Steve Gunn: Fine-tuning can only improve how judicial system works

I needed a few weeks to calm down and reflect on the Casey Anthony verdict.

That's because I agree with everything that everyone's been saying — she's probably guilty of killing her daughter and deserved to pay for it.

steve-gunn80.jpgSteve Gunn

But time has allowed me to see the case clearer, and now I can admit that I'm a bit comforted by the controversial verdict. It proves that our judicial system still functions properly, and the state must  prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to gain a conviction.

Remember, someday any of us could be at the mercy of the courts. We would want to know they are functioning correctly if our fate is on the line.

By functioning correctly, I simply mean the following: If the state is going to accuse someone of murder, the state had better know what it's talking about.

It's pretty clear that the prosecutors blew this case. They offered a lot of circumstantial evidence, but never presented one clear theory of how Anthony killed her daughter, let alone proof to support it. Therefore she deserved to walk free.

The Anthony case makes me wonder about the pressure on local prosecutors to gain quick convictions in high-profile cases. I think they sometimes jump the gun in their zeal to solve horrible crimes and their need to appear competent in the eyes of local voters.

The last time I checked, no state had a statute of limitation on murder. That means prosecutors should be able to take their time, continue to uncover facts and build a case against a murder suspect. A rush to trial could mean a lost opportunity for conviction.

The Anthony case also reminds me of the local Andre Bosse kidnapping and murder back in 1997. Muskegon County prosecutors charged her abductor, Dean Metcalfe, with first degree murder, years before they found her body.

That strategy made some people scratch their heads at the time. Everybody knew Metcalfe was guilty. He even confessed. But how do you get a murder conviction without a body? How can you even prove that a murder was committed?

To me, the timing of the trial seemed questionable.

Luckily in the Metcalfe case, the defendant stunned everyone by offering a guilty plea in the opening days of the trial, without any plea-bargaining involved. He received life in prison with no chance of parole, which is the least of what he deserved.

But if Metcalfe had fought the charges, the right lawyer might have been able to spring him. Just like Rhymin' Johnny Cochran managed to spring the oh-so-guilty O.J. Simpson way back when.

I've always felt that criminal trials should be more of an open forum, with more focus put on arriving at the truth.

That's why I was interested to read about new courtroom procedures recently approved by the Michigan Supreme Court. The new rules will allow jurors to question witnesses (through correspondence with the judge) and take more notes during trials. In civil cases, jurors will be allowed to discuss testimony during breaks in the trial.

As it stands, attorneys are the only ones who generally ask questions, and their questions are naturally geared toward proving their case.

But their questions may not be geared toward exposing the truth. Look at the Anthony case. Her lawyers had a strategy and it clearly worked. Does anyone really believe she's not guilty?

I remember the infamous Privacky murders in Muskegon County in 1998. I was stunned when a local jury acquitted the young man who helped the killer move the bodies after the family was slaughtered, then drove several miles to throw the murder weapon in a pond.

That kid had a great lawyer, and he walked away free in a very debatable case.

In our current system, jurors often face the horrible task of deciding someone's fate based on testimony carefully crafted by lawyers. Their new ability to ask the questions that nobody asked, or seek clarification of foggy testimony, should be a positive step in the pursuit of the simple truth.

After all, our courts are supposed to determine who's guilty and who's not, rather than which side has the most clever trial attorney.
