definitely looking out for definitely looking out for you. closed captioning services, inc. >> sean: the verdict may be in but the trauma is far from over. judge belvin perry will sentence her tomorrow morning on the four charges she was found guilty of providing false information to law enforcement. while casey faces up to a year in jail for each count, judge perry could give her credit for the time she has served. that is the big question, will casey be set free tomorrow? in this case that isn't a far-fetched idea. many are still trying to wrap their head around how the jury reached a not guilty verdict in 11 hours of deliberation. one alternate juror tried to explain the jury's reasoning even caused a stir when he called casey a good mother. >> they didn't show motive of why, from their own witnesses,

this really nice, probably good mother had killed her child. >> her own lawyer call her a liar and slut, how do you get to the good mother part? >> that was from the evidence that the prosecution brought out. the first number of witnesses were casey's friends. every time they said they saw casey with caylee, it was a will having relationship. tpwhaoupb provided any evidence to the contrary. -- no one provided any evidence to the contrary. >> sean: mark geragos is back and kimberly guilfoyle. you can see her on the upcoming new show here on fox, it is call the five. welcome all of you. i'm tired of the jury getting beaten up. second guessing, attacking them. how could they come to this

verdict? i was 95% there, when she lied about where she worked. when she lied about a rich boyfriend. the nanny that she lies about. you had me. the defense needed to take me five yards to the goal line. they couldn't do it, within the parameters of the law which is fundamental to our system of justice. innocent until proven guilty. the standard is on the defense, they didn't get me there kimberly -- i'm sorry on the prosecution's side. >> i think the jurors deserve credit for being sequestered away from their families. however, i respect the jury system and usually think they get it right. i don't think in this case they did based on the sum total of the evidence to just find her guilty of lying to a law enforcement officer. it doesn't seem they took sufficient time to go through all of the evidence. i think they were cordial, they got along well many >> sean: it was unanimous. >> i understand that.

the judge said he didn't want a hung jury. nonetheless, it is not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. i don't say convict her, because she a liar. i say convict her because she is guilty of killing her little girl. it is offensive say she is a good mother and give her credit for that. >> sean: looking at videos of caylee and casey, all will having. no history of child abuse. the thought of me and mark levin ever being in agreement with you mark is frightening. in fairness -- >> isn't it just shocking. and sean how are you? i'm glad to be back. i've got to tell you, i'm with you. they got you 95% of the way. they got 100% of the way in terms of proving she was a liar which is what the jury convicted her of. in terms of proving there was a homicide, they didn't do it.o

their own witnesses didn't do it. in terms of the jury getting beat up, there are some people on other networks, who literally, if they were on the street, you would put a psychiatric hold on them because they've gone so crazy about this. these jurors were not wrong. >> sean: yeah. i watched so much of this trial many my wife was following it am i watched all the closing arguments. levin and i spoke after the closing arguments by the defense. and i said, they just won this case. and that was not the feeling, i thought the close was phenomenal, the beginning they were shakey. tell me where -- what your thoughts are and where do you think they couldn't get us five yards to prove she was guilty? we still don't know the b cause of death. how she got to the location, meaning caylee. >> sean, i agree with you and mark 100%. i disagree with kimberly, and though i love her to death.

the problem with this case, there was no proof of manner of death. no proof as to coughs death. you can't charge somebody and -- as to cause of death. you can't charge somebody unless you can say to the jury it was a murder. somebody caused the death of this child. the prosecution had no clue as to manner, cause of death. that's the fundamental building of any murder case that's where they fell short in terms of proving she lied, prosecution didn't have to prove she lied, the defense team in their opening statement said their client was a liar that was a fait accompli. the jury did what the defense wanted. it was a brilliant strategy. jurors got this totally right. i agree with mark all the pundits chastising the jury have no clue what this legal system is about. >> sean: let me go back to kimberly. now three on one mark.

>> no problem. >> sean: the cause of death, they didn't give a cause. there was no dna. the smell was -- >> they gave a theory as to cause of death. they are not under a legal obligation to specify a cause of death many you know why they couldn't say with specificity? because that little girl's body was left to be eaten by animals for five months. >> sean: bring casey into this case, tell me. >> the duct tape -- >> sean: no dna on it. >> is not going to be dna. >> sean: wait a minute, could it be the father, the mother? >> no. >> kim the problem is, you assume that somehow, you are assuming her responsibility for somehow hampering the prosecution. [ talking over each other ]

>> how many murder cases have you ever prosecuted where you put your coroner on and your coroner can't give the cause or manner of death? that's the death knell right there. >> how about cases where you don't have the body, mark? no body homicide. >> you can prove -- [ talking over each other ] >> i think there was a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence in this case to show you who did have the motive to get rid of that little girl, okay. it is casey anthony. [ talking over each other ] >> we are going to agree on this. the prosecution overreached by charging they were seeking the death penalty. that made the case almost impossible from the get-go, i believe that. at the d.a.'s office we have a

death penalty team that will review each case to make sure it qualifies. this wasn't a death penalty case. and the jurors had to look at that it way and they weren't going for it. >> sean: hang on a second -- >> they didn't feel the prosecution met the standard of proof. >> sean: in new york they have negligent homicide. we could say she was new jersey as a mother for not reporting this. new jersey in lying to law enforcement. i think if -- negligent in lying to law enforcement. if they had if gone for something similar to what they have in new york, they would have gotten a guilty verdict. >> innocent people don't act with specific consciousness of guilt and dump a body with duct tape over the mouth with the -- [ talking over each other ] >> in 100% of the cases where a child drowns, 911 is called. who didn't call? who put herself at the scene?

casey anthony. >> she got convicted of lying to the police. >> mark, didn't he deny that the mother visited -- [ talking over each other ] >> sean: calm down. hang on a second. >> kimberly we may have to put that psychiatric hold on you kimberly, calm down a second. [ talking over each other ] >> the jury understood reasonable doubt and go got this right. the they didn't prove their case. the prosecution didn't have it. they overreached and paid the price. >> sean: when we come back juror number 3 has spoken out. also coming up, reports have surfaced that book deals, x-rated movie roles may soon be offered to casey anthony. will she cash in on the horrific events of the past three years?

♪ i may be mud, but i have standards. mops? please. some of them have bacteria. ♪ and they try to pick me up? ew. i'm really hard to get. uh! ♪ what about love?! [ male announcer ] swiffer attracts dirt. used mops can grow bacteria. swiffer wetjet's antibacterial solution eliminates 99.9% of bacteria

that mops n spread around. i like yr pad! [ male announcer ] swiffer cleans better than a mop or your money back. ♪ [ male announcer ] what is the future of fuel? the debate is over. ♪ lexus hybrid drive technogy is designed to optimize any fuel source on the planet. even those we don't use yet. because when you pursue perfection, you don't just engineer a future-proof hybrid system. you engineer amazing. ♪ host: could switching to geico reon car insurance? or more host: do people use smartphones to do dumb things? man 1: send, that is the weekend. app grapgic: yeah dawg! man 2: allow me to crack...the bubbly! man 1: don't mind if i doozy. man 3: is a gentleman with a brostache invited over to this party? man 1: only if he's ready to rock! ♪ sfx: guitar and trumpet jam

vo: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. >> sean: we continue with our legal panel. juror number 3 has spoken out in an interview with abc news. she said, i did not say she was innocent. i just said there was not enough evidence. if you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be. she said everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away? because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. we were crying, not just the women. he was emotional. we weren't ready. we wanted to it with integrity and not contribute to the

sensationalism of the trial. mark geragos, i understand the emotion, i feel the same way. i find the conduct, the decision-making of casey anthony deplorable. i think most americans saw her partying, saw her dancing, saw the lies, 31 days, a parent doesn't act this way here's the problem, the burden of proof is the prosecution. they were not able to prove murder. -- they could prove everything else, liar all the other charges her own attorney admitted. tell me where the proof was she murdered this child? >> there wasn't any proof. that's the -- this has been one of the first shows that i've been on where there's been a reasoned discussion of this. it has been frankly, disheartening to watch some of the people who claim to be lawyers and the way they've been talking about this case, and second guessing the jury

verdict and there's been the bleach blonde former prosecutors, wailing about this. it is disgusting in a lot of ways. this jury and what you just quoted sean what that juror said was exactly what they were supposed to do. you are not saying somebody is innocent in fact the scottish standard is not proven, which may be better here for people to understand. what they are saying is, they didn't prove it. we are not giving her a finding of factual innocence. we are saying the prosecution didn't prove it that's what our standard is. that's what the american justice system is built on. we are not in iran, north korea, in is america. this is why we are in theaters of war. >> sean: often times i think defense attorneys overreach. i didn't like -- -- o.j. was guilty, blood evidence was overwhelming i thought that was an instance of jury nullification. people are making the comparison here, i don't see it. this is what separates us. this is not -- we don't have a

mob rule in this country. this is not a mob mentality. we have put the standard and burden on proof purposely where it belongs. presumption of innocence is what separates america. it means sometimes if we don't have enough evidence. we don't know how she died if there is no dna. if you have either impeached or conflicting testimony, as we had on every issue in this case this is the verdict that i think the jury had no choice coming up with here. >> sean, 100%. this jury got it perfectly right. as a society we've agreed to a set of rules that we've abided by for over 200 years. those rules are, when you charge somebody with a particular crime, you've got to prove, as the prosecution, each and every element of that crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. it doesn't matter what they think, what they believe. thief got to look at the evidence, look at the law, -- they've got to look at the

evidence, look at the law and do what the instructions say. if it hasn't been proven it is your legal obligation to find somebody not guilty. this woman was vilified in the press. jurors hated her, all the talking heads hated her her. >> sean: she kind of deserved it. >> one hundred percent. but when it came to prove of killing her child, they didn't have it. >> sean: they didn't get me the five yards which is all the prosecution needed, i was there. now i'm going to throw it to kimberly, because she is very upset. i want you to calmly, tell me specifically how you bring casey anthony to the conviction of murder? >> this wasn't a whodunit. she put herself at the scene. said it was accidental drowning. she comes up with this, three years after her girl is deceased. it is not just 31 days before they waits to report it.

>> sean: slow down, you are going to fast. slow down. >> when she goes out -- >> sean: kimberly slow down. i want a real answer here. tell me the evidence that proves and brings casey -- >> chloroform searches on the computer. neck breaking. >> sean: the mother testified. >> the mother was impeached and could be charged with perjury because she was proven to have lied on the stand. >> sean: mother is liar. >> whole family is a liar. you explain to me in common sense how it is such a coincidence that you have searches that show some level of premeditation, an idea, intention to kill, chloroform searches? coupled with the chloroform, -- >> sean: there were questions about that. they said it came from myspace pages. >> if you want to reject the scientific evidence that is the jury's right. if they want to go with the

defense theory and say fantasy forensics. what i'm telling you is there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to department trait that casey anthony -- to demonstrate that casey anthony >> sean: you are not convincing me. >> you are not the jury. >> sean: i want to go to mark geragos. you were the first ones in the stay of florida to hear on a multitude of levels, new techniques, because traditional things that historically worked in a court of law, were not applicable able -- here. seems like a stretch. >> this is the problem when you start talking things and do just a modicum of cross-examination on these people. find out it is not peer reviewed that the laboratory is not a crime lab. that the guy never qualified as an expert in that field. and there's no prior peer reviewed area where somebody has looked at it.

jurors don't buy that. and they shouldn't. this isn't something where we are going to throw some guy who has a new technique into it and tell the jury, okay forget about everything you have ever heard and what we've been using for 20 years -- [ talking over each other ] >> sean: let me ask you this question. yale and though i was 95% in, i am extraordinarily concerned like most people in this country for justice for this little girl. i want to get to the bottom line. i want evidence. now that this trial is over, will this continue? will the people that lied on the stand, should they be pursued? should there be further investigations? this roy kronk, should he be looked into? should the father be questioned? should the mother's statements be brought up? should they pursue this

further or will they let it drop? >> listen, i'm a firm believer when it is over it is over. the defense won this case. anything the prosecution does after this is really going to look like sour grapes. they can go after the mother for the confusing testimony as to whether she was at work or not. her mother was the prosecution's star witness that is not going anywhere. this woman should get credit time served tomorrow. everybody should go on with their lives. [ talking over each other ] >> the only one who knows what happened is her mother and we are never going to know that story. the prosecution is so invested in her being the person they are never going to8:[ñ pursue anybody else. >> sean: what i didn't like about roy kronk he finds the body and telling his son -- >> you don't find amazing people in murder trials. he didn't do it, the anthony family is saying this was an

accident. >> sean: if you are sitting on a jury and somebody's life is in your hands ear the death penalty or life in prison -- either the death penalty or life in prison they have to prove it to a reasonable doubt. >> not beyond a shadow of a doubt. >> >> sean: i didn't say shadow. i needed five more percent. [ talking over each other ] >> sean: this jury was unanimous if they had five more per isn't i would have been there or lowered the standard to negligent homicide. -- >> you are asking me would i have come to a different conclusion, i'm telling you yes. and you would have come to the same conclusion that's why our system works. rest in peace to the little girl. >> sean: thank you all. mark geragos we set history. levin says hello. >> what is next for casey anthony? you won't believe how much

money she may make off her experience. >> could a phenomenon we discussed one years ago, known as the csi effect, could that

>> sean: george and cindy anthony fled the courtroom yesterday after the jury announced their daughter's acquittal many now according to radar online the couple is in hiding after receiving death threats over the internet. their attorney announced they've not decided whether they will welcome their daughter who lived with them in 2008, back into their home when all of this is over. from the looks of it, casey's financial prospects are great. abc news reports she stands to gain over $750,000 to write a

tell-all book. she can rake that in while in jail. also, she can net a similar sum for sitting down for an exclusive tv interview. tmz news reports that an alternate career path may open up to her. pornography. porn executive called baez to gauge her interest and told tmz we've all seen the pictures of her partying, having a good time where she looks hot. we are just learning that he has since resended that -- rescinded that offer. what is next for casey? legal analyst mercedes cohen and rebecca rose woodland. all of this is media speculation. the idea that casey will try and now -- why are you looking at me? >> there's already all this interest. where there is smoke there is fire. there's tons of interest on this woman's tell-all. >> sean: hang on.

but we tone know what her interest is. >> if she is smart, keep your lips sealed. >> out of respect for her dead daughter which would hope she doesn't write a tell-all of how horrible jail was. what really happened. we saw that with o.j. and that disaster. >> sean: could she open herself up to legal problems? >> she could. there is the son of sam law that states adopted. >> sean: that's if you are found guilty. >> she does have a guilty conviction. >> sean: four miss -- fourfpmep misdemeanors. >> respectfully -- [ talking over each other ] >> sean: what if she told the involvement, the death, the swimming pool and the cover-up. would that create any legal vulnerabilities for her then? >> there's double jeopardy. she can't be retried for murder. she can't be retried for the

facts underlying that mur. here's the thing, she is being sued for defamation. she got served last night -- >> sean: that is meaningless. >> they are going to take testimony and ask questions where did this nanny come up? >> sean: the woman's name. apparently she was in an apartment complex where she might have got that name that turned out to be a lie. i keep repeating, i needed more to get me to this point. i think she was overcharged. if it was negligent homicide not reporting it 31 days, i think you had me. if it was negligent homicide where she lied repeatedly, you had me. when they say murder one, aggravated child abuse, they did not look -- i think they were over zealous, am i right or wrong? i agree with all due respect to the prosecution, i understand they wanted a prosecution. the facts and the evidence

didn't add up to murder in the first degree. and the jury is thinking, oh god that would mean possible death. i can't take that chance. that's what -- >> where is the motive?2+zç she such a will having mother. look at these pictures, playing with her child, wonderful. no one said child protective services has been around. she has been abusing this child. >> sean: i don't get this, 31 days, if your child is missing what are you going to do? >> that was before. that's why the jury struggled. wait a minute, all the history prior to her disappearance, everyone spoke even on the prosecution side the witnesses said she loved her daughter, adored her daughter. the bottom line even baez said my client might be a slut, liar, she is not a murderer. >> sean: i had my doubts about him. i thought his opening comments were way off base.

he closed along with cheney mason, just a phenomenal close. they literally rebutted every single issue that the prosecution brought up. they either impeached it or created doubt. it was a brilliant close. >> right, they attack thatted everything. they do not have to prove their case. they don't have to prove a defense. the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. >> sean: is the standard too high? >> i think there's an expectation of jurors the csi effect does exist. the jurors want everything in a neat package. you don't need a meteorologistologist to go outside and say there's -- a meteorologist to go outside and say there's snow on the ground. >> sean: there's no dna, there's nothing. >> it was overreaching by the prosecution. if they had done something

differently, she would have been convicted. there wasn't enough proof. >> in the land of csi, that's not the real world. people need to understand that is not what happens in a real crime scene. >> sean: there's a lot of stake. it is either mob rule. because she is a bad mother we've got to convict her or we believe in the presumption of innocence, burden of proof on the prosecution, this standard we have beyond a reasonable doubt. the it is fundamental. people have been writing me saying you are surprising me on this our constitution and rights are in jeopardy here. people, if we lower those standards in this case, they will be lowered forever. that's why it is dangerous. good to see you. >> coming up the curious news, could juries be swayed to acquit defendants and should they be convincing? in other words the csi effect did it play a role in casey did it play a role in casey anthony's case?

the chevy cruze eco offers an epa estimated 42 miles per gallon on th highway. how does it do that? well, to get there, a lot of complicated engineering goes into every one. like variable valve timing and turbocharging, active front grille shutters that close at high speeds, and friction reducing -- oh, man, that is complicated. how about this -- cruze eco offers 42 mileser gallon. cool? ♪

♪ i like your messy hair ♪ i like the clothes you wear ♪ i like the way you sing ♪ and when you dance with me ♪ you always make me smile [ male announcer ] we believe you're at your best when you can relax and be yourself. and at thousands of newly refreshed holiday inn express hotels, you always can. holiday inn express. stay you. and now stay rewarded with vacation pay. stay two weekend nights and get a $75 prepaid card.

what's vanishing deducti all about ? guys, it's demonstration time. let's blow carl's mind. okay, let's say i'm your insurance deductible. every year you don't have an accident, $100 vanishes. the next year, another $100. where am i going, carl ? thnext year... th was weird. but awesome ! ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪

>> sean: it is a disturbing phenomenon in today's courtroom known as the csi effect raising standard and burden of proof for prosecutors and acquittal rate for likely guilty defendants all over america. >> many potential jurors expect crime scenes to be portrayed the way they seem to be on tv. with cops arriving at a murder scene, finding the victim and immediately starting to gather a treasure trove of evidence. they think detectives should find the dna and er principles of the guilty party. >> in lots of courtrooms where dna doesn't appear, the prosecution doesn't come up with that magic bit of forensic evidence, jurors say then the guy must be not guilty or at least we have reasonable doubt. >> sean: is the so-called csi effect to blame for the jury's

shocking conclusion in the casey anthony trial? joining me with reaction forensic pathologist, dr. hunter and legal analyst bob massi is become with us. this is your business, you are a forensic pathologist. do you think is having an impact on juries? are they expecting the dna must be there or else they are not going to find guilt in the case? >> i think being on a jury is extraordinarily difficult. that jury had a very tough decision to make. they are going to expect the dna or the bullet or the knife mark. they want to see something that is substantial. because they do look at csi. >> sean: fair enough. let's tie it to this case. we don't know the cause of death many we don't know how she died. we don't know how she got there. we don't know who did it. i know the mother lied, acted bizarre, partying, 31 days not reporting it. total negligence on her part.

bob massi, tell me where you tie that to murder as charged? >> when you introduce experts in forensics, as the prosecutor did, once you bring those experts to that courtroom, it is their job to tie the nexus to cause of death. you cannot, if experts on behalf of the d.a., cannot create the nexus on the elements you just said, you cannot go to that jury and say, you now become our expert. and that's essentially why they had a problem. they looked to experts. they need to say, doctor, based upon a reasonable medical probability, what was the cause of death? we don't know. you can't then go to the jury and say you become our expert that is too much of a standard for 12 people to be asked to do. that's why it failed. >> sean: i think that is an extraordinary -- extraordinarily well said. michael, when the coroner

cannot give a cause of death. it now opens it up to speculation. when you cannot put casey anywhere near that scene or anywhere near any of the materials found around the scene. and you also have your own experts contradicting it. and you are using a new area of forensic science that the state of florida has never used before. why aren't people seeing this as the stretch that it is? >> i think there's some issues that are a stretch. the chloroform stretch. the tape, saying that's the instrument of the homicide, somewhat of a stretch this is a medical examiner case. i look at this as really dependent on the medal examiner telling that jury what the cause of -- what the cause and manner of death is. keep in mind this medical examiner, the one for the prosecution, never went to the degree that the prosecution wanted. they wanted to go with premeditation, obstruction of

the airway. because of the placement of the tape. now, she wasn't gonna go there. she built a strong argument for homicide. but, as far as the other issues the issues of premeditation, that the jury would want to see, the medical examiner is not even going there. >> sean: bob, it is funny, i'm reading very thoughtful e-mails. i'm not getting mean e-mails from people, very thoughtful. people are trying give me that 5% i keep asking for. after the lie about the nanny, working at universal, after the lie about the rich boyfriend, after the 31 dis, no dna on the duct tape, no cause of death, -- nothing to tie her to this. the timeline on the smell in the car was so bad for the prosecution, because literally, they're giving us people smelling it, five days before a list of people that didn't smell it. >> sean -- i'm sorry -- >> sean: yeah.

>> you know what impressed me with baez on his closing? i always believe a picture is worth 1,000 words. when he put the posters up there and he had the people who smelled and who didn't. he just took them off, one at a time. then you had six other photos of some law enforcement that said they didn't smell it. let me tell you what he did that i thought was interesting. everybody was wondering, why did he leave george anthony's picture up there? because he didn't want the jury to forget that george anthony, whether it be true or not was a player. it was a brilliant tactical, -- if you look at the d.a.'s closing they didn't use a lot of demonstrative evidence. they brought out the blanket. >> sean: the prosecutors had the last word. after that -- they even got the benefit of having an entire night to respond to the close of baez and the other

attorney. here's the point, you are right, they laid it out and they just -- it was perfect. then they went up there the next day and said, we don't need posters. yeah, you do. >> one more thing real quick. i thought it took a lot of guts. i've tried civil cases. it took a lot of guts, nothing the judge was going to come down on him, baez saying and that laughing guy over there. that was great. now you got 12 people sitting in the jury box and they see a smirk on this d.a.'s face, sometimes people think, hey buddy, don't take us for granted. get that smirk off your face. >> sean: in case they need add appeal, in all likelihood, he needed that on the record. which was brilliant. >> absolutely. >> sean: i still think we may find out one day she is responsible that would be

heart breaking many but, i think our rule of law and our constitution and that integrity, i keep saying this, is far more important. even if we get it wrong occasionally. >> that's right. >> sean: guys good to see you. in a teen minutes we'll see greta van susteren giving us a sneak peek. >> greta: i have no idea were you a member of the criminal defense bar. >> sean: i'm a member of the constitution loving presumption of innocence team. >> greta: i'm so proud of you sean. we defense lawyers get in so much trouble when we talk about constitutional rights in the courtroom, any way thank you. tonight we talk about the casey anthony trial. we have one guest you will be interested in. a man who was a roommate of casey anthony in june of 2008. that's the month when supposedly the child was -- had disappeared. the roommate will tell us a lot about what casey was like that month of june. >> sean: all right greta we won't miss a second.

our great, great american panel is next. [ grunts ] [ male announcer ] built like a volkswagen. the 2011 tigua [ grunts ]

you get nothing for driving safely. truth: at allstate, you get a check in the mail ice a year, every year you don't have an accident. the safe driving bonus check. dollar for dollar, nobody protects you like allstate.

>> sean: tonight on our great american panel author of the new political thriller, republican strategist rick robinson is here. he brought me a football. here's yours. >> kentucky university. there you go. >> sean: i'm going to see how i throws, touchdown. she is the washington columnist for fortune magazine, nina easton. he's the nationally syndicated radio rock star talk show often, good friend of mine mike gallagher. guys good to see you. -- trial, verdict? >> i'm not with you on the 5% most of the nation said the lady did it. it is obvious you don't lie to the police. we need professional juries. we don't need dopes --

>> sean: oh mike, come on. >> o.j., look -- >> sean: that was jury nullification, that is different. >> these are the kinds of things that happen. for every one of the casey anthony miscarriages of justice there are 100 happening in the country. it is corruption. >> sean: i watched this trial, i hope you wouldn't refer to me as a dupe, although some have. >> you are not. >> sean: i would have voted with the jury. because they couldn't prove the charges based on the law. based on our constitution. based on the presumption of innocence. based on the burden of proof on the prosecution, they didn't get there. >> fair enough. but the system is still corrupt. when jurors start getting paid off. they stand to make between $15 and $25 a piece, as they sell their story there is -- between 15 and $25,000 a piece as they sell their story. >> sean: i think they were --

i think they want the truth. i believe in believe -- i believe in people. >> the lawyers have dissected this all day long. i don't want to go there. to explain the passion over this. there's a fundamental belief and probably on your part as well, this mother got away with something. if not a murder, then at least a death, a covering up a death of this little girl. that jury who said she felt sick to her stomach, with this verdict. i think says it all. okay the prosecution didn't do its job, that's fine. why are people so passionate about in? because they feel like she got away with something and a little girl is dead. >> sean: this is the 95% that i had from the beginning. she a pathological liar. no reasonable person can fathom how a mother wouldn't call the police after 31 days.

>> one continuing -- the one thing that happened was the decision by the prosecutors when they went for a capital murder case on circumstantial evidence. when the juries went into the jury room they were not going to send somebody to their death on circumstantial evidence. i think that affected the whole outcome of the case. >> sean: i listened to the judge's instructions. you listen to where the burden of proof lies, it is with the prosecution. what the standard reasonable doubt is. then i listened to highway say baez, they laid out -- who jose baez they laid out their closing arguments, they created doubt on every issue. you want to convict her on partying, 31 days and lies. not guilt of murder. >> i want to convict her on the testimony of the overwhelming chloroform in the car, decomposing body. >> sean: how does a decomposed body make her guilty? >> there was a dead body in

the car. >> sean: on the 15th, this is when they say all these people smelled the dead body, seven people, several days later said she didn't smell a thing. >> strand of hair. >> sean: new technology, never used it in florida. >> it seems to me you are doing what the late johnnie cochran did. you gotta challenge, if it doesn't fit, challenge the dna. now we have dna -- >> sean: you are pro-life, i'm pro-life. we've done this many times i like the innocence project. what if you convicted somebody who didn't do it? >> it would be a nightmare. is it better to let a guilty woman go free? >> i walk -- i was walking through airports today and looking at these 2-year-olds. i was looking at parents holding and hugging their 2-year-olds am i got a 3-year-old. i think that's what is going through the minds of people. even if she drowned, if this child drowned --

>> who buys that? do you? [ talking over each other ] >> she didn't call 911. she didn't seek help. >> sean: all i am saying is if we lower the standard then we have adopted mob rule. we've got to keep a high standard. we've got to stand by our rule of law and our constitution and presumption of innocence. if they can't meet that burden mike -- >> it is as if nobody will be convicted on circumstantial evidence again. >> sean: that is not true. you can't tie her to the case. we done even know the cause of death. >> at dna didn't match. >> if it doesn't fit, you must an question. >> robert shapiro is a friend of mine.

[ male annocer ] things seem better with travelocity's best price guarantee. our girl's an architect. our boy's a genius. we are awesome parents! biddly-boop. [ male announcer ] if you find a lower rate on a room you've booked, we won't just match it. we'll give you $50 towards your next trip. [ gnome ] it's go time.

>> sean: we're fighting in the break. >> the one thing i think if you look at this case this is the perfect case to look at in america. where you really despise the verdict. but, what you like is the process. the process in fact shows that anybody out there who is accused can stand before a jury of their peers and be acquitted if they are wrongfully accused. if somebody comes after you politically for your show, you have the ability to be acquitted for that. >> i have a 2-year-old granddaughter, lilly denise. when i see her little face, if i think if that god forbid would happen to her, i don't know how i could survive knowing her murderer got away with it. they are not going to prosecute anybody it is over. >> and the big question is, is she going to profit from this? i think it is more likely like o.j. simpson who became in

pathetic figure who ended up back in the criminal -- a pariah, back in the criminal system. >> social -- they i'm worried about the guy that would date her. >> sean: if they were at negligent homicide, i think they would have had me. in other words, if they didn't overreach, which prosecutors do all of the time. here's the negligence, the negligence that says she didn't report it. there's a push now to have caylee's law. which would mandate you have to report a missing child within 24 hours, which i don't think necessarily is a bad law. or the fact she lied and obstructed justice in the case. >> a call a friend of mine who is a prosecutor and talked to him about these types of cases. he said you have to think about going in on the first

day of the jury, is the jury going to bond, if they are going to be there three weeks they will get familiarity with the person and will they convict in a capital case on circumstantial evidence? he said more likely than not, they would ask for life sentences, negligence negligent homicide than rather than capital murder for that reason. >> you think she had something to do with it, right? >> sean: i did not reach that standard, which i think is high. not beyond any doubt, a reasonable doubt. i thought -- i watched it and watched it and what really brought me to this conclusion is my very strong belief in constitutional rights, presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, the high standard which says beyond a reasonable doubt. i thought the defense effectively contradicted and impeached all of the theories which were all over the map. they never gave us a cause of death. they never put anybody at the

scene. every issue from the shovel to the smell was contradicted by other witnesses. the idea that you could use new forensics, not scientifically accepted. >> you can say the prosecution committed the real crime. even the one juror we've had the alternate speak now we have in one juror saying sick to her stomach -- >> sean: that's the point. she saw the case i saw. these are good people. >> you don't know that. >> she thought casey anthony had something to do with it. >> sean: why are you cynical saying they are dopes. you called them dopes that is insulting to them u >> it is insulting somebody got away with mur. believe that with all my heart. >> sean: i know you believe it. mike, we have a constitution. we have a system that -- we can convict people based on circumstantial evidence. i think your segment tonight

was brilliant about the csi effect. >> sean: i don't watch csi by the way, i do watch gary sinise. he's a good guy. i'm trying to explain to people what is most important, we better keep the standard. this separates us from other countries itch >> rule of law is what we have to worry -- worry about at the end of the day. we can hate this verdict. woo >> and we do. >> and we do. but we have to rely on the rule of law. it may be broke at times -- >> sean: it is not broke, it is imperfect. >> those imperfections lead people to get away with murder. >> sean: can you think a better system? >> professional jurors. the judge, bailiff is professional. why not professional juries? [ talking over each otr ] >> sean: that's a bad idea. thanks for being with us. i do hope