Why vote to acquit? There was certainly enough evidence to put her away. Never should have been a death penalty case.
I heard a good analogy the other day concerning the prosecution's indictment against Ms. Anthony and where it ultimately failed:
Imagine a football game. There are 2 seconds left and the score is 20-17. The team trailing has the ball on the 1 yard line and has two choices. Kick a field goal for 3 points and tie the game to send it into overtime or go for the win by scoring a touchdown. The team decides to go for the touchdown and the win, hands the ball off to their running back who gets stopped at the line of scrimage as the clock ticks off and the team that was leading holds on for a close win.
If the prosecution wanted to kick a field goal, the safe play, they could have added in the indictment charges for child neglect (which lead to the child's death) and obstruction of justice (for destroying evidence, i.e. the body and lying to law enforcment). In these two charges the prosecution would have had an excellent chance to convince a jury she was at least guilty of these two things, which more than likely due to their degree of severity would have had the max penalty handed down by the judge. Probably would have gotten 10-20 years and Casey would have been out in no more than 10 years with good behavior.
The prosecution chose to go for the touchdown (first degree murder or aggravated child abuse or aggravated manslaughter of a child) being all degrees of felonies which would have locked her up for a very long time if not for life, death for murder. The prosecution didn't want to even charge her for the lesser charges I listed above because it would have told the jury that even they, the prosecution, would believe there was a possibility of an accident so they were left off of the indictment. The prosecution didn't want to make that an option, thus, they went for the touchdown (due to public outcry more than anything, but they still felt they had a strong case) and got stuffed at the goal line.
When I hear idiots out there complaining about the jury, it makes me sick to my stomach, because the jury members were forced by the prosecution to chose, was it something Casey did
DIRECTLY which caused her daughter's death (guilty is the only option), or was there a possiblity of an accidental death (not guilty) per the indictment. The evidence of the manner of death, which the jury solely based their decison on as they were instructed, did not conclusivly show the child died at her mother's hands. The jury was instructed not to bring the emotions of what a mother should do or how she should act after a child dies into consideration, however disgusting this behavior was, into their decision. Using this as the basis, the jury was correct in my opinion, and the prosecution got greedy.