Judge Belvin Perry was the presiding judge for the Casey Anthony trial 2 years ago. He recently had this to say:
Judge Belvin Perry told NBC’s “Today” show that he thought there was sufficient evidence for a conviction on a first-degree murder charge, even though much of the evidence was circumstantial.
Anthony was acquitted almost two years ago of killing her daughter, Caylee, following a trial that attracted worldwide attention. She was convicted of making false statements to police and got credit for time served.
When he read the jury’s verdict, Belvin said he felt “surprise, shock, disbelief” and read it twice.
“I just wanted to be sure I was reading what I was reading,” Perry said.
Alright, that sounds fair enough. He has insight into the law and he knows what he’s talking about. At least, that’s what I thought until I read this:
Perry also said he thought prosecutors were better attorneys than Baez, who the judge described as “personable.” All the defense had to do was create reasonable doubt, which they did, he said.
Now, I’m not some fancy lawyer-type, but the last time I checked, if there is reasonable doubt, then, by definition, there was not sufficient evidence for a conviction. I’m pretty sure that’s how this whole criminal justice thing works.