• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 541 0

OF this evidence, these last pieces were what we kept coming back to—the physical evidence. The smell in the car, the hair in the trunk, and the presence of chloroform. The odor and the hair alone were bad enough, but there was no reason for the chloroform to be present other than to be used on Caylee. When we combined the presence of chloroform with Casey’s bizarre behavior during those thirty-one days, we couldn’t believe that Caylee’s death had been an accident. As a prosecutor, as a parent, as a person, I couldn’t see how any mother could act the way Casey did if the death had truly been accidental. Each of us on the prosecution had kids. I had raised four to adulthood and had two new little ones at home. Linda had one child of tender years and so did Frank. As we sat around talking, all of us could relate one story or another about the panic that arose from even momentary loss of contact with one of our kids. There was no scenario we could imagine in which a mom could experience the accidental death of her child and then proceed to drive around with the dead body in her trunk, watch a movie, and spend the night with her new boyfriend. Those did not seem like the actions of someone whose daughter had died in a freak and tragic accident. They seemed like the actions of someone who wanted her daughter gone. The reason Casey seemed so happy after Caylee was gone was that she was happy that Caylee was gone.

From the evidence we had collected thus far, our conclusion was that the child had decomposed in the back of her car, and Casey had attempted to bury the body in her backyard with the shovel she borrowed from a neighbor. The story she’d told was clearly false and, in my opinion, showed an unmistakable consciousness of guilt. Whether it was because of this guilt or something else, she had been prevented from actually burying the body in the backyard, so instead she stashed it in a place where we had yet to find it.

All of these arguments were presented to the state attorney, Lawson Lamar. It was up to him to decide whether we would proceed with presenting the facts to the grand jury. If we did so, and they chose to indict Casey, we would then prosecute the best case we could. Allowing Casey to escape responsibility for her actions was not an option. Lawson sought the opinion of all of us, both in law enforcement and in the prosecutor’s office. I told him that I was comfortable with the evidence we had and felt he should move ahead and present it to the grand jury. I believe Linda and Frank were of the same opinion.

The grand jury would consist of nineteen jurors chosen from the same jury pool as trial jurors. Whereas trial jurors usually serve only a few days, grand jury members serve six-month terms, hearing evidence in a variety of murder cases one day a month instead of sitting on one specific trial. The difference between a grand jury hearing and a trial is that the grand jury only has to find probable cause that a crime has been committed to hand down an indictment, whereas at trial, the state has to prove the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. At grand jury, only the prosecution presents evidence, and it is not refuted or challenged by the defense. The common practice is for the prosecutors there to question the witnesses, and, unlike in an actual trial, hearsay is admissible. The grand jurors are free to ask questions as well. When the testimony is completed and the witnesses excused, the grand jurors are invited to question the prosecutors about legal matters. When all questions have been answered, the prosecutors excuse themselves, and the grand jurors deliberate and vote in private. Fifteen of the nineteen jurors must approve the decision to indict.

Usually the witnesses that appear before a grand jury are police officers and medical examiners. In most cases that is enough. The investigating officer can summarize the testimony provided in the sworn statements of other witnesses that he has gathered during the investigation. A detective can summarize a medical examiner’s testimony, but State Attorney