The media commentary, by non-practicing attorneys turned journalists is appalling in the Casey Anthony Trial.

And this comment also applies to those practicing and former attorneys serving up commentary, or for that matter Judges, playing same on TV.

They seem to violate the very essence of their legal learning when it comes to circumstantial evidence and allow their emotion in this particular case to cloud their judgment based upon the evidence presented.

I guess it makes for good TV, but they present their own emotional commentary with legal credentials.

I am not a lawyer.  As a journalist, I have covered trials.  As a communications consultant I have worked with Corporations and attorneys representing them in high profile trials that have involved death.

None of the trials I have worked on ever reached the profile level of the Casey Anthony Trial or for that matter the O.J. Simpson trial, but they did reach the level of national publicity and coverage.  My responsibility had to do with the communications process outside of the courtroom and the attorney spokespersons speaking to the media in behalf of the defense.

Casey Anthony has what might be known as having serious common sense behavioral problems, evolving from a dysfunctional family environment.  And, it  is incomprehensible to understand her behavior in her child’s death.  Her behavior, which is the public’s perception, makes her to appear guilty before the trial ever began.

And so before this case every went to trial, this 25 year-old mother was determined by public perception to be guilty of killing her child Cayllee.  Thus the reason the trial was moved from Tampa to Orlando, but was this distance truly enough based upon the widespread media coverage this case received before Casey was charged with first degree murder?

And this perception appeared to me to carry over to those learned journalists with legal training as well as those former Judges turned TV personalities for dollars, while ignoring the evidence presented in this case and the meaning that the prosecution must prove that the defendant is, “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Even lawyers and judges modify their delivery when they become, or want to become a high profile TV personality and the number of zeros on their pay checks increase exponentially when they segue from prosecutor, judge or attorney to anchor, commentator or TV judge.

I am not impressed with any of the TV channels covering this trial nor their so called expert commentary, whether it be a lawyer turned journalist, an attorney serving up commentary or once a judge now turned TV judge.

I thought the defense presented excellent closing statements, despite the odds, and clearly debunked the prosecutions lack of elements to prove guilt without reasonable doubt.

But unfortunately the media did not serve up this case without bias or emotion and they were delivering words they knew their audience wanted to hear, ignoring the legal principles of evidence and the fact that this case was one of extraordinary reasonable doubt.

Tomorrow, the prosecution will have an opportunity for its rebuttal of the defenses’ closing statements.

My take at this point is that acquittal of Casey Anthony is possible, but not probable.  She will not be found guilty of first degree murder; the defense spared her life.

The media did a disservice to itself in reporting this trial, we hope this unfortunate coverage did not reach the decision makers on the jury, but we have our doubts.