I will pay for the following essay Mistakes Made in Casey Anthony Trial Investigation and Prosecution. The essay is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference pag

I will pay for the following essay Mistakes Made in Casey Anthony Trial Investigation and Prosecution. The essay is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

The accused was acquitted on July 5th, 2011. The Orlando, Fla., jury held that Casey Anthony was never guilty of killing her daughter culminating in a stunning end to the trials that had significantly fixated the country, thus, raising serious similar questions of forensic expertise and evidence featuring in The Child Cases.

The case was weakened by a flawed state’s forensic case hence attracting a lot of questions concerning the strength of the forensic evidence. The Florida prosecutors never proved beyond a reasonable doubt how the two-year-old died. Also, they never proved where the body had been prior to being uncovered in garbage bags in swampy woods adjacent to the Anthony’s family home. Therefore, the case greatly relied on cutting-edge forensic evidence that the defense tagged, ‘junk science’ and too experimental for the Courtroom. Therefore, there was a real danger from the case as scientific precedents turned out scary. Therefore, a greater percentage of the forensic techniques relied on the prosecution team had never been permitted in any trial in the U.S. Indeed, an average juror lacks such an advanced expertise to distinguish between ‘junk science’ and ‘good science’ therefore. the Court expunges then to eliminate dubious evidence. However, there could have been a mistake made by jurors in this particular elimination of the ‘dubious evidence’ The Court juror never bought the evidence and attempted to validate the functionality of the system. Therefore, the state’s case had a number of hard questions unanswered leaving the juror with a single option to acquit the accused.

Charging someone with murder must result from the evidence of how she is killed or why one might have killed someone. Also, it calls for where, when why and how someone was killed or might have been killed. However, the prosecutor relied on junk science that had never answered a single question. Indeed,