Cheney Mason is up next. The jury is brought in their I know you all would like to spend another 10 or 12 hours listening to lawyers. I can see it on your face. Unfortunately, we are not going to get to do that. At least for me. We will spend a few minutes. When I begin to think where we are and where we have come from since May 9 in Clearwater to now. And were about to put on your shoulders. The most sole responsibility that you individually or all of you have ever had to face. And all I can say at bat is too great to do it and you would did it in a good sense and pride in what you do. Just like we did. Hopefully. Now I begin my comments. I want to begin with just a little philosophy. A very dear friend of mine and author and in fact, a judge himself advise, many of this parable. It always was fun to go through. History records records that on May 1, 1790 the skies over Hartford Connecticut turned from blue and sunny to black that the people believed the end of the world was at hand. The Connecticut House of Representatives was in session at that time. Some of its members dropped their did to their knees in prayer as others clamored for Germany. The Speaker of the House rose to his feet and restored order. When these words with these words the day of judgment is either approaching or it is not. If it is not there is no cause for adjournment. If it is coming. I choose to be found doing my duty. I wish therefore that candles be brought. Today is the judgment day in the United States. As for this Constitution, tomorrow will be judgment day to the Constitution every day in which an American stand trial for his liberty before a jury every day in which an American is arrested. In his home or property searched every day in which a voice is raised in speech or song every day in which a vote is cast or counted every day in which a newspaper is printed or read. Every day in what the lawyers asked to defend unpopular or an unpopular cause is judgment day for the United States Constitution. We think our before, does story. We can light candles. Let us lights and candles. On the eve of 4 July anniversary of the freedom of our country and the beginning of a constitutional government. There is something that you are going to hear about that are extremely important. And that is the constitutionality of constitutional rights and constitutional protections that afford the freedom to each and every one of us in this room. And interpreted with some very special rules for Casey Anthony. Now when I and my colleagues get it together or divided in some fashion will make arguments for you in one day or done. I guess, probably tomorrow will then reach you. The instructions of law. I can tell you, now they are going to be questions about those. You have been given 12 diesel that you so you can try to discuss them. Argue button discuss what they mean. I know that you will be able to, because despite how long it has been all the process. You are individual abilities to analyze and resolve your questions regarding those instructions. And instruction a plea of not guilty reasonable doubt and burden of proof. There is some things that controlled the major lighting of candles that were going to do in this case. Casey Anthony is not required to present evidence or proof anything. You may remember that was discussed for you in Clearwater. Not just by the lawyers asking questions, but by Judge Perry Judge Perry look to the side to each one of you discuss that with you and everyone of you understood and agreed. I accept that each of you accepted a constitutional cornerstone of freedom. I will say it again the defendant is not required to present evidence or proof anything. And you must remember that concept with every issue that you discuss when you are back there in the jury room. Cannot get caught up in a motion rhetoric. You can get caught up in conflict being positions amongst you, but no matter what it is. The defendant is not required to present evidence or proof anything. The burden of proof of proving every of required element in this lawsuit rests with mine colleagues at the states attorneys generals office. They do not shy away from it never forget on no matter what issue is. They have all of the burden and there is none will be here because that is what separates our constitutional government and freedom for many others in the world. It is your duty to absolutely ensure these rules are respected and honored through every part of your discussions. Every element of the offenses required to be proven beyond to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Every reasonable doubt. And if the state of Florida failed in that burden of proof to any element of the F. offense and you are required. Like it or not, emotional and not it is your solemn sworn duty. You are required to find the defendant not guilty and that goes to every single element of each charge in this case.
Only if it can be said in your conscious in your intellectual honesty that the state has proven the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, may you consider finding the defendant guilty. So with every issue that is raised burden of proof. No burden reasonable doubt that will help you get through it. The court is going to tell you that it is your province to weigh the evidence, not the sparring between the lawyers. Not the stacks of 366 pieces of something. And boards, and whatever else. You jurors are the ones who weighed the evidence and decide what evidence is reliable. What evidence you are skeptical about. What evidence you do not trust. It is out of the lawyers can steer you, this is for you to decide. And the court is going to give you some guidance. You do not just look at somebody say what I like the looks back I is too old or he can hear whatever the issues are. You look at some rules to guide you on the evidence such as did the witness claimed to have an opportunity to see and know things about which the witness testified? Did the witness claimed to have a accurate memory? Was a witness honest and straightforward in answering attorneys questions? Oh my. We have seen a lot of the issues about that on the witness stand in the last six weeks perhaps. Did the witness has an interest in how the case should he decide it? Like, you may be able to make some money or something like that. Did the witness testimony agree with the other testimony in the case? Did the witness make testimony at other times, that conflicted with testimony. They already gave? You have the right to leave or disbelieve all or part of any of the evidence of any testimony any witness. 100% of the people sitting in that chair. You have the right to bleed all or none. That is what a jury is about. Otherwise we use these computers, maybe I will live long enough. When we will not have jurors. But for now. You are the credibility of every single witness. The court is going to give you instructions about expert witnesses would have said that will tell you. So it is always an expert in this an expert in that. You can consider debt. You are also going to be told, like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony. So just because they may have met the criteria of or.threshold to be anointed by Judge Perry as an expert does not not mean you have got to buy it.
Now, we are going to talk about the elephant in the room. I know what it is and you know what it is. Casey Marie Anthony on the advice of counsel made a decision not to testify in this case. I did not reach this age and try case, says this long to know that is not undermined. But he swore an oath as a juror to rise above Baez and prejudice and media impact and so on. The judge will tell you as follows is not necessary for the defendant to disprove nor is required for defendant did prove her innocence. It is up to the state to prove the defendant guilty. The defendant used her under mental right. You must not be in fluent in any way by her decision. Again, you must not view this as an admission of guilt. A promised you may end a promised that must be If were not lighting candles. For our constitutional rights and freedom. You do not you dare think you can consider the fact that she did not testify as fundamental a right as we have been born in this. The history of our country, since we have had a constitution. I wanted to discuss a subject that you will have to consider counselor did not hear a lot about what counts 456 and seven, when you see, the indictment, you may remember from clear water about it. And the reading of the indictment alleges that Casey Marie Anthony made false statements to Yuri Melich. And the court is going to tell you you must determine from evidence that a defendant's alleged statement was knowingly and voluntarily and freely made. In making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances including blood not limited to, whether when the defendant made a statement had been threatened in order to get her to make it and whether anyone had promised or anything in order to get her to make it. If you include this statement were not freely and voluntarily made you should disregard it out. Call your attention to some of the evidence on this. You remember, you may remember recording made, where she was questioned 3 x 3 detectives in a small room. That was described as about 6 x 8 room. I think that even they even put pictures into show you his tiny little room. Those detectives were yelling at her to three at a time like some TV show. Not even allowing her to answer berating arguing so you may also remembered that the initial part of it. Interestingly enough, there was a dispute among law enforcement officers. He had a sergeant who said she was not handcuffed. She was not arrested. And then the sergeant says, yes I did it. Put her in the cage evidence of the car. Consider that the prosecution retort asked about what she was free to go. Right? Okay, so the bottom line is when you consider these things consider these cons consider whether or not the law has been met. She voluntarily made those statements issue was not under pressure coercion or rats in a small room with three detectives and she made a statement -- that was false. Weldon find her guilty of it. But the law says if she was not freely and ends that you can disregard them statements are gone. So are all the counts. The initial charges made in the case of course our first degree murder, which requires the government to prove some things that are obvious. Are we arguing this child is not dead? Of course not. But you may wonder why did they do that if Caylee Marie Anthony is dead. Okay. Yes. The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony. Now caused by her. Well, what act? What act? You will also hear and you will read in the instructions as charged in the indictment that this was done by a premed at Tate of killing. And/or alternatively you will are able to consider whether or not, there was a felony murder.. Underlying data and have fun reading the instructions on that. We are trying to be as clear as we can. The bottom line is Beyers to be reached.
The main thing is, what act? The judge will describe and take a tying, and you will get it. What does premeditation mean? You will also be given instructions on the offensive felony murder in the first degree. And that is once again that Caylee Marie Anthony is dead. And the death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in commission of aggravated child abuse. Now we been here, I measure the actual day of the trial the only thing that is clear is that it is Sunday afternoon. Where was how when and why is the evidence of aggregated child abuse? All of the witnesses that took the stand did not know anything about Casey Marie Anthony confirmed that she was a loving doting devoted mother. She was a young girl. She is only 22. My shoes are that old. The child was well fed, well nursed while taking care of Bright had no evidence of whatsoever of any prior trauma of any kind. Note working of joins. No twisting of bones, no close fractures. Nothing. Or the law says that the death occurred as a consequence of walk a searing Anthony was attempting to commit aggravated child abuse. In that Casey Marie Anthony a person that actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony. All the emotion and all the suspicion in the world does not prove it. Burdick of proof, no burden beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. You will get an instruction hoping to help you understand what is meant by aggravated child abuse.. One of the parts of that. It has been added to it is a definition of will fully not unintentional or not accidentally blocked will fully. Causing child abuse of Caylee. I may have not heard everything you may have noticed as we have on the tables a special computer where it is sent to me what has been said so and I can hear it in the acoustic year I am trying to read it. And I never heard nor read in this case, any evidence of child abuse of any kind. I am not going to throw the believer all of those instructions because you will have not read but I am not done. It is not that easy. The instruction is going to tell you that you may find a reasoable doubt.based on evidence or the lack of evidence.
Now Mr. Baez went through a list of things with you about what or is not evidence. And forgive me if I repeat some of those but I have made a list other issues.
but I had made a new list of issues that I thought were not proven in this case. And you have the absolute right of course you disagree with me or say yeah that is right in to think of some others on your own. Which I know you will. Saw gold to run through ongoing drug to quickly just to give you idea of who we are talking about, and the lack of evidence. This is a criminal case. Those charges, no fingerprints on the duct tape, anywhere, or the bags or on the bags or anything that were searched seized by warned on the home. Interestingly enough we learned at the infamous gas can with duct tape. No duct tape had been wiped clean. No prints. Toxicology tests Dr Goldberger part of the forensic team doing.top seed studies for Dr. Garivallias were seeking to find chemical evidence of chloroform and several other drugs or poisons. Zero. Found zero. Did talk about there being no DNA 2011. The case occurred in 2008. It is not new. The only profile of DNA evidence as you heard a little while ago excluded meaning that not the defendant. DNA evidence as you would have heard if you ever how much fun it was to listen to is trite to say that this DNA evidence matched you or not you individually, not you personally. It is a statistical probability. If there are these markers on these as they were shown to you, the more they are the higher the probability image general rule, I think a testify to if I am wrong with that forgive me, that when bear. Are those markers, then the probability that persons subject a gate at DNA not being the one does. means it is excluded. It cannot be. And the FBI confirmed that the profile they got from that tape excluded Casey Marine Anthony and the child. There was no evidence of decomposition found at a recovery seen. Do entomologists talked about, must have decompose somewhere else was not here. No bugs, whatever. No other evidence of it. Mr. Baez pointed out to you that there were no buzzer trunk only in the trash.matching is like one in 14 quadrille EN. That is 15 zeros. But if the DNA has won just one marker that the and the defendant is excluded.
Mason is rehashing a lot of what Baez mentioned earlier. Mason showing aMason: talks about Kronk using meter reader stick into Caylee's eye socket color coded chart ranging from not guilty to guilty.Mason:
State hasn't proven guilt. Mason: Slams Garavaglia's testimony. Mason says they have a duty. Asks them to restore Casey Anthony to her freedom Mason ends.