American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
July 4th, 2011
04:28 AM ET

Question of the Day: Do you think the prosecution has proved its case against Casey Anthony?

(CNN) - Jurors are expected to begin deliberations Monday on whether Casey Anthony killed her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.

As Anthony alternately cried, glared and shook her head, prosecutors in her capital murder trial told jurors in closing arguments Sunday that evidence in the case points to only one conclusion - guilty.

"When you have a child, that child becomes your life," prosecutor Jeff Ashton told the seven-woman, five-man jury. "This case is about the clash between that responsibility, and the expectations that go with it, and the life that Casey Anthony wanted to have."

Defense lawyer Jose Baez, however, told jurors, "I probably think you have more questions than you have answers." And the central one, he said, remains how Caylee died.

American Morning wants to know: Do you think the prosecution has proved its case against Casey Anthony?

Post your response here. Your answer could be included in this morning's broadcast.


Filed under: AM Asks
soundoff (20 Responses)
  1. Liz

    I don't think the state proved it's case against Casey Anthony. Liar or not, all of the evidence is circumstancial. If I were a juror, I would hate to convict without PROOF that Casey killed her child. I would have to live out my life, wondering if I'd made a horrible mistake.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:22 am |
  2. John

    I do not believe the prosecution met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is just not enough physical and forensic evidence and the circumstantial eveidence is not overwhelming.

    July 5, 2011 at 1:59 am |
  3. Sunny_deej

    I have watched the entire trial; I have weighed the evidence. The prosecution has methodically proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion.

    July 4, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
  4. Cindy K

    I do think the prosecutors did do a good job on the case

    July 4, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
  5. Cindy K

    Yes, I do think the prosecutors did make their case very well. I especially like the way they tied to clear up poor Georges reputation, since he should never have made out to be the monster he was made out to be from the defense, and his own daughter, trying to throw him under the bus. She knows what she did just so she could party, she should just have given Caylee to her Mom and Dad.

    July 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
  6. drora kemp

    Personally, I don't know. Hard to imagine this was anything except for a horrible accident.

    i do have something to ask, nay, beg AM (and other shows open to viewers' comments): please proofread comments or just read them. Posted emails filled with grammar mistakes are no credit to their authors or to CNN.

    Thanks – drora.

    July 4, 2011 at 8:07 am |
  7. Brian MacMillan

    I don't think that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been met. There are just too many inconsistencies with the prosecutions case. The prosecution picked and chose the witnesses that they put on, which is what they are entitled to do believe it or not. The grandfather is out having an affair while the search for his grandaughter is missing. And all this about him wanting to commit suicide is just, I believe, a show. I do believe that it was an accident that went out of control and the grandfather was implicit in the cover up of the same.

    I have had experience in the Florida cout system as an expert witness for the state, as I was employed as a CSI in Florida. I don't think that she will receive the death penalty, but will rather serve out the rest of her life in prison.

    There are just too many things that need to straightened out before she can be convicted of 1st degree murder.

    July 4, 2011 at 8:05 am |
  8. Kristine P

    I want to know why you decided to wave flags on Canada's Day, but have no American Flag for today "America's Birthday"???? I think the prosecutor did not show beyond a reasonable doubt and that I find the evidence shows nothing. What did happen to this child???

    July 4, 2011 at 7:58 am |
  9. Julie99

    Prosecution was direct and very efficient beyond shadow of any doubt at all. What I have always said about lying, you have to cover one lie with ten and keep them straight, why I try never to lie whatever the outcome.
    What is not covered when I heard this that Cayce stated some secret to her brother of where the body was located, in reference that this reward money could pay for her defense. This later, was attributed to some psychic. No one since has brought this up.
    Also Cindy was going to psycologist over her daughter, And, told that she should get custody of the granddaughter quickly. Why has this not been suggested or entered in this trial? It is like the Prosecution was not well informed or over looked these details.

    July 4, 2011 at 7:33 am |
  10. Barry

    I think its a shame that Americans are more interested in this trial than in the question of whether America will go into default next month and how that might affect our lives if that should happen. We are in the midst or on the verge of so many crises (such as: national debt; our military involvement in Libya and possibly other Arab states; states forced to lay off teachers; our low rank in math and science; high unemployment; falling home values; increasing cost of medical care; growing need for higher levees and enlarged reservoirs; etc.) more important than the outcome of a single murder trial. Only the members of the jury need to debate the issue of guilty or not guilty. We need to let our public officials know what our priorities are regarding cutting specific programs (including Medicare and Social Security) or accepting higher taxes.

    July 4, 2011 at 7:30 am |
  11. Bob in Houston

    I believe that the defense has failed to establish reasonable doubt, but I do not think the death penalty should be an option. As a teenager, I was falsely arrested three times, so I am nervous about the state having the authority to take a life, no matter what a person has been found guilty of.

    July 4, 2011 at 7:13 am |
  12. Al

    As a former Major Crimes Detective, in my opinion, the prosecution did not prove their case. Is Anthony a liar, yes, a bad mom, yes, a bad person, yes, manipulative, yes. I don't like Anthony, but when you evaluate the evidence, no proof she murdered her daughter beyond a resonable doubt. If thiis jury does their civic duty with a clear honest eye, Anthony is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    July 4, 2011 at 7:12 am |
  13. MJ

    I believe that the prosecution did not prove it's case. However, I do believe that Casey was solely responsible for the death of her child. I also strongly believe that one or both the parents are also involved with the cover up of this horrifying death of this beautiful child. My gut tells me that there's a tremendous amount of detail that never reached the trial.

    July 4, 2011 at 7:06 am |
  14. Ron C

    Yes they proved it. Her Defense threw everything against the wall to muddy the minds of the jurors. I wish the jury could hear that without them present she viewed photos of the skull with not one bit of emotion , with them present she turned her head and faked grief.

    July 4, 2011 at 6:54 am |
  15. Larry Ragans

    The prosecution has not proven Casey Anthony's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, Casey Anthony lied many times, but lying isn't murder. The actions of meter reader Roy Kronk is highly suspicious. Why wasn't Kronk more aggressive with the police when he first reported finding a skull in the woods? Kronk let the police go away without trying very hard to convince them that he wasn't making up a story.

    July 4, 2011 at 6:35 am |
  16. Jamilah of Oxon Hill

    I have followed this case since it started. The prosecution has been consistent in presenting the facts which is required in a circumstancial evidence case. The prosecution's presentation of the evidence in this case has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Tot mom sacrificed little Caylee.

    July 4, 2011 at 6:27 am |
  17. honore

    While the exact details are not known, forensic established that the cause of death was indeed homicide. Defense's theory that it was an accident doesn't make any sense. Baez's argument, as proof that Casey was innocent, that it was George's duct tape to me seems irrelevant. He really only established that the duct tape was at the Anthony's house, where not only George but also Casey spent a good deal of time. To me his closing arguments were completely incoherent. He focused on two arguments: that George was the one who used the "murder weapon" (duct tape), and that no murder was ever committed.

    July 4, 2011 at 6:21 am |
  18. Sharon Bogney

    the burden to create enough reasonable doubt was not handled well by the defense; so the prosecution gets the pass mark for doing a better job proving their case.

    July 4, 2011 at 6:13 am |
  19. Sandra V.

    Yes I think the prosecution proved it´s case beyond a reasonable doubt over and over again. Anyone would have to be deaf, blind and stupid to think Casey Anthony should get anything less then charged with first degree murder. She obviously acted alone, she is guilty of murdering her child and then some!

    July 4, 2011 at 5:48 am |
  20. Ian Anderson

    Personally, I think she is guilty. But the burden of proof for the prosecution has not been met.

    July 4, 2011 at 5:45 am |