On police chases towards mexico, missing daughters, shrunken gloves and pool ladders.

I have gotten a few questions about the Casey Anthony trail in the last week or so, and I have seen even more accounts and opinions on television in the last few days. I know my reaction has been frustrating and generally less than satisfying when people ask. In part because I haven't answered the "do you think she did it?" question, instead I have been answering that I don't feel the prosecution fulfilled their burden of proving the elements of murder in the first degree.
I don't really remember the OJ Simpson trial and, aside from the ubiquitous litigator jokes about it, it doesn't come up as a topic in law school. I will also admit that I didn't watch the Casey Anthony trial with rapt attention, I saw some interviews and have read a bit here and there about it. From everything I saw I think that the jurors did a good job, this is what makes me different from the general public and what makes people furious with lawyers.
Most people look at this through the lens of truth, of what really happened, of tragedy and human drama. Lawyers aren't trained to do any of that because finding the truth is not the role of the justice system. Lawyers are trained not to pass judgement, as an attorney you have the an obligation to represent your client to the best of your ability whether you know they are guilty or positive of their innocence. This is done by trying to frame the law so that it is favorable to out clients.
The best system we have to enable justice is placing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the People. When someone is convicted, as opposed to being ruled against in civil court, we are placing the stigma of society on them, they become at that moment a criminal someone who is apart from society and therefore not granted the same rights as other citizens. This is a deeply moral judgement, and it caries a heavy burden, in order for it to be satisfied the people must prove each of their burdens beyond a reasonable doubt. Murder in the first degree is hard to prove and it should be, especially when the prosecution is recommending the death penalty.
My feeling on this is that the prosecution wanted a big win and shot itself in the foot for it. If the DA hadn't wanted to see this woman fry they would have been able to get a conviction. People can be convicted without a known cause of death, they can be convicted without a body, but cause of death is what the prosecution focused on and this is was what was easiest for the Defense to blow holes through. They created a situation where they had to prove chloroform and duct tape and they left the jury confused and doubtful. They should have pointed to the holes in the defense's theory, they should have plea bargained down, they should have done any number of things.

Cartoon Copyright the New Yorker 

I am not sure of what happened, although it does look suspicious, what I am sure of is that we live in a country where we would rather a guilty woman go free than an innocent one be incarcerated and because of that system being guilty of something, being shifty or suspicious isn't enough; you must be shown to be guilty of what you were charged with. This doesn't always go down easy but I can't imagine what trade offs would make it better.