WHAT HAPPENS when the government accuses a mother of murder? In State of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony, the charge transformed a sideshow into a sickening three-ring circus.
While the trial was occurring, Anthony became an object of intrigue for the millions of people who followed the case with morbid curiosity. The general consensus appeared to be that Anthony was nefariously connected with her daughter's death. As stated in Time magazine, "Virtually no one doubts that Anthony was involved in her child's death."
Despite what many citizens considered was an open and shut case, the trial ended with an acquittal for Anthony related to crimes committed against her daughter. The jury is still out, however, on what the ordeal meant for the development of the U.S. judicial system, including how social media and the Internet age will affect trials in the future.
In that same June 16 article about the judicial proceedings, Time dubbed the Casey Anthony trial the "Social-Media Trial of the Century." How the trial was handled in the public sphere was unprecedented. Twitter and Facebook acted as channels to facilitate public debate about the case, as the trial set a new standard for the public's interactions with judicial proceedings. The case proves unsettling, however, because of the questions it raises about privacy, dignity and the idea of community in the modern judiciary system.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." Like many concepts in the Constitution, the meanings of "speedy" and "public" are ambiguous, leaving room for interpretation. While this type of flexibility has allowed the Constitution to remain relevant, the interpretative nature of the document also creates opportunities for the introduction of practices that may not fall within the true spirit of the law.
The Casey Anthony case demonstrates how technology can drive procedural law into uncharted territory. As communication technology has progressed, there has been a debate among law experts and the American Bar Association regarding the proper use of technology in the courtroom. The policy with regards to cameras in the courtrooms varies by state and jurisdiction and in many cases is left to the judge's discretion.
Florida has been on the cutting edge of allowing new technologies into the courtroom. Video technology, according to the Florida Bar, has become "a routine part of the state judicial system."
Cameras can be barred from the courtroom in certain circumstances if a criminal defendant can "produce evidence to demonstrate the cameras prevent her from getting a fair trial." What is interesting, however, is that not only have cameras become common in Florida courtrooms, but also that the 9th Circuit Court also has begun using a Twitter feed to update approximately 400 followers about proceedings in the Court.
The judiciary's attempt to improve transparency may, however, end up obscuring justice. Casey Anthony was acquitted by a jury of her peers for the death of her daughter, and yet millions of Americans are convinced of her guilt. There were similar concerns with the O.J. Simpson trial, but the Casey Anthony trial proves that such a public phenomenon can develop around an average citizen.
Normally the indignity of the media blitz goes unnoticed because the individual is convicted, but the Casey Anthony case was different. On July 15, Time published another article outlining the fallout from the acquittal, noting "there are few places in the country Anthony could go where people wouldn't know her face and the many ugly details about her life revealed by both the defense and prosecution during the trial." The question for a person acquitted of a crime has to be whether that type of exposure is fair? These are questions society needs to consider seriously as we continue to allow technology to transform judicial practice.
In the Internet age, the national death knell for reputations of both public and private citizens comes not with a conviction, but with an accusation. Such a fallout occurred with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, when he was accused of sexual assault. Although the charges later were dropped, much of the damage to his reputation already had been done. Perhaps the Sixth Amendment's concept of a "public trial" has gone too far when trials are broadcast nationally.
Regardless of where the line is drawn, the United States should consider the damage done to potentially innocent private citizens when trials are aired nationally on television, and should consider the consequences of adopting judicial practices that promote the policy of innocent until accused.
Ginny Robinson's column appears Wednesday in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at g.robinson@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 3 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
