. Barbara Milton


    Las Cruces, New Mexico

    July 5, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  101. Mujo K

    Jack,i understand alot of people are upset about the Casey Anthony verdict.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  102. Rod

    Jack, the jury was sequestered so the role of the media was nil!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  103. Gant.B

    i belive the media was just like the media in all the other cases they got the message around to world! who cares about what the layers are saying after the trial. now their are just taking up "t.v time".

    July 5, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  104. Terry Healy

    Having been a juror on a murder trial where the media had alluded to a guilty verdict. We looked to vindicate on the burden of proof which the prosecutor did not provide. And as in this case a murderer has been set free, according to the law.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  105. Bill Povse

    Since the jury isn't suppose to be able to watch the news or read news papers about the case then there shouldn't be any pushing from the news media for them to find a certain way. They should only judge the case on what is said and show in the court.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  106. Kevin

    The media was out of line, especially Nancy Grace. But whatever gets our minds off of the economy and wars.. so be it.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  107. Joe

    None whatsoever.

    The jurors were sequestered and had no access to media.

    Justice was served, and the only people having issues with this is everyone glued to their TV watching former prosecutors running their mouth.

    There was not enough cold, hard evidence to convict her, so legally she walks.

    This is the way our blind justice works. Blind justice does not watch cable TV to decide a case. That is the end of the story.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
  108. Bob, in Florida

    THE SLEAZE ROLE, Jack. Plaster inuendo, rumor, sensationalism, slug slim, putrid garbage, scum of the earth news media Jack. There is NOTHING honorable about the media, there is nothing honorable about the public gossip, there is nothing of value here. Move on!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  109. rick from canada

    In particular, HLN and their talking heads (experts) should be ashamed... balance, like we've seen on CNN today has been missing in this case throughout...

    July 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  110. Dave Hait fro Florida

    They played NO role in the outcome, but boy did they try to alter it! The Media shoul not make the news, but only report it

    July 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  111. Jon

    The media created an environment where the prosecutors would have been lynched themselves if they didn't bring a case to trial as soon as possible. In that context, the prosecutors brought a half-baked case to trial devoid of hard evidence, and the jury did what they had to do. I always saw the O.J. trial the same way. Some times it takes years, even decades, to bring a strong murder case to trial. In their rush to convict, they lost any chance of convicting Anthony at all. Sad really.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  112. Paige

    The media didn't have a role in the verdict; they had a HUGE role in whipping up hostile public opinion toward the defendant. Yes, I was stunned by the verdict - stunned that the jury actually set all that aside and based their decision on the prosecution's lack of any substantive evidence. Good for them!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  113. Tony G

    Unlike Michael Jackson or O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony was not famous prior to her trial. If the media were to pressure the jury into any particular result in this case it would surely have been a guilty verdict, not a controversial acquittal which could lead to their harassment. Scott Peterson's trial was similarly high profile, but he was found guilty.

    Tony Gonzales
    Knoxville, TN

    July 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  114. JCastellano

    Acquittal is not a solution to media coverage. Guilty is guilty, the jurors lost their way morally on this case, and their smug expressions behind her attorney prove it.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  115. Dan in New York

    I find it ridiculous that the media has been so focused on this trial. There is too much going on across the country for everybody to be focused on this trial. If half of the people obsessed with this were worried about the current budget crisis we may be able to talk our representatives into actually getting something done in Washington. The people of the United States of America need to get their priorities straight.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  116. myrna

    I thinked that the media played a big role on Casey Anthony trial, the media is at fault for not bringing justice to little caylee, I think madoff will get away w it to....way to go media.......oh did i mention that the media itself killed michael jackson omg......

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  117. Dan - NJ

    I don't think the media actually plays a role in the outcome of the trial, but it does play a huge part in the public reaction to the verdict.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  118. Mickey D

    Jack, be careful about media coverage of the media, if you do that too much you go blind.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  119. Krista Gehring

    I believe if the media wouldn't have sensationalized this case so much, the prosecution wouldn't have had to go for the death penalty. I think all of the outrage about this now is mostly the media's fault, because no where was it reported objectively. The media had already convicted her, so when she was found not guilty that was a "shock" for them and consequently the public who followed their coverage. But not for those of us who followed this case and fast forwarded through all of the talking heads on the networks that covered the trial.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  120. Melinda

    None. I watched the trail from the beginning and formed my own opinions based on the facts. If anything the media annoyed me like the commentary by Nancy Grace.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  121. Gregg Briese


    The role the media played was to keep the public informed of every bit of salacious information from the trial. Overwhelmingly, the media gave the perception Casey Anthony was guilty. This was enforced by the parents who said that Cases was responsible of "something"

    I did not hear anyone say that without cause or date of death the case becomes problematic. In addition I heard no analysis that the parents behavior was so bizarre, this could lead a reasonable person to believe one of them did it.

    Gregg from Bush, La

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  122. Ken

    None. Hello the jury was sequestered or is someone implying that they were watching CNN.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  123. Glen

    they gave her a presumption of Guilty especially Fancy Nancy Grace.
    and Jane Velez Mitchell.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  124. Tom

    Casey was found not guilty because she could or was given a "real" defense. Most defendants are given a public defender and lose big. All the high profile cases with media exposure, involve a high profile defense team that forces the state to really prove its case. Really proving charges beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  125. Penny Wallace

    None. The bottom line is that the jury listened to the evidence provided in the courtroom and deliberated according to the instructions of the judge. Don't forget, they were not provided with the nightly updates and speculations the rest of the world. They were sequestered!!! sounds to me like they got it right despite the penchant for mob-think.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  126. Andurill

    They organized the lynch mob.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  127. N. Maxwell

    None! The burden of proof for us is not the same as it is for the jury.
    Casey is guilty but not beyond a reasonable doubt or in this case an unreasonable doubt.
    Perhaps the prosecution aimed to high and missed the low hanging fruit. Casey for the most of us is "not innocent."

    July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  128. A. Eklund

    Big surprise... after being force fed this story for three years, the first commercial after the verdict was for a 2600 calorie breakfast at Denny's. People have been herded like cattle into despising this girl by media cowboys. We really shouldn't form opinions and lust after the blood of our fellows just because the loud blond on HLN told us every 4 hours what to believe. There are so many things to be passionate about in these times, yet where are the indignant crowds marching? Oh yes, at the Florida court house with HLN and Nancy Grace. That is truly outrageous. I would like to buy this jury a beer.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  129. Karen

    They didn't have an impact on the outcome in the courtroom thanks to the jury being sequestered. But, how they stirred up hate, and bias had an impact on the basic understanding of our rights in the Constitution. I hope none of those people outside the courthouse ever end up on jury duty. The lawyer-commentators are the worst. If only they were all Jeffrey Toobin.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  130. bob boudreau

    None because the jury was selected from another county that had no exposure to the media coverage for the last 3 years

    July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  131. Athena

    The extensive media coverage gave us the impression that we knew the family, Casey and the evidence. We became emotionally involved during the search for Caylee and felt that we had a stake in the outcome of the trial.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  132. Steve Harrison

    None,, since the jury could not see it. The media painted their own self serving picture to boost ratings. The prosecution could not prove their case. She did it but is not guilty.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  133. Christian Lucas

    ONCE AGAIN, the media bought into the hysteria of a pretty, missing, white girl. I am saddened that there is no justice for this little girl. However, how many other missing/murdered children do you remember hearing about during the three years of Caylee Anthony? This is JonBennet Ramsey all over again. Rest in Peace, Caylee Anthony. Rest in Peace to the other child that didn't make it on CNN.

    Louisville, KY
    Thanks, Jack

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  134. Nate in Pittsburgh

    Luckily, probably not a whole lot in this case. Trials aren't about whether the jury believes the defendant is probably guilty or not. They're about proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. That didn't happen, and the permanently pro-prosecution bias of the media obviously couldn't sway the jury when confronted with limited evidence.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  135. Leonard

    No. The media did not play a role in this case. What happens in every high-profile murder case is that the reason that all of them are there gets lost in the shuffle. This case was about a little girl who died at someone's hands and ended up being about whether or not Casey Anthony was sexually abused by her father and brother, about her mother lying on the stand, and about Casey partying while her daughter was missing and not reporting it for 31 days. I fault the judge in this case for this reason: while a defense has to be mounted on the behalf of the defendant allowing statements that HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH WHAT HAPPENED TO CALEE ANTHONY should not have been allowed. That little girl deserved better than this.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  136. Diana

    In the beginning, Nancy Grace convicted her prior to the trail starting. Then , many who did not care for forrest gump jumped in with stones in their hand aiming at casey.
    She has been outcasted in a country where the image is innocent until proven guilty.
    The mockery made of our system doesn't encouraqge females to come forward with domestic violence allegations, and is a step back for that.
    If the defense defense team covered LYING to those who lie on a daily basis to get what they want, and defined lying for what it is,
    there would have been no charges pending.
    In fact, those victims of domestic violence lie to protect even their violators .
    How disappointed I am to live in this nation where we are taught this is the best.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  137. Sandy Davidson

    The media should present the information that is given,
    (minus their opinion) of what that information means..

    The minute they open their mouth and tell me what I should think about something going on in a trial.... the minute, I get defensive..... and that colors what I choose to believe.

    The jury did not have to listen to their opinions.... thank goodness... I they decided the case on what they were presented.

    They did a GREAT JOB, IMHO... and followed the law, like the judge told them to do.

    The media annoyed ME... and that is never a good thing.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  138. Brandon Johnson

    The news played a huge role in this case, good and bad. Good because it kept everyone informed of what was going on and bad because people would accuse Casey of what she did or jump to conclusions of what she was going to get. The media made the Michael Jackson case sound like it would be an Innocent guilty but he was innocent of all charges and, just like now, people are shocked. The media needs to stop exaggerating the truth and make it a huge shock when they are caught up in their lies.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  139. Joshua

    Media in this case, insignificant indifferent to the verdict, but significant in the debating the verdict and elaborating on how our justice system

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  140. Phillip

    Jack, you completly miss the point! It should be "What role did the news media play in the complete and utter destruction of the life of a now proven not-guilty person?" What a great nation we are to destroy someone by pure accusation.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  141. Mike

    What outcome did the media have on the trial? Hopefully it had no outcome at all on the jury, since they werent supposed to have any contact with the outside world. The media DID have an incredible impact on how society viewed the verdict, however. All of those "experts" were just plain wrong, and now the public feels wronged because after 3 years of hearing their poor "expert" opinions, they became convinced that casey was guilty.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  142. Steven Baker

    The role of the media is provide information, including opinions. The indulgences of the media – including the presumption of guilt that went with much of the coverage in this case – are a necessary product of a free press, which is just as important (if not more important) than the constitutional presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system. Today's verdict shows that we should not overestimate the influence of the talking heads.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  143. Rick McDaniel

    Obviously, from the jury decision, the media had no impact, on the outcome.

    It was the elusive "reasonable doubt", and the fact that there was nothing more than a circumstantial case, that the jurors could be convinced with.

    While any rational person would look at the facts, and find that she had to have been the guilty person, there simply wasn't enough concrete proof.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  144. David

    Yes Jack, I believe that the Media played an extremly negative role in the Casey Anthony trial. Some of you were already (willingly or unwillingly) portraying her as a murderer. This is also proof the media absolutely feeds up on drama; any drama, Why? maybe for ratings and money.And All of this while our nation is currently undergoing a debt crisis which could lead to a global economic recession.So yes good job at potentially destroying the life of who is now an innocent person.


    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  145. adam ring

    the media made the spectical that the case had became. the jurors recognized this. the media although have not been able to reach the jurors made the jurors choose right verdict. the media made casey anthoney who she is today. jurors just okayed her freedom but the media gave a sense of not guilty of murder

    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  146. Kenneth Barr

    The jury did its job. They tuned the media out and concentrated on the evidence presented in court. The media's influence was seen in the prosecution deciding to charge first degree murder when the evidence was ,at best, iffy. It's time to get the so-called "court of public opinion" out of the discussion and allow our criminal justice system to work. How many in the media started referring to Dominque Strauss-Kahn as a "pervert" or "sicko?" Now, it appears he will not even go to trial in New York. The media has to stop with the "get it first, get it fast, get it now" mentality and worry about getting it right. In other words, just the facts, please.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  147. Lanie Barrow

    Perhaps there is an unspoken (or even subliminal) threat to juries in high profile cases that if they side with the media they will be viewed as having been influenced by the media. That being said, I do feel like Caylee would be alive today if she had not been in the custody of Casey Anthony, but I still couldn't tell you what happened or why.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  148. Toni Morrissey

    What difference does it make? Presuming the sequestered jury was not compromised, jurors made their decisions only on what they heard in the courtroom, not from info on TV.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  149. Matt

    Thankfully, none. Let the media try themselves in their mock courtrooms if they want to exploit this case further.
    Maybe then they'd get their guilty verdict

    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  150. Nancy

    The media does go to far sometimes. Mainly:Nancy Grace. She never attempts tp present both sides of a story, just the accusers. I think that is wrong. Fox news does the same thing with politics. They only present one side of a story , the republican side. I don't see anything changing but people need to be aware of what they are listening to. When commentators start saying : It could be, rumors are–People are saying YOU BETTER WATCH< it probably isn't true.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  151. Peter

    Jack, the media plays the role as bad guy nobody likes to be told what they should feel or think. Add to that some basic premises as being innocent until proven guilty and even secular teachings like "judge not lest thou be judged" and I think that's why all these high profile cases turned out the way they did.That and I think that most of the prosecuters were just as arrogant as the media was and just put forth an inept case.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  152. LOLonYOU

    DO NOT..DO NOT..take any cameras OUT of Courts in America!! The moment you close the doors, corruption begins! We need ALL media noses poking inside of every tent they can find! The devil can't work in daylight..keep those journalists snapping at the heels or kiss your last taste of FREEDOM good bye! We hate you, you nasty media, but we need you! Like a sick man needs his meds.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  153. Jeff Wilkinson

    The media poisoned the trial of Casey Anthony. In Canada, where I live, the media coverage in this case would have been in contempt of court. I used to work in the newspaper business and this kind of media coverage would never be allowed in Canada. That being said, there's no way Casey Anthony was going to get a fair trial with people like Nancy Grace floating around. I think the jury just got angry at it all and acquitted her not just because there was no hard evidence, but because the media poisoned any evidence there was.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  154. Jason Mierczynski

    Rancho Santa Margarita, CA – This trial has become an absurd reality show gone wrong. Coverage for the trial has been on the covers of some of the top pop culture magazines, which are well known for twisting the story to make it seem more dramatic and jaw-dropping. The media is definitely at fault for the overwhelming desire to see casey put in jail.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  155. Joshua

    Media in this case, insignificant indifferent to the verdict, but significant in the debating the verdict and elaborating on how our justice system work

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  156. Alex

    I believe that media played a vital role in this matter, and luckily this didn't affect this verdict. We live in a world where we find the easiest solution to be the best one, and why shouldn't a highly suspect mother be the murder in this case? Well, sometimes you have to get to the core of a problem and realize that what we thought were right, in fact is wrong.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  157. Thomas Wilder

    is The more important question is why is this story made important when we are on the verge of a depression, fighting 3 wars, with nuclear meltdown in Japan? The answer: keep the public distracted from what is actually important, ie Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  158. Yomi, Pleasanton, CA

    Luckily the media had little impact, because the jury was sequestered. Thus guaranteeing that they don't get biased by the lynch mob mentality of our modern day media and social media society.

    As the defense lawyer said. innocent until proven guilty. Before we make the decision to take someone else life. We should make sure that the evidence supports the conviction, not the tabloid garbage that is played by folks like Nancy Grace.

    We all have the right to our opinions and free speech. but we should keep our emotions in check. Thank God for the system and the burden of proving guilt being on the prosecution.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  159. Terry DeLoughary

    Give 'em credit. They tried.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  160. ruth

    There are too many times these days that people like to express their opinions about something they know very little about the facts. When the media reports on these issues they often overlook what the court is being presented. Although Casey Anthony might have her faults, it is important not to focus on what one would assume to attribute to guilt. Just because someone is young, partying, and living a life that most young people would enjoy, where is the finger prints and DNA?

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  161. Lisa, Austin Texas

    The media played no role on the outcome of the trail. Anyone who has been part of a jury that is deciding the fate of someone's life can tell you they take it seriously – and hold the prosecution to a high standard of proof. You think that if it were you sitting in the defense chair, you would want that same scrutiny and impartiality from a jury of your peers. That is why the American system of justice is unique and truly great.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  162. Don

    I am an experienced Florida criminal defense laywer and watched almost the entire trial. The medias mostly State-biased commentary whipped the public into a "conviction frenzy" no doubt because watcing a guilty woman get what's coming to her is better for ratings than watching the State get what was coming to it. Thankfully, justice was served- except for the huge sums of precious State money that were expended in pursuit of a case that should never have been brought.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  163. Eric

    I'm a member of the media. I agree with the defenses assessment regarding media. Too much sensationalism and over-analysis everywhere. We're not sequestered like that jury was. With that said, the defense used the media in their favor as well. Because of "social media" it's not just news media outlets but anyone with a camera trying to get the story first which spreads tabloid-type journalism. Another huge reason our country is so divided across the aisle. Sign of the times.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  164. adam in tampa

    the media made the spectical that the case had became. the jurors recognized this. the media although have not been able to reach the jurors made the jurors choose right verdict. the media made casey anthoney who she is today. jurors just okayed her freedom but the media gave a sense of not guilty of murder. the media helped the nonconviction.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  165. DeDe Mills

    This jury was sequestered. They were chosen because they were able to avoid the media hype. This is the only reason the media was unable to influence their decision. If you listen to the media, you come away feeling Casey Anthony was guilty.

    Sometimes we can let our feelings take over, but if we set our feelings aside we can see that the prosecution case has many MANY holes in it. If, however, we are consumed by the media hype and obsession over Casey Anthony we might be unable to come to the only just conclusion: there was no solid evidence that Casey was guilty.

    I think the media talking heads need to take a long look at their actions. Maybe France has it right? Maybe, the only way to ensure that we ACTUALLY presume innocence is to keep the accused out of the media eye.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  166. Berry Redfern

    The media convicted Casey a long time ago. There has always been too much media coverage and commentary. Nancy Grace and Jane Velez Mitchell are much too driven. That is the reason one young lady committed suicide over the death of her child. The prosecution overdid it in going after the death penalty. They could have easily won (in my opinion) a second degree conviction.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  167. Dan Casady

    You can thank media "stars" such as Nancy Grace for the "Guilty until proven innocent" mentality that we are living with today. If Nancy had her way Casey Anthony would have been executed live on her program to boost her ratings.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  168. John

    If I watched HLN shows like Nancy Grace and others, I would have sworn she was guilty. But when I watched parts of the actual trial and especially closing arguments, the case against her fell short. The evidence was not there. Do I believe Casey is innocent....NO, Do I believe the State of Florida showed proof.... NO, Do I believe the media convicted her...YES.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  169. Holly

    Caysee may have been found not guilty by 12 jurors, but the general public KNOWS she is responsible of Caylee's death! If not her, who? Maybe her defense team dumped this sweet little girl in the woods?! Either way, Caysee will not have a good life. Who wants to be her friend, employer, husband, CHIlD???

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  170. Matt, Little Rock

    High profile trials in this country are no longer fair trials. The media throws fits when a high profile trial won't let them into the courtroom. Sadly, this is Freedom of the Press overruling the Right to a Fair Trial. The media should be banned from reporting on any court cases until after the trial has ended, so as not to judge the defendant in the court of public opinion. Casey Anthony's attorney was right about the media's attempts at character assassination, and I would be surprised if she did not consider pressing libel suits against people in the media who did work toward her character assassination.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  171. James Leech

    Dear Jack,

    I think Casey Anthony is guilty as sin, but I also believe that the jury did their duty under the law. Now, why don't you focus on something important? Murders occur every day. Sad but true. Let's get on with something else of import to the vast majority of people in this country, like the national deficit, the oil spill in the Yellowstone River, the situation in Greece, the situation in Libya and Yemen, our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere). What the heck are you guys in the media thinking? Are you just trying to sell commercials? You sure have plenty of them. You make me sick with your fixation on this minimally important issue, as much as I regret the death of this small child (which happens pretty much every day).

    James Leech

    July 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  172. Jo

    Though one news commentator mentioned what others refuse, Nancy Grace slammed this case in the media and as an expert assumed this woman guilty. Even today she stills call her tot mom without giving respect for the 12 jurors who gave their time to such a spectacle. For Nancy she may want to decide that professionalism in regard to the law and people's rights until proven guilty is a must. I am disgusted at how HLN allowed such a shameful display.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  173. Sandy Davidson

    How the media is going to affect the lives of the Anthony's ...
    now that this trial is over.

    Probably close to "inciting a riot".....
    This is very, very wrong... and dangerous.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  174. Evelyn goodman

    None. The jury was not able to listen to or watch tv. The media picks up on compelling cases and runs with it. The public came to the guilty conclusion because the evidence pointed to Casey Anthony.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  175. Margaret

    Millbury, MA

    The media hype around this trial fed into the morbid interest in our society around this kind of happening. Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace yelling at you nightly, even yelling at their assembled lawyers and others, mis/over stating the facts. Daily coverage on the major networks. Not unlike Casey's approach, the American public created "imaginary" linkages between the evidence and testimony which simply wasn't there. The puzzle pieces had been placed on the table but no one took the time or presented the evidence which would have assembled it.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  176. Glen

    jeffrey tobin had a wait and see attitude.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  177. Frank

    Without a doubt, the media played a very key part in this trial and the unfortunate outcome. Just like in the OJ case, the media all but portrayed the defendants as guilty before the trial. The coverage was so intense that all potential jurors were exposed to this prejudgment of guilt, that the smallest doubt that a good defense attorney could put out, resulted in a not guilty verdict.

    To the AP, thanks again for your sensationalism.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  178. Bob in SC

    The media played no part in the jury's verdict or it would have been guilty without a doubt. Common sense played no part in the verdict, or it would have been guilty without a doubt. The media hyped this case to national attention to be certain, but the ultimate outcome was in the hands of the jury who inevitably followed their instructions to the letter. Nancy Grace should be at least censured if not subject to civil penalty for her biased, sensationalized and prejudiced "reporting" from her personal bully pulpit that HLN provides. At the end of the day, the letter of the law was served, but the spirit of the law was not.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  179. Fred in Florida

    Jack, the media is ONLY interested in the headlines, the out rageous soundbites and the scandals, you don't want the truth, you want ratings, now that this trial is over, where's the next Big Story? The media is just like lawyers chasing an Ambulance, how can we make MONEY!!!!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  180. Ron Mimnaugh

    The media influences those that listen to the pundits who profess their views on the efforts of the prosecution and the defense. The juries generally rule contrary to public opinion because they are not privvy to all that expertise.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  181. John Courter

    People forget News Media is a business. The role the media had very little to do with any story, it had to do with ratings. It found a story that could captivate the country's attention and capitalize off it. It worked, I am sure important topics such as this country's budget crisis do not get near the ratings. It is about making money for the news stations, nothing more. Wonder what a 15 second commercial spot cost for advertising during trial coverage as opposed to regular news or the budget coverage for that matter.

    John Courter
    St. Joseph, MO

    July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  182. Ibn Akbar - Silver Spring, Md

    While the media made it their duty to blasts Case Anthony and depict her as a crazed child killing mother,(which she still may be) the media merely turned the people against Casey, but that had NOTHING to do with the verdict. To my knowledge all of the jurors were banned from exposing themselves to any media influences. (ie:television,radio etc..)

    July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  183. keith

    the news has been biased to a guilty verdict since day one..as the general public has as well the difference being the news is suposed to be neutral......now they make jurry's biased for the defendants......there is pleanty of suffering in the world that the news is not covering because the nielson ratings will suffer if they dont saturate the news with news they think the public is craving for....not the case...its sad that a child has died...but the news does not have to be in any court room......this has lead to crowds of people who have judged someone guilty...and may in the future cause a vigulantie to become there own judge and jurry.....then what, hire the same guy to get them off...as well

    July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  184. Linda in Hernando Bch. FL

    How could the media have ANY influence on the trial at all?! The jury was sequestered and had NO idea what was happening on the outside. Also, Judge Perry was so strict with the court audience, there couldn't have been any circus-type climate in the courtroom!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  185. Harry Cruz from Sugar Grove, Il

    Media didn't have anything to do with the Ultimate decision in the Casey Anthony case. However, it did fuel the constant misinformation arena of public opinion. The Jury are Sequester for a reason, so they do not have to listen to the Nancy Grace of the world and her Guilty first type of thinking. Everyone is entitled to their Opinion, but remember only the Jurors had access to the A to Z's available to make a decision. The fact is based on the evidence or lack there of, they made the decision. We must support the legal system, and stop listening to these so called Experts who make their opinions and are never second guessed. THANKS HC

    July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  186. Michelle from California


    The media played a huge role, they made it a melodrama, and stoked the fire...
    But the bottom line is we all make choices about what we pay attention to, the media may have been the preverbal drug pusher, but all those that believed she was guilty and obsessed over her for years, took the drugs, know one forced anyone.....and their obsession kept the media focused as well, it was a interdependent relationship.

    I think the public is desperate for something to focus on rather then dealing with what's important...like real financial reform for example....

    July 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  187. Alex

    I believe that media had a vital role in this matter. We live in a world where we find the easiest of solutions to be the best, and why shouldn't a highly suspected mother be the murderer? But sometimes, you have to get to the core of the problem, and that is when you realize that what you thought was right, in fact is wrong.
    Alex, 20 years old, Stockholm, Sweden

    July 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  188. Mike from tennessee

    Sensasionalism sells. That is why you and the rest of the media do
    what you do, you're a business, not a service organization. Ya'll are
    profit driven.
    Considering the outcome of the trial, the jury did their their job
    rightly, with no regard for the drama stirred up by the media.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  189. kathy

    Idon't know if the media had a role in the outcome of this case. However, the constant publicity and opinions of reporters and television lawyers presumes an audience that is unable to form it's own determination. Clearly this often backfires in these high profile cases because the opposite is the case. People have their own minds without the media barrage.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  190. Dave Ahrens

    Apparently none!! What I saw from news coverage Casey would have been convicted of murder. Maybe we should quick letting the media cover these high profile cases, or any cases, unless we have equal time for a guiltly and not guilty verdict discussion. There are always 2 sides to a story and the media tried convicting Casey before the trial even started.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  191. John

    In general, the media did their job by sharing some details of what was presented in court. This included the attorney side-show distraction.

    However, there are a few "legal experts" in the media that crossed the line by trying to sway the public with their person opinions of guilt before the evidence was presented, and creating a "lynch mob" atmosphere. (e.g. NG aka Tot Mom)

    Despite all of the distractions, it sounds like the jury made their decision based on the facts that were presented to them, and instruction from the judge........sounds like their did their job

    July 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  192. bob shipp

    Jack your question does not probe deeply enough. If by outcome, you mean "verdict", the media feeding frenzy probably had no impact. However if by outcome you mean the perceptions of the general public about the sanctity of the law, it has been a disaster! TV commentators with law degrees (Experts) cherry pick their facts and comments to support their positions. They know that their comments would almost never get by in a court, but they are only making a case to the court of public opinion. I have never heard so many lay people express opinions that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the justice system works and what goes on in a court room.
    And people lament that there is no respect for the law..
    stuarts draft, va.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  193. Bobby

    I don't believe the media had a role in the decision of the jury. However they definitely influenced the viewing/reading public to believe that she was guilty. They prejudged her on television, which is a very powerful influence to the public. Because of this, the public will continue to believe that she is guilty even after being found not guilty in a court of law.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  194. Renea

    I think the news media played a role in this case but not the outcome of the verdict. This trial was viewed like a soap opera by many. Trials should stay in the courtrooms and not play out on tv.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  195. Mike C.

    I don't think the media played a role in the outcome of the trial, the evidence did that (or lack there of). I agree with you that certain media types got to involved and continued to give their personal opinion and that's why you're seeing an outcry of injustice, the media told and told and told and told us how guilty she was based on their opinion as evidence was found. Sad really, trials shouldn't be televised for ratings purposes, that's what it seems to me, and when it doesn't pan out like these 'experts' thought it would, they cry about it. What if it was Nancy Grace's daughter on trial? would she still have called it the way she did...just sayin

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  196. Ron Ontario, Canada

    As per usual, in circumstantial cases, the prosecution embellishes all negative things, through the media. The ONLY chance , the prosecution had for a conviction , was to sensationalize it. She might not be the worlds nicest person, but that doesn't make her guilty. It was easier to go after Casey than to try hard to get to the truth. Wait till you get attacked, when not guilty and see what you say. If they had any case , they would not have had to get to, TRIAL THROUGH THE MEDIA

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  197. Glester Thorpe

    Jurors scrutinizes the evidence more thoroughly when it's a high profile case. I believe the pressure to get it right is intensified when the there is so much media involvement. I've watched prosecutor get convictions with less circumstantial evidence than in this case. At the of the day, the prosecution shouldn't have went for first degree murder off of emotions but with evidence. Perhaps second degree murder or homicide by neglect. America justice system does has hole in it, but i wouldn't rather be in any other court in the world.

    Glester Thorpe (Albany, New York)

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  198. Phyllis

    As a mother, grandmother, and lawyer, I am deeply saddened by the death of darling Caylee. But I have watched in dismay the character assassination of Casey Anthony by the media over the past three years. The effort was spearheaded by Nancy Grace, who even gave Casey a demeaning name - Tot Mom - so that she could build up the hysteria against this young woman before the trial. Ms. Grace often stooped to bullying guest commentators who failed to embrace theory of the case, all in an attempt to establish a core set of unsophisticated groupies, who would increase her ratings. As a former lawyer, she should be ashamed of her lack of professionalism, but even after the not guilty verdict, she continues her assassination of Casey. Let's hope Casey's safety will not be jeopardized by the hysteria Ms. Grace has created. The other lawyers who marched to her drum beat are equally guilty. Shame on the media!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  199. katrina mendez

    the media did not convince me that casey was guilty. the fact that she was the last one with the child and she has yet to tell the truth of what she did with her is what convinced me that she was guilty. This is a sad testament of how our society has deteriated, when common sence escapes people when its their time to jjudge. another thought is that, casey is definately a liar, her mother lied, her dad can't keep his pants up and he lied, the attorneys lied, most of the witness lied or are proven of questionable character. who can judge anyone, maybe the jurors are all liers also so how can they judge?

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  200. Lawyer Bill

    The media's coverage of high-profile cases is endangering the entire judicial process.

    The media – especially HLN – unjustly inflames the court of public opinion through entertainment disguised as journalism. Without the benefit of actual facts, yellow "journalists" raise public expectations by expressing emotional opinions based upon little or no facts.

    Juries decide cases on evidence. The media (like Nancy Grace) decides cases with hyperbole, histrionics, and unjustified opinions. When the true verdict is reached, the public's expectations aren't realized and it turns its dissatisfaction towards prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries. That's the harm you cause.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  201. janne

    The media allowed us to view the workings of our Justice Departments. People are watching MSNBC's Lockup and learning how inhumane our prisons are. We saw the judge's imperialistic behaviour and the obvious preference to the prosecutors. We saw Jeff Ascot's arrogance. I, personally, couldn't look at Linda Burdicks pompous strutting around the court with her arms clasped behind her. Her deliberate ultra slow cadence that quadrupled the time she spoke. Maybe some of us have experienced the over whelming power of law enforcement. maybe we know a person in jail in 23-hour-a-day "protective custody". Try being in solitary confinement for years and years sometimes before even being tried. maybe we don't want half the population serving life without parole.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  202. Michael in Boise

    I think the thing that affected the verdict the most was the juvenile antics of the prosecutor in the courtroom. A prosecutor that acts that unprofessional, is capable of other misconduct just to get a conviction.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  203. JoAn Norr

    I am happy with the verdict. In my opion there is much more to the story than ever came out. The body was moved and placed by the side of the woods while Cassie was in jail. I think there was more truth to her lies than any one realizes.Where was this boy friend all of this time?You would have to be an exceptional lier to keep all those "imaginery people" and their lives straight! Does Cassie know what happened????maybe, I think she would have taken the rap before giving up a friend! I believe she thought Cayle was alive while partying.
    People to day are quick to judgement...leave that to God!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  204. JT

    None, as Americans we can walk back to our apartments past a man dying on the street, turn on the television to see a fellow citizen binge out on drugs, and just as fast turn to a trial such as this one just because we lost interest. The American people are obviously desensitized already to heinous crimes that if committed in other countries would have better questions among the public than "what brand of tape was used?". The media had nothing to do with beating a horse that is already dead, the morals of many Americans.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  205. Shahrukh

    Jack , I don't know about media but I'm sure a law abiding citizen will probably have a role for sure in future

    July 5, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  206. Peter Bauer

    Media, as in many other instances in the past, focused on all the negatives; one would think that journalists are supposed to be objective however it never happens. Press loves dirt and feed on dirt.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  207. Sundeep Sidhu

    Extreme media coverage and scrutiny implicitly raises the standard of performance for everyone involved in court trials, including judges, lawyers, and the jury. No one wants to make a mistake when the world is watching. In addition, we must assume the burden of proof in a capital murder trial is already very high. With these two factors combined, and because the responsibility to prove a defendant is guilty lies with the prosecution, prosecuting lawyers must present a near iron-clad case, an extremely difficult task. That's why highly-publicized trials often result in not-guilty verdicts.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  208. Jed

    Mr. Cafferty,

    Although the media spent entirely too much time playing the blame game before all of the facts were heard, it had no real influence on the verdict given today. One cannot sentence a person to death based on the idea that the person is careless, or all around "not good," at least not in this country. The "Not Guilty" verdict supports the rule of proving guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt," and is a reminder to us all that what is fair is not always just. However, if Ms. Anthony is TRULY not guilty, I am sad for the way this media attention has now ruined her life.

    Austin, TX

    July 5, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  209. Brian Standerwick

    Yes, the media had found her guilty. That is why you sequester a jury.

    The Amanda Knox jury went home every night and heard all of the outrageous things that were said about her.

    The verdict was surprising. But the American justice system did its job and Americans should feel good about it.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  210. Glester Thorpe

    Jurors scrutinizes the evidence more thoroughly when it's a high profile case. I believe the pressure to get it right is intensified when the there is so much media involvement. I've watched prosecutor get convictions with less circumstantial evidence than in this case. At the of the day, the prosecution shouldn't have went for first degree murder off of emotions but with evidence. Perhaps second degree murder or homicide by neglect. America justice system does has hole in it, but i wouldn't rather be in any other court in the world.

    Glester Thorpe (Albany, New York)

    July 5, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  211. Caroline

    I don't think the media had any role. Whatever the jury decides, is what they decide. Honestly, I don't agree with the jury's decision. I am very shocked and speechless. There was clearly enough evidence, and yet she's not guilty. But, that's just how the system works. All I can say is R.I.P Caylee and hope that one day the TRUTH will come out.

    – New York

    July 5, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  212. Brian in Pulaski, IL

    If the media had any impact on this trial Casey would have been fried years ago. The burden of this verdict lies squarely with the prosecution and their inability to present the evidence needed to support a charge of capital murder.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  213. Jim

    I agree about to news media convicting her in the media. I will never so mad in a long time listening to Nancy & Vinnie. I for one will NOT watch HLN or in sessions again..
    I AGREE with the NOT GUILTY VERDIET !!!!!!

    July 5, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
  214. Linda in Arizona

    Their rush to judgment on Casey Anthony's guilt may have pushed the prosecutors to overreach and overcharge, but otherwise, their only role was in influencing public opinion, which fortunately in this case, due to sequestration of the jury, didn't matter.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
  215. Lori

    The media sensationalized and speculated throughout the entire trial, in fact, continues to do so. This is what today's media does every day. Media personnel are generally well educated and have more exposure to many life experiences than do the average American. The power those in the media have to influence public opinion is tremendous and should mean the media are held to a higher standard of care when they speak, every time they open their mouths. Perhaps, bc of the jury's limited opportunity to hear the rampant speculation spouted by every lawyer and lawyer wanna be trotted out by the media, the jury was able to focus on the facts. That is not true for the rest of the public, the individuals the media refers to as being "so wrapped up" and "very angry" with the jury. Those ppl are reacting to the frenzy created by the irresponsible and sensationalistic efforts of the media. If I were a juror, I would be afraid for my life. I will not be surprised if we hear that Casey is later murdered by a crazed individual who is pumped up by this frenzy. The media has increasingly become a bane instead of a healthy force to help educate a public who does not have the enormous opportunities afforded those in your line of work to experience the first hand news that unfolds daily. What a shame.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
  216. Tony D

    The extensive media coverage raised expectations that the case was a slam dunk. A lot of what we were exposed to, especially on cable TV, never developed as true evidence. I think the jury must have had difficulty in any finding of premeditation, and that was the whole focus of the prosecution's case.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
  217. MIKE

    Disemboweling a person on trial in the media is not what America should represent and is wrong. The days of hanging people in the center of town by a crazed mob is a time long gone and a time we don't want to return to. Nancy grace went way beyond normal reporting and put this person in the worst light possible for three years. I think she was personally responsible for why it took so long to find an unbiased jury. She held her personal online trial and drug a parade of hand picked pundits to spew daily slander to further her condemnation of Ms. Anthony. CNN should have a policy against this on air behavior and Ms. Grace(Disgrace) go.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  218. Colleen Mattson

    The media contributed to generating the wide-spread belief that Casey was guilty and would be found guilty. Their constant harping on the evidence and screamers like Nancy Grace and Jane Velez suck in the "national enquirer" type viewer who will believe anything. Innocent til proven guilty was a concept that was not adhered to. That set up the disbelief reaction. We forget that the prosecutors have the task of proving guilt and the defense does not have to prove anything at all. They may suggest a different scenario that can be accepted as an alternative explanation. Jurors have to find that the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and with circumstantial evidence, that is very difficult.

    July 5, 2011 at 6:45 pm |