Of course not. Highly publicized trials in this country aren't likely to find many people out there who aren't "familiar" with the case, and if they do locate such a person the chances of them having any intellectual prowess is slim to none. You'd have to be living in a cave not to have heard all the Anthony family insanity over the last several months. And hey, for those that are living in such a twilight zone, even if they have brain cells they aren't likely to have social skills and/or life experience, which in my belief is essential if you are to be judged by a "group of your peers.' Hermits, even intelligent ones, just don't count for me.

So, am a being to "generalized" here? Perhaps. However, this has always been my pet peeve about fair trials being conducted by 'unscathed' or 'unblemished' peers. I believe we need people on juries who, at the very least, are able to logically process the courtroom information they hear; to be able to assimilate it all on some level and weigh and discuss all that is presented. It;s just that I think that people like that will ALWAYS be familiar with high profile cases. So, I guess my belief is that judges should be put in complete charge of a person's case/trial/sentencing in any case with this much press. I would normally say the judge could give the defendant the choice, but that may only serve tp help declare a mistrial/unfair trial sometime in the future. Lawyers love it when they have that option, and why not?

I guess at the very least the trial would be better off moved to another Florida county, one with enough distance so that every third person in the jury field does not know at least one person somehow connected to the Anthony family.
Source(s):
none. ideas I've formulated through years of following this sort of nuisance.

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report