*rachiek10*

friendlyturner

I'm so curious about a couple of things related to the Casey Anthony trial and I'm hoping you can clear them up for me because some of these legal things leave me absolutely confused.

My Mom mentioned that there was more evidence than was presented in the trial, but the Prosecution was only allowed to present a certain amount of evidence for legal reasons...is this correct? Is there a limit to what each side is allowed to present? Perhaps she misunderstood this among the masses of information being thrown at us right now about the trial.

allioops414

I'm also interested in this answer...I feel like there is so much we don't know about evidence and the rules that the jury has to follow.  And although very few people agree with the verdict, I'm sure the jury did what they were legally supposed to do.  Very confusing though.

RachieK10

I haven't heard this, so I don't know specifically what evidence they are talking about. The short answer is yes -- there are particular types of evidence, as well as some testimony that is not admissible based on the rules. So, if for example the State had a piece of physical evidence, but they did not maintain the proper "chain of custody" (to prove there was no contamination or altering) then that evidence would not be presented to the jury. I don't know if that happened here, just an example. Or, I know that some witnesses were not allowed to testify because their testimony was only hearsay, and that's not allowed.

But, there's not a limit in the sense that you can only present X number of hours/days worth of testimony and then you're done. They can go on and on forever (which they did, ha!) as long as it is relevant, admissible evidence.

I'm obsessed with this trial and all of its nuances so I'm happy to answer any other questions

MandahGirly

I was on a jury a few months ago and we ruled all 3 people to be non-guilty because there wasn't enough concrete evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" The judge then told us after we had made our deliberations that there was other evidence that ended up not being admissible that could have changed the outcome. It's frustrating, but you don't know if the evidence is tainted, if statements were taken under duress, hearsay, etc etc.

friendlyturner

Good to know, all. My Mom incorrectly heard that the hair folicle testing showed positive for drug remains but that the prosecution chose to leave it out - after doing more research we found that that was incorrect information.