Come Back With a Warrant
Episode 30: Consciousness of Guilt & the Casey Anthony Case: Trial Breakdown
Hosted by Brandon Dinetz and Monica Ishak
Intro
Brandon: Welcome back to Come Back With a Warrant podcast. I'm Brandon Dinetz.
Monica: And I'm Monica Ishak.
Monica: Before we kick-start this week's episode, this is your reminder that this podcast is not legal advice. It's real, unfiltered, and for entertainment purposes only. If you need to speak with a lawyer, call one. Or better yet, call us.
Brandon: Call us.
Episode
Monica: Welcome back. Today, we are talking about all things consciousness of guilt, which means the guilty mind in a criminal case. So, the state oftentimes, obviously, has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt when a criminal case — whatever the charge elements are. And as a part of that, maybe the charged element might not include, what we say as attorneys, mens rea, right, which is the criminal intent to commit a crime. But that is always an element or a part of the crime that they have to prove. And so, you know, some charges have that associated with it, whether it's, you know — and that's what distinguishes, let's say, murder, right? Like, first-degree murder is the premeditated intent and then second-degree is a different level of intent, but it still has a criminal intent associated with it. So, just generally, when it comes to the criminal intent for a charged crime, the state has to prove that that mens rea was present in order to be successful at the case. And so, sometimes that's proven just with circumstantial evidence after the fact that the incident happened. And so, that's when things get a little — I guess, like, those are, like, the sexy parts of criminal cases, right? Like —
Brandon: Sure.
Monica: — when you're driving and you throw the gun out the window, or the drugs out the window, you know, after the police stopped you or whatever. Things like that. Things that lead a prosecutor to be able to say, "Why would an innocent person do that?" That's what we're talking about when we're talking about consciousness of guilt. In conclusion.
Brandon: It's the behavior and the actions after the crime occurs that prosecutors use to try to explain and show that this is the person that committed that crime. So, just like Monica said, getting rid of the gun, getting rid of the drugs, those are easy examples of, oh, the reason that somebody would do that is because that's showing a consciousness of guilt. It's showing that they know they are guilty, that's why they're taking certain actions. And these actions can extend beyond just the examples of throwing out a gun, throwing out drugs. These can extend to what somebody is searching online after an incident. And one of the things we're gonna talk about in this episode is the Casey Anthony case, because in that case, the consciousness of guilt and trying to prove that circumstantially, the actions that were taken by Casey Anthony after the death of her daughter should show that she is guilty. And we're gonna talk about specifically what prosecutors tried to use in that case to show that consciousness of guilt. But everything that shows awareness of wrongdoing after the facts, after the case, after the crime has occurred, that's the type of stuff that we're talking about in this episode.
Monica: Well, maybe it's not necessarily an awareness, because I have seen in cases where the — well, actually, the Casey Anthony case is the perfect example where the state tries to prove that this was an awareness of crime and, like, you've got, like — for instance, like, you're acting nervous when you're talking to the police. They like to —
Brandon: Right.
Monica: — say that, you know, you're nervous during this interaction with the police because you knew that you committed that crime and you were acting guilty. And that's literally the essence of consciousness of guilt. And so, obviously, it's not always successful, and that was my point.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: Because the Casey Anthony's case literally hinged on all the consciousness of guilt. Like, all of the pieces, major pieces of evidence, I should say, were based off of that, and that's why we're using that case as an example. But before we get there, we also wanna talk about the situations and — it's — I guess in my head, to me, I feel like she's guilty, so I, like, forget, like, that she was acquitted. But obviously, I think that's just, like, a very sensitive case. I probably wouldn't have been the juror for that case. Probably not —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — based on the fact that you just said —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — and she was guilty off the jump.
Brandon: Yeah, I think — yeah, no, obviously, like, they didn't have enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and her defense attorney did —
Monica: An excellent job.
Brandon: Yeah, a really good job.
Monica: But just, like, when babies are involved and it's, like, a mom and, like, 31 days pass and you don't report it, like, I don't know. There are just, like, a lot of things that I'm like, "Ugh, I don't like that, but does that mean she did it?" So we're gonna talk about all that.
Brandon: Well, it was not enough for the jury to —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — find that she did it.
Monica: Yeah, we're gonna talk about all that. But, so, anyways, you know, there's also the situations where, you know, people do lie to the police and they make statements to the police after the fact and that also is another scenario where, you know, the state will say, "You lied because you knew you did something wrong."
Brandon: Right. And there's also, while we talk about often how the state uses these examples to try to prove its case, the state is also barred from using certain examples to try to prove this. So —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — the state is not allowed to talk about someone invoking their right to silence, or making a request for an attorney.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: And that also extends to if somebody is searching on their computer for an attorney. That's something else that the state's not allowed to get into. So, the certain behaviors that may also just from, just normal perspective looking at it, may seem to indicate guilt, like the idea of, oh, somebody looking up a criminal defense attorney after something happened —
Monica: Is guilty, yeah.
Brandon: — that would make them seem guilty, that is not something that the state's allowed to touch upon, because it would be infringing upon the 5th or 6th Amendment rights that we —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — that we have.
Monica: Yeah, you have these rights for a reason.
Brandon: So the state can't then come into court in front of the jury and be like, "Oh, well, look, this person chose to remain silent or chose to hire this lawyer, and as a result, they're guilty." They are not allowed to do that.
Monica: And that is a big common misconception, like, a lot of people do think that, like — you know, they hired a lawyer, they're guilty. Like they make that conclusion and it's like crazy to me 'cause to me, as, like, an attorney, I'm like, "That's their right."
Brandon: Right.
Monica: And —
Brandon: Like that's not allowed. And judges will be very quick to instruct juries —
Monica: To stop that, yeah.
Brandon: — that that's not something that they could consider. They can't consider the person's choice to remain silent, and they can't consider the fact that they've chosen to hire a lawyer to represent them. That's not something that can be taken into account when trying to determine the guilt of that individual.
Monica: Yeah. The other example is people leaving the scene too. I forgot about that one. Fleeing, right, for sure. That's a huge one.
Brandon: Sure. Because — fleeing the scene is always used as an example of consciousness of guilt. Running from the police.
Monica: Or, yeah, I was gonna say, or like getting out of your car and running.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: Oh my gosh. Those happen all the time.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: Like that's the most common, probably.
Brandon: Yeah, it's up there.
Monica: I have talked about this before, the combo of like the DUS and the fleeing. Well, driving under suspension, misdemeanor, quickly turns into a felony when you floor it away from the cops.
Brandon: Yeah. And you get now the, you know, nice high speed fleeing and eluding.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: That is — you're gonna get a felony charge when you were only gonna get the misdemeanor charge.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: And, you know, yeah, it certainly shows you some, you know —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — consciousness of guilt in that respect.
Monica: Yeah, exactly. If you wanna try that case, the state can bring in the fact that your license was suspended. You knew that. You were guilty of it and that's why you fled.
Brandon: Yeah, it shows the reason why you did it.
Monica: And they're proving the DUS —
Brandon: Correct.
Monica: — at the same time. It's a 2-for-1 for them.
Brandon: Correct.
Monica: They love to — ugh, people just, I don't know. People are just so dumb. They love to do that. It just pisses me off. It's like you really just escalated to a felony from a misdemeanor —
Brandon: Well, yeah, you took it —
Monica: — 'cause of that.
Brandon: That's right. You took it to another level.
Monica: Yeah. Literally. So —
Brandon: Before that, one other example —
Monica: Okay.
Brandon: — that just came into my mind.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: A big one for consciousness of guilt, refusals.
Monica: Oh, yeah.
Brandon: Refusing to give a breath sample —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — refusing to give a blood sample, refusing to do roadside exercises. The state loves to use those as examples of consciousness of guilt. The reason that they refused was because they knew what was gonna be on the —
Monica: And —
Brandon: — on the breath result.
Monica: And that is actually successful because when you're refusing, the officer tells you, "This is going to be used against you."
Brandon: Exactly right.
Monica: So when the —
Brandon: And it certainly is. And it comes into court that they receive that information.
Monica: Right. So like, as a juror, if you're like sitting there watching, you're like, I mean obviously if they don't exhibit signs of impairment and that's all they have, that's just like very weak circumstantial evidence, but, you know.
Brandon: And that's where it comes in most common, and especially in a DUI case. You have a prosecutor that doesn't have a breath result, doesn't have a blood result, so they can't show scientifically that the person was impaired beyond the legal limit, but they can show that the person was exhibiting indicators that their normal faculties were impaired.
Monica: Exactly.
Brandon: And that all comes down to, the help of the consciousness of guilt argument —
Monica: Exactly.
Brandon: — is huge there because then you can look at the jury, and I've done this myself —
Monica: Mm-hmm.
Brandon: — and say, "You know why they refused."
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: "You know why they didn't do exercises, because they knew they wouldn't pass them," or whatever the case is.
Monica: We had a case like that together.
Brandon: Of course.
Monica: So that is —
Brandon: It was a hung jury.
Monica: Well, either way. The jury made the call. But, I, to your point, I think that consciousness of guilt is a good supplemental piece of evidence, but I don't think that — and this is going to tie in heavily into the Casey Anthony case, is that it's not the only way the state should approach their case, I think, because if that's all you got, then good luck proving — like good luck proving that this person did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Brandon: True. But think about how, specifically using the Casey Anthony case, how high profile that situation was, and if the State Attorney's office chose to do nothing in that situation —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — there would've been complete public outcry.
Monica: I mean, there was.
Brandon: Right. I mean, this is a big case, and if you don't know it, I'm gonna tell you about it right now because I have this abstract. So let's talk about it.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: So this is from —
Monica: Take me back to 2008.
Brandon: Oh my God, we looked it up. I was like, "Oh my God, that's crazy." I can't believe it was that long ago. Almost 2 decades ago.
Monica: Yeah. I remember watching it on TV, literally, and I didn't even think I was gonna be a lawyer, a criminal defense lawyer at the time. So —
Brandon: Casey Anthony is the mother of Caylee Anthony, who went missing in 2008. Her mother called the police to report her missing 31 days after her last sighting. During the investigation, Anthony lied to police on multiple occasions, which led them to arrest her for the murder of her daughter. Anthony was then charged with a first-degree murder along with aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. Caylee's body was found shortly after the missing persons report, wrapped in a blanket near the Anthony's home. Florida wanted the death penalty in the case against Casey Anthony with mostly circumstantial evidence. The defense wanted to show the conspiracies that led up to the case. Casey ended up being sentenced to 4 misdemeanor counts of lying to the police and multiple fines that she had to pay for the police investigation.
Monica: So she was ultimately acquitted of the most serious charges, which was the murder of her daughter.
Brandon: Correct.
Monica: And that's, you know, why it's such a, you know, big deal, because of some of the facts I just read, you know, hearing that you are reporting your child missing 31 days after you last saw them, and then we're gonna talk about how she lied, because she was convicted of lying to the police.
Brandon: Well, she did some dumb — she made some dumb choices, and the lies that she told that we're gonna get into, it just — I mean, it was not smart. She should've been convicted for lying to the police. That made sense. She probably should've been convicted for killing her kid as well, but that's neither here nor there at this point.
Monica: Yeah, exactly. So the internet search that was, like, kind of a big deal in the trial was this chloroform, and so, you know — and, you know, we were talking about online searches, and, like, I guess the most common online search you would think of is, like, how long, like, GSR would last or, you know, gunshot residue, and stuff like that, but in this situation, there was chloroform involved in the, like, physical forensic evidence in this case. And so there was a search that appeared on the family computer, and they argued that that was a part of her intent and awareness of the crime happening, because I think they found that the blanket that she was wrapped in had chloroform on it or something like that. So for —
Brandon: And for those of you that don't know, chloroform is a knockout chemical. It's a chemical that's used to incapacitate another individual and to basically render somebody unconscious, and there's also discussions where it can be used to, I think, speed up the rate of decomposition of a body, so that's another area where that came up in the case. But the ultimate question is, why would somebody be searching that on their computer? Then you take into account that the daughter was likely incapacitated by this substance and this substance was found on or around the daughter's body.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: So the question easily becomes, well, if she was looking at the — why would she be looking that up after the fact? And there really is no other reason other than to assess what the length of the effects are or how fast it could be used to decompose a body, or asking any of those questions would lead somebody to believe that they had some involvement in this person's, at minimum, incapacitation.
Monica: Yeah. Well, they try to combine that with the physical evidence that they found in the trunk of the car, 'cause I believe that in the trunk of the car, they had found, like, evidence of the body —
Brandon: The trunk of her car?
Monica: Yes.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: Like, a decomposed body was once there, I believe, and there was, like, trash bags in there that had a stain. There was, like, a stain in the trunk. Like, there was a lot of physical evidence in the trunk of that car. And they were trying to tie that with the chloroform search as well to show that — like, that's what they were trying to supplement the chloroform search with, you know, to show that she was the one that did it. And so that's where the experts would come in and testify, and, like, that's the thing. It's like these cases, you need a lot of, you know, experts to be able to explain to a jury what chloroform is, the effect it would have on — like, I'm sure they had a doctor testify the effect of chloroform on the human body, what its intent is for, like, if it's, you know —
Brandon: It's not just something you pick up at CVS.
Monica: And, you know, at that point, I don't think you can have an expert testify on, like, the actual search online, but they can have whoever extracted that information testify that that was on the family computer, and that's the other thing that the defense pointed to. It was that this was a shared computer between family members at the family home that her — Casey Anthony and her 2 parents and her daughter lived at, and so, those are, you know, points to show that maybe it wasn't Casey that did that. It could've been one of her parents or it could've been someone else that had access to that computer, because there's really no way to prove who made that search on the computer. Like, you can only confirm that this was made on this computer, but you can't prove that it was Casey —
Brandon: Who is the person that did it.
Monica: Yeah, exactly.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: So it wasn't like it was this private computer that was in her room hidden away and it was, like, her login and all these things. Like, those are different facts that change the scenario, and that's why it's important to remember, and I'm partly saying this because of me, because I was like, "Oh, I'm surprised she's —" 'cause, like, I do have to remember, like, this is — that's — those facts matter. Like, the fact that this was a shared computer, you know, like, the car was parked in their family garage as well, you know, there are a lot of different ways that the defense was able to say that that was not Casey Anthony, or maybe it was not. And if you don't, if you believe that maybe it was not, then the state has not met their burden.
Brandon: Correct, and it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Monica: So, and that's just, like, one of the pieces of evidence. You know, there's also, if you're familiar with this case, you know that the duct tape was found over Caylee's mouth when they found her body, or the remains of her body was, you know, proof, or further proof of the chloroform when they were trying to say that she was probably, I don't wanna —
Brandon: Knocked —
Monica: Yeah, I was gonna say taken out. Yeah, by the chloroform. So, you know, they were trying to show that, basically, the chloroform search makes sense alongside with the physical evidence that we found on Caylee and in the trunk of this car.
Brandon: It shows a level of planning and awareness, and it shows that whoever was searching after the fact has some awareness, and why would they be searching about that fact, and then specifically have somebody tied and related to them be incapacitated by that substance and someone in that house is looking it up?
Monica: Yeah. I mean, it's a hell of a defense to say, you know, "It's a shared computer, so likely if it wasn't Casey Anthony that did it, then it could've been one of her parents that killed her daughter." I mean, like, that's — you're kinda saying, "Oh, maybe it wasn't her, but it was one of the other people living in that house," is kind of what you're saying. But she's the one on trial.
Brandon: Right. That's right.
Monica: So, like, as uncomfortable, I think, as that may make anybody feel, it is the reality of the situation, that this person should not be convicted based on the actions of another person even if they're remotely connected or related to this person, you know?
Brandon: True.
Monica: But it is uncomfortable to — it sounds like you would be okay with that any caregiver would do that to a child. Do you know what I mean? So, it's just, I think, like, saying that —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — as a defense attorney, and I think that —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — that's why people probably don't like us as much as, you know?
Brandon: Well, these types of cases are —
Monica: 'Cause we do have to make arguments like this.
Brandon: Yeah, and these cases are few and far between, but you do have to argue what you can within the confines of the law, and that's exactly what her attorney did in this case.
Monica: Yeah, and sometimes it's uncomfortable. Like, sometimes it's not —
Brandon: Yeah, and that's —
Monica: — the best —
Brandon: I mean, that's the most glamorous argument.
Monica: That's true. It's important to note that this chloroform search also, like, occurred before the murder —
Brandon: Which is wh —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: Which is why I made the comment — that I think it shows that the argument from the state is that it shows a level of planning and awareness —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — because it shows that this was, you know, how the killer was going to take the steps that they took, and specifically with what, that's what the state is able to point at.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: But again, they can't say for sure that it's this person that did it.
Monica: Yeah. 'Cause there's other people living in the house.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: And, you know, like, going to the universal lie, the lie about —
Brandon: Well, yeah, so — Universal Studios.
Monica: Right. Exactly. So, like, that was also, like, kind — that is more, I guess, like, consciousness of guilt, 'cause, like, the pre-search is not really.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: But it is circumstantial evidence.
Brandon: It's circumstantial evidence, for sure, but then the lies that she came up with to try to cover up —
Monica: So bad.
Brandon: — certain things, and where she was and what she did at certain times. And I do think they make her look guilty. They do make her look —
Monica: On that front, yeah.
Brandon: Yeah, they do make her look guilty.
Monica: Because she literally lied about working at Universal Studios. I thought it was Disney, but it was Universal, and she, like, led —
Brandon: She took them to Universal —
Monica: — the police —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — and then when they got there, and they got to a certain point in Universal, she was like —
Brandon: She, like, fessed up.
Monica: Yeah, nevermind. "I wasn't working." She's like, "I lied," after, like, this long, fleshed-out lie.
Brandon: This long, fleshed-out lie.
Monica: Like, you just put in all this energy to show the police that, you know, you were working on this day and there was no way you could've been the one to have killed your daughter and you're, like, doing — like, so, like, basically the state is trying to say, like, if you were innocent, you wouldn't be making up this lie.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: Which —
Brandon: And she went into full detail —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — about the job, and she went into detail about the park, and up to the point where she physically took the officers into the park.
Monica: Yeah. I don't think lying to the police is always an indicator of being guilty, but I think that the extent that she took it to makes her look very guilty.
Brandon: Yeah. Because I have seen scenarios where people just, like, they just wanna be done and they just —
Monica: Well, yeah, that's — we've heard of the scenarios where somebody's being interrogated for so many hours that they just decide they're gonna say whatever they need to say to get out of the little interrogation room, and that very well could be admitting to an offense that they —
Brandon: Exactly.
Monica: — never committed.
Brandon: Exactly.
Monica: And so people do lie to the police when they're innocent, and so, like, the idea or the argument that this person lied to the police, therefore they are guilty, is not always a successful argument. But I think because of the just the facts surrounding this situation, and that's why it's so important to pay attention to certain facts that happen in cases, is that they changed the scenario. And I think that would've, like, I don't know. I don't wanna say would've been successful with me, but that is definitely something for me that I would be like, "Yeah, that is so sketchy." It's like —
Brandon: Well, an innocent person wouldn't need to fabricate a job. And take them all the way into, like —
Monica: And all the details of having this fake job —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — to cover up where they were at a time where —
Brandon: And that's your concern.
Monica: Right. Exactly. Like, that's your concern over the fact that your daughter's missing.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: Like, I just — so that's the other thing. And there's, you know, I was thinking about this 'cause, you know, the no-say behavioral evidence. And I'm like, well, like, technically, I haven't really seen, I don't think this is legal, but to have somebody come and testify that, like, you know, "You looked to the left and so you're lying." And, like, if you're doing this, that you're not being truthful.
Brandon: Like a body language expert?
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: I think there's times where body language experts are used in cases. And I think that to, if this was a situation where there was a confession and the allegation by the defense was that this was a coerced confession, or that there was something —
Monica: Oh, yeah.
Brandon: — wrong with the confession —
Monica: The defense could —
Brandon: — then I can see either the defense bringing in a body language expert to show, or even the state to rebut it at that point.
Monica: Yeah. I could see them using —
Brandon: So yeah, I absolutely could see a body language expert or somebody coming in to say, "Yeah, look at the way that this person is reacting —"
Monica: Behaving, yeah.
Brandon: "— to questioning." Their indicator of either a liar or somebody that is telling the truth, or somebody that's stressed out because they're in the situation of being —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — interrogated. I think there's ways to get that out.
Monica: Yeah. I don't love that. I'm not gonna lie to you.
Brandon: Well —
Monica: I mean, I would love it if it were —
Brandon: It doesn't come up that often.
Monica: — to be beneficial to my client.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: But if the state —
Brandon: Right.
Monica: — were to do that, I'd be like, "Nope." But, so basically, like, the point of all of these different facts and how they come together is that the state really used these to stack them together in order to prove that she was the one who, or try to prove that she was the one who —
Brandon: Right.
Monica: — committed the murder. That she lied to the police. That she looked up this information. That all of these pieces —
Brandon: Plus, the forensics.
Monica: — that if you put them together, right.
Brandon: Yeah. If you put these pieces together, they should lead someone to believe that that's the person that, you know, killed the girl.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: But that doesn't, you know, none of that information actually proves that she did anything.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: It doesn't prove that she's —
Monica: Exactly.
Brandon: — the one that, you know, it's not like her prints, or a receipt for her buying chloroform. I mean, there's a lot of things that are missing.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — that's the problem.
Monica: And those things that are missing were enough for a jury to come back —
Brandon: Exactly.
Monica: — and say that she's not —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — that she didn't —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — is not guilty. Yeah. So, like, that, for me, it's like, yeah, I see this. Like, I do believe that it was sketchy and I do believe she knows more than what she made it seem like she didn't know.
Brandon: Mm-hmm.
Monica: But do we have enough to say that she did this? And the answer is no. Like, and that's why the jury acquitted her. And so, like, consciousness of guilt, at the end of the day, is interpretive and, like, interpretive?
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: Interpretative?
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: I'm like, am I saying that right?
Brandon: Yeah, you are.
Monica: And, like, it's subjective, is what I'm trying to say. Like, it's really in the eye of the person who's receiving that information, just like I just said. You know, like, I think Casey Anthony, in that situation, was super — seemed super guilty for going all that way to lie. But I don't think that's the scenario every time. And I think that that always comes down to jury selection. Like, knowing your jury and talking to them, like, is so important because I think with a different jury, maybe in a different area, too, like maybe not in Florida —
Brandon: Maybe not where she was. She was in, right outside of Orlando, right?
Monica: Like, in Orlando, yeah. Like, that is a, I think, a more, like, generally —
Brandon: In a more liberal place.
Monica: More open, yeah.
Brandon: Yeah. That's a —
Monica: Exactly. That makes a difference.
Brandon: Right. So versus, like, if you're in the middle of nowhere and, you know, everybody —
Monica: It's the same thing with Parkland — knows everybody. The Parkland shooting. If that was not —
Brandon: Same idea.
Monica: — in Broward County. If that was in Martin County, that guy would be dead.
Brandon: Yeah. Like, 100%.
Monica: Yeah. I agree with that.
Brandon: So, this case happening in a different county — you put this in Port St. Lucie and you put a Port St. Lucie jury in front of these facts —
Monica: Makes a difference.
Brandon: — it could be a completely different scenario.
Monica: Yeah. And so, like, ultimately, what the defense had to do here was remind the jurors that, you know, like, just because you're suspicious, like, yeah, it could be sketchy, but —
Brandon: Right.
Monica: — just because you think it's sketchy, it doesn't mean that this person committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt. And so, that's, like, it's such a big deal that this person is standing trial, because, like, everybody knows that she was facing potentially the death penalty and then life imprisonment if she's going to be charged with murder. Like, other charges, you can't figure it out, right? Like, the —
Brandon: Right.
Monica: — in-betweens. Like, as a juror, you wouldn't know, but —
Brandon: And you're not told as a juror —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — when, you know, when there's a misdemeanor DUI case, the jury's not instructed as to —
Monica: Never.
Brandon: — what the —
Monica: Potential.
Brandon: — possible punishments are gonna be.
Monica: Yes, exactly.
Brandon: But a juror knows walking into a homicide trial that, yeah, this person's looking at —
Monica: Their life.
Brandon: — life or potentially death.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: That's just, that's known.
Monica: Yeah. And so, in those scenarios, as a defense attorney, you have to kind of break up the pieces of evidence and say, like, make innocent explanations of each thing and, you know, she was nervous and that's why she went down this path, and she got on the stand and testified to that. And, like, there's so many different ways to break up these pieces of evidence instead of, instead, because the state, you know, like we were saying, they're trying to combine it and show that this is intent, awareness, a guilty mind. That's why all of this is important for you to see it together. It's not just one piece of the puzzle. It's the whole thing, and that's what makes the picture. And the defense has to break it apart, and they did successfully.
Brandon: They have to break down that narrative.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: And they have to take it apart and show each piece, you know. The computer could be searched by somebody else in the house. The — she could lie about her job but have different reasons to lie about her job. But whatever the argument was about the lying about the job probably wasn't that successful because she ultimately was convicted of that.
Monica: Exactly. But not — but this is not the type of situation where it's like, oh, the jury split the baby.
Brandon: Mm-mm.
Monica: Which is really inappropriate to say in this case, but —
Brandon: Oh, my God.
Monica: This is not that type of example because it's not — and when we say that, as attorneys —
Brandon: Yeah, it's not, right.
Monica: What I mean is that the jury said, "Oh, well, she probably did something, so let's convict her of something." So, it's a lesser, yeah. Like, these were really, really, really lessers compared to the homicide charge.
Brandon: Yeah, like she was being charged with aggravated child abuse and she didn't get convicted of that.
Monica: No.
Brandon: Or child neglect. She didn't know where her kid was for 30 —
Monica: For the 31-day, right. I mean, there's just a lot —
Brandon: Right. There's a lot that, you know — listen, her attorney did a great job. That's all we're gonna say.
Monica: He came to my law school when I was in law school and talked to us about his defense in that case, and other high-profile cases and it was, like, really cool to meet him and see that because, like I'm saying, like we said, it was in 2008. Like, seeing that on TV and then going to law school and then being able to actually talk to the attorney —
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: — like, it's just, like, kind of like a crazy surreal moment. And, you know, it's a really big case, so.
Brandon: Yeah, and it's huge and people in Florida still talk about that case.
Monica: Literally till this day.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: She's like —
Brandon: And whenever she — you had made a comment, but whenever she surfaces around anywhere people —
Monica: As soon as the news comes on, it's Casey Anthony is outside.
Brandon: The news, like, always says — yeah, they'll spot her. She was in public. There's the Florida Man Instagram account. Like, I think he mentions Casey Anthony, like, once a month.
Monica: Yeah, literally. I mean, like, all the time, it still comes up. That's so funny.
Brandon: So, we're, you know, almost 2 decades removed from that and —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — it's like, it's still a case that had enough attention and still, and I think because of the verdict it also draws, it keeps the attention because she was found not guilty.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: That keeps people, you know, and people are very opinionated about that case. It's funny, I have never —
Monica: Like, I have opinions.
Brandon: We're defense attorneys and I have not heard somebody that will — people can articulate why she was found not guilty, and I understand that because I'm a lawyer —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — and we do this. But I have not found anybody that thinks —
Monica: Right.
Brandon: — that she was not guilty.
Monica: Yeah, or like, she wasn't —
Brandon: Anybody you talk to is like, "Oh, yeah. She definitely did that."
Monica: Involved in any way.
Brandon: It's kind of like the OJ case.
Monica: That's very much like the OJ case. Like, it's literally the OJ case of our time. Except, yeah.
Brandon: I mean, she wasn't an NFL player, by the way. But the difference, yeah. There are some significant differences, just because the way that the climate was, and at the time, there are big differences.
Monica: Yeah. But with how high profile that case was — it was such a big deal. Like, I just, the fact that it's in — we were talking about that it's in 2008 is mind-blowing. I feel very old, because in 2008, I was not even — you know what? I'm not gonna tell you guys my age. I'm like — yeah. Let's move on from this. Times have changed.
Brandon: Yeah. It's funny to hear that you didn't, back then, you didn't know that you wanted to do this.
Monica: Yeah. Back then. You had no idea then. But I was so interested in the case.
Brandon: Yeah, of course.
Monica: Yeah. I don't know, maybe it was, like, the thing is, I was always that kid that was told that I was gonna be a lawyer. Because I was always, like, just, like, yapping and arguing back. I always had a response. I was, like, very much so talkative. You know, that was the main thing I got in trouble in school for, so —
Brandon: You hear parents say that, "Oh, you're really good at arguing. You'll be a great lawyer one day."
Monica: Yeah. So.
Brandon: Some of those people did turn out to be great lawyers. Some of them are not.
Monica: Yeah. Some of them are in jail.
Brandon: Yeah. For sure.
Monica: That is true. Yeah. 'Cause they were running their mouths.
Brandon: They ran their mouths too much.
Monica: Yes. Exactly. You gotta know when to turn it off.
Brandon: Literally. Well, listen, some people become lawyers and then they go to jail for that reason.
Monica: That's right. We've talked about that, too. We've talked about that issue also. That is so funny. So, anyways, consciousness of guilt is a very, like, important part of, I think, criminal cases in general. You don't really know the term consciousness of guilt, hence my yapping in the beginning, explaining what it was, if you're just, like, a layperson or someone who doesn't really go into the courtroom often. But you know that certain facts can come into a case, such as, like, you know, a search or disposing a gun outside the window. I had a murder trial, I think I told you about this, where he was accused of, it was a self-defense case, well, we were arguing it was self-defense, and he disposed a gun on his way out from, like, wherever he was, and they ended up finding it later, and he had to, like, ended up, he testified and he was, like, saying it was self-defense, but he had to admit to that because otherwise, it would show the consciousness, like, he had to say —
Brandon: It still does show a consciousness of guilt.
Monica: It does, but he explained it because he was like, "I was nervous and, you know, like, I didn't know what happened to that person, and, you know, I was, like, at the time, afraid, hence why I used the gun."
Brandon: Mm-hmm.
Monica: "And, I got rid of it." And, like, I think jurors respect that way more when they hear, like — I mean, it's not ideal, I don't think they go, like, "Good job!" You know? But I think versus, like, sitting at the defense table not saying anything, and they're hearing this incriminating evidence that this was found on the side of the road and was ditched, or they have a video of you ditching the gun, or a witness or whatever the case is, and they end up seeing that you're hiding something. Versus getting on the stand and saying —
Brandon: Yeah. But this argument doesn't work like people think it does, because you see, and I saw this as a prosecutor —
Monica: Mm-hmm.
Brandon: — taking the example of a DUI where there's a refusal, so many people have been told to refuse to give a breath if you're ever asked, that there are jurors, and we've walked here on there, on this, that they say, "Oh, well, the people refuse all the time because they just know that they just shouldn't give a sample."
Monica: Yeah. They think it's their right.
Brandon: So, the argument doesn't always work, and certainly in the Casey Anthony case, that consciousness of guilt argument is oftentimes not enough.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: And I think some jurors are wise to that, and understand that. But —
Monica: Nice.
Brandon: — you know?
Monica: Well, yeah, which is nice, which is helpful.
Brandon: But, you know, other times, this is what the prosecutors rely on to show, to try to prove guilt.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: And it's successful in certain circumstances, but in others, it's really not. It does come down to your jury in the most part, I would say.
Monica: And how the story fits together, as well.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: Because jurors, like, from, if you are in law school or you're going to try a case, like, I think that almost every trial program, or good trial program, explains to future litigators that you need to be able to be good at telling a story. Like, you're presenting a story, whether you're a prosecutor or a defense attorney. Like, you have to present a different set of facts. And so, like, when you do that, if you're doing that with only, like, circumstantial evidence, consciousness of guilt evidence, you're not really presenting a story of how this was executed and how it happened. You're just saying, "This looks like she's guilty," but that's not enough here, because you're convicting someone for the rest of their life.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: So, like, at the end of it, like you were saying, it doesn't really tell you exactly what happened.
Brandon: But the one thing, and this is something that, as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, you can't choose the facts.
Monica: No.
Brandon: So, you can only go with what you can go with.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: And that's —
Monica: You gotta work with what you got.
Brandon: You know, that's why you lose cases.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: And that's why you win cases.
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: You can only go with what you can go with. So, as a prosecutor, you know, you make the best that you can —
Monica: Yeah.
Brandon: — you can.
Monica: With what you got.
Brandon: Right. Yeah. I mean, I was told by a defense attorney after a trial once that I did an excellent job making chicken salad out of chicken shit. And that stuck with me forever, because you do what you can with the facts that you have in front of you.
Monica: Yeah. And I mean, you do that on the defense side, too, so —
Brandon: That's exactly right.
Monica: A lot.
Brandon: That's exactly right.
Monica: You know, sometimes your clients wanna go to trial and you're like, "This is not a good idea, but let's go." And — "We'll make chicken soup out of chicken shit."
Brandon: There you go. Different dishes.
Monica: Well, all that to say, we hope to kick the state's ass in the next consciousness of guilt trial we have.
Brandon: Got it. I agree with you.
Wrap-Up
Monica: All right, well, if you liked listening to the podcast, make sure you like, comment, and subscribe. We are on all platforms, comebackwithawarrant.pod. Give us a 5-star review and subscribe to our weekly newsletter. And if you didn't like listening to us —
Brandon: Come back with a warrant.