Return to Transcripts main page


Casey Anthony`s Defense Team has Target on its Back

Aired June 21, 2011 - 21:00   ET


DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST: Here we go.

Casey Anthony`s defense team has a target on its back, and the judge takes aim. Again.

Do Casey`s lawyers even know what they`re doing?

Plus, the Anthony family torn apart. Did tragedy drive George into an affair?

And Casey`s fate. Could she walk free?

Let`s figure this out.

All right. As we think about this case, I want you to think about whether or not you could sentence someone to death. I`m not sure I could.

Watch this and we`ll talk.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The defense is moving forward with its case today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A forensic botanist took the stand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re not of the opinion that the body had only been there for two weeks?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s also possible that it was there for a great deal longer than two weeks?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was not strong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Crystal Holloway, who allegedly had an affair with George Anthony --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did George tell you about that?

CRYSTAL HOLLOWAY, ALLEGEDLY HAD AFFAIR WITH GEORGE ANTHONY: That it was an accident that snowballed out of control.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A surprising story from inside the Orange County Jail.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: April Whalen, her son, Isaiah (ph), he drowned in the family pool. Did Casey Anthony hear this story and she turned that around to be her defense theory?


PINSKY: All right. Twelve jurors have to listen to all that testimony, some of it very tedious, some of it very conflicted. And it`s day after day, and they are sequestered. And in the end, Casey Anthony`s fate is in their hands.

It`s a big burden. I wonder how much they think about Caylee and whether justice can actually ever be served by taking her mother`s life as well.

I wonder how much they think about Casey`s parents, Cindy and George. How do the jurors feel about causing these grandparents possibly even more grief, should they sentence their daughter to death?

Later in the show, we`re going to talk about moms and dads who have killed their own children, particularly in the state of Florida, the Sunshine State, where they have the sunshine laws. What happened to them in that state under that legal system? I think it`s going to surprise you.

But now, let`s go to today`s developments.

It`s day 24 of the Casey Anthony murder trial. Judge Belvin Perry is annoyed now, again, with the defense, cutting short the testimony of a DNA expert whose expertise was actually questioned.

And a forensic botanist testifies that Caylee`s remains could have been tampered with by a coyote. The problem is, the prosecution says, no coyotes in that part of Florida. Hmm.

As the defense continues to chug, falter, some are calling their witnesses old and out of touch, or, on the other hand, too young or too inexperienced. One thing for sure, a frustrated Judge Perry isn`t tolerating any of this any longer.



JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, ORANGE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: It is the attorneys` job, be it the assistant state attorneys or defense counsel, to make sure that their expert witnesses comply with the order of the court. The experts should have been required to comply, and the expert was not. Therefore, the court finds that the discovery violation was willful and not inadvertent.


PINSKY: Joining me are the host of "In Session" on our sister network, truTV, Ryan Smith, and in the studio, former prosecutor Robin Sax is back with us.

Ryan, some shocking info today, apparently coming from a woman who was in jail with Casey. I hear she could poke holes in the pool defense. What do you know?

RYAN SMITH, HOST, "IN SESSION," TRUTV: Oh, it could be incredible. This could be a stunning witness.

Her name is April Whalen, and what we heard was the prosecution considered calling her as a rebuttal witness. So that would be to rebut something that`s said in the defense`s case.

And this woman, April Whalen, she was in jail apparently during a five-day period in June of 2009 with Casey. They were in the same jail dorm.

I spoke to the Orange County Jail. They couldn`t confirm that Casey and April had been speaking, but the story that April has is very similar to Casey`s.

She had a child that died of drowning. And in her case, her -- the child`s granddad called the police, called 911, and unfortunately, the child didn`t survive. But the big key now is, did Casey somehow use this story or tell her something?

So, you can look at it like this -- if Casey ends up taking the stand and says something about what happened to her, the accident theory, perhaps the prosecution calls this witness to talk about what Casey told her that could rebut what Casey has said. So it could be a very powerful witness, but only used under that circumstance.

PINSKY: I actually heard -- I read somewhere, one of the reports was that even if they had not directly spoke to one another, they were in a vicinity together where you can easily overhear conversations. And so the question is, did she pick up her accident theory from someone who had been through that very experience? And having watched what happened to her, maybe Casey preferred that to what could happen to her.

Today, forensic botanist Jane Bock testified about the length of time Caylee`s body may have been at the wooded crime scene. That whole thing with the crime scene, it`s unbelievable. We`re going to get into that as the week goes along.

I`ve read a lot of the depositions of the people who found the body. There`s a lot of craziness there, too.

Now, some of the testimony today focused on a hip bone found four inches deep in the ground. And, again, the testimony was about how the bone got there.

Watch this.


JEFF ASHTON, PROSECUTOR: The hip bone was buried in four inches of what is referred to as muck, which what I would assume you would call wet humus. Wouldn`t that indicate pretty conclusively that this bone had been there a lot whole longer than two weeks?

JANE BOCK, BOTANIST: Or a dog buried it.

ASHTON: A dog buried it? A dog buried it?

BOCK: They do, as do coyotes. I don`t know if you have those here.

ASHTON: No, we`re not blessed with coyotes, but we have a lot of other things. Thank you very much, Doctor.


PINSKY: Wow. I had not seen that footage, Ryan, until right now. The prosecution seemed pretty gleeful at that testimony. How did it go over in the courtroom?

SMITH: Yes. It didn`t go over well.

Basically, I think the prosecution got this witness to admit that there were certain things she didn`t know. And her big testimony was that she thought the body could have only been there two weeks after it was found, and that was a time when Casey was in jail.

But on cross-examination, she basically admitted that she couldn`t say for sure that it was a two-week period. And so that undercuts her testimony all the way. And I think her affect, also, was just one of -- she didn`t show a whole lot of confidence, and sometimes it`s hard for a jury to believe in a witness like that.

PINSKY: Thanks, Ryan.


PINSKY: Yes, Robin, she was boring and sort of -- again, sort of fumbling and out of touch.

SAX: She was boring. This has been the days of boredom in this courtroom. I mean, to put on -- do you remember science in high school? I fell asleep. That`s what these jurors are doing now right now with this nonsense, and it`s one bore botanist after a DNA scientist -- blech.

PINSKY: What are the defense doing? I thought they had some sort of stellar defense, they were going to present these stunning things to us, and they`ve done nothing. They`ve barely poked holes in the prosecution.

SAX: Right. And by the way, that is exactly the reason why this prosecution should not even consider calling that Whalen witness from the cell, because it sounds like they would buy into the defense`s nonsense by even trying to rebut that theory. Forget about that old informant, or the person who was in custody, and stay with the case, because the prosecution`s case is strong, and the only way to get strength is to put Casey Anthony on and speak out of her own mouth. And we`ll see if that happens.

PINSKY: So we`re back to that. You and I have a bet standing as to whether or not that`s going to happen. You still think she`s going to take the stand.

SAX: She has to take the stand. These boring blah, blah, blahs about science are not doing anything for the case. The only thing that`s going to be compelling is going to be Casey`s own version of what happened. And then all of this stuff becomes fair game.

PINSKY: Well, it`s interesting. I had the privilege of speaking to someone who spent a lot of time with Casey recently, even when all of this was unfolding. And I`m going to get people to come on the show and tell you their stories, but I get to talk to people who aren`t getting ready to step up and talk about it.

But what she told me was that Casey is a very, very likeable person, and very loquacious, very talkative, very chatty, and that might serve her well on the witness stand.

SAX: Absolutely. First of all, she`s pretty, she`s attractive. She`s probably going to be very relatable as a mom to many members of the jury.

PINSKY: But hang on, though. OK, so there`s that side, but on the other side, they`ve heard all this lying and this egregious behavior and all this horrible stuff.

Aren`t they going to be -- I would be angry if I liked her given what I`ve heard about her. You know what I mean?

SAX: Well, if they didn`t set up this ridiculous pool scene, anyone could have understood someone wanting to quiet their child. I mean, you see parents -- we`ve all contemplated, do we give kids that extra little bit of Benadryl or Robitussin for the plane ride? Had they gone that route, she would have been extremely likeable and could have been completely acquitted. With this stuff, she`s set up a huge mountain, and the only way to come out from under it is to testify and hope that it`s believable.


Ryan, last word to you.

SMITH: Here`s the problem with that cross-examination -- every word she says when she testifies will be cross-examined by every one and anyone who can offer another theory, including people like April Whalen. So, if she did overhear this story, or did have a conversation with people, every single lie will be pointed out.

So every bit of people who like her, she will be cross-examined and it will be absolutely -- I just think it will be something for the ages to see. So I think it`s very dangerous.

PINSKY: Something for the ages.

But I`ll tell you what, I mean that very seriously. If I liked her, I would be so conflicted about that, that I would be angry.

SAX: But that conflict is reasonable doubt to some people, and -- I agree.

PINSKY: I see. Reasonable doubt, and this is all about that, isn`t it?

Thank you, Ryan, as always.

And Robin of course will stay with me and be back later.

Coming up, parents who kill their kids. How often -- parents can do that -- in Florida are they actually sentenced to death?

And next, are the defense`s own witnesses dooming Casey?


DOROTHY CLAY SIMS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Can you tell me whether or not you have formed an opinion as to the shortest period of time that the remains of Caylee Marie Anthony could have been at the scene in which they were found?

BOCK: Yes. Two weeks, approximately. Two weeks.




DR. WERNER SPITZ, PATHOLOGIST: I think that the Duct tape was a later, later event, not an early event.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After decomposition?

SPITZ: After decomposition.


PINSKY: That was former chief medical examiner Warner Spitz. He says he has conducted over 60,000 autopsies. Though at the age of 85 -- he looks pretty good for 85 -- but many say maybe he`s too old to testify. He looks pretty good, but it doesn`t make him necessarily a compelling witness.

Former prosecutor Robin Sax is back with us. Joining me now as well is Jen Barringer. She is a former member of the Casey Anthony defense team, and now a consultant for them.

Jen, trial commentator have been asking this morning, are Casey`s defense witnesses too old and out of touch, or, as you`ll recall, the entomologist was being accused of being too young and inexperienced?

What`s your take?

JEN BARRINGER, FMR. MEMBER, ANTHONY DEFENSE TEAM: Those are my options? I think I`m going to go with door number two.

I think you might be seeing a little bit of inexperience, especially because we have the judge, you know, is clearly getting angry with Jose a lot, and there`s discovery violations and things like that. So you might just be seeing -- you know, once you have an expert, you talk to them right before. And, of course, now you have the benefit of hearing the entire state`s case, so you might ask them some different questions. And it`s really important that you let the state know, and unfortunately, he didn`t, so he`s getting a little flak.

SAX: You know, I`ve got to disagree a little bit here. It`s a little bit like Goldilocks. You`ve got a little bit too old and a little bit too young, and you don`t have just right. And that`s the problem.

PINSKY: But wait a minute. Are you guys both talking about the defense team or the defense witnesses? Because I think Jen was talking about the defense team was behaving in a way that was inexperienced.


SAX: Are you talking about the witnesses and the team.

PINSKY: And the team.

Because, Jen, I`m going to ask you -- young and inexperienced, sometimes not such a bad thing, because they don`t seem like such hired guns. You know what I mean? They look like just young people who have expertise and they`re going to try to help out. But they haven`t really presented them that way, have they?

BARRINGER: No, they`re not trying to do that at all. In fact, they`re going the other way, entirely.

It`s interesting, because juries have a very funny way of thinking of defense experts as being hired guns. And for some reason, as state experts as being these unbiased people whose jobs are not on the line and who don`t work with the police every day. But, frankly, sometimes, it`s a little bit of the opposite.

You know, we often hire experts who give us opinions that maybe don`t comport with what I want, and we don`t call them. And the bulk of their money is already made. They don`t really love to come testify, you know, leave your family and come down and get cross-examined.

PINSKY: Robin, you`re shaking your head. I mean, is this some dirty little secret about courtroom practices, that you`re sort of paying people to say something? I mean, that`s what Jen is alleging.

SAX: Well, listen, you are paying to get an opinion. You think that the opinion`s going to come out one way, and if it doesn`t come out that way, you don`t put them on the stand. And you only put on someone that`s good. That`s just called smart business.

PINSKY: All right. A good defense, I guess.

All right. Let`s take another look at the medical examiner, Dr. Werner Spitz, and testimony from today`s forensic botanist, Jane Bock.


ASHTON: So you`re not of the opinion that the body had only been there for two weeks, correct?

BOCK: It`s possible.

SPITZ: Because manipulated means -- manos in Latin means hand. So manipulated means the hands were laid on the skull.


PINSKY: All right, Robin. From a prosecutor`s point of view, were those witnesses effective at manipulating the jury?

SAX: Well, I`ve got to tell you, this reminds me a little bit of the O.J. case, where it was Dr. Henry Lee, when you couldn`t understand a darned thing out of his mouth,. and he`s so old. I mean, if anybody`s awake to hear what he has to say, it will be a miracle.

PINSKY: Jen, I thought Dr. Spitz made some very good points though yesterday. He really called into question the quality of the autopsy based on really standards of medical examiner practice.

BARRINGER: Oh, he did. He`s the guy.

PINSKY: Did he not have a good --

BARRINGER: I mean, he is the standard, really. I mean, Werner is an incredibly accomplished person who`s written the book on medical examination.

PINSKY: Well, let me ask you, Jen -- all right, let me ask you something. Because, it`s funny. There was a lot of reaction to something I said yesterday about taking the calvaria off.

Dr. G. apparently had not done that. And to me, when we do autopsies, you saw around the calvaria, you take it off, you look at the contents of the brain.

People got very upset, saying, why didn`t you do it with fiber optics and stuff? You never do that with fiber optics. It`s an autopsy.

You open the chest cavity, you look at what`s in it. You open the skull, you see what`s in it.

Why do you think Dr. G. did not do that?

BARRINGER: You know, I`m not sure. And I think that is very interesting.

The absence of something not being done is sometimes more important to a jury and sometimes more important to a defense case than what she did. I mean, it was very important, what Werner was talking about.

Dr. Spitz said he opened it, and from that, he was able to determine that there was, you know, dust from the brain on one side and only one side. So that means that it spent some time -- the body spent some time on its side, unfortunately. So that`s very important, because that`s not how it was found.

PINSKY: Robin, do you have something to say?

SAX: But if you`re a defense attorney, the best thing to do is just cross-examine the heck out of Dr. G. on that fact.

PINSKY: Why didn`t they do that?

SAX: Just go there and go for it.


SAX: Isn`t this the best practice? Go and confront with every piece of literature.

PINSKY: They didn`t do that.

SAX: Use the prosecutor`s witness. That would be much more effective than putting "Mr. Droner" on.

BARRINGER: You know, I agree with you in general. I happen to like Dr. Spitz very much, but I also think that it would be wonderful if Jose had done that. My guess is that he didn`t know that until Dr. Spitz mentioned it to him, and Dr. Spitz probably reacted.

PINSKY: That`s interesting. Well, OK.

I`ll tell you what, a lot of people are also saying, why don`t they talk about drowning? There`s no lung tissue left, guys. They just have bones.

There`s been a lot of Internet chat, especially on my Facebook page, about whether or not Casey Anthony`s crying is for real. We see a lot of eye dabbing with tissue, but not with tears. People I`ve talked to know Casey, and they really think those aren`t real tears.

Jen, do you think Casey`s tears are for real?

BARRINGER: You know, I happen to think that they are. I think -- you know, I`m not of the opinion, obviously, that this girl is the monster that she could be if the state is correct. But I am not of that opinion.

So I believe that the tears are real. The tears could be from many things. Of course, as you said, they could be for herself.

PINSKY: All right. Well, let`s just -- well, I understand. Well, that`s not exactly the most becoming tears to be having in this situation.

And contrast those to her mom`s tears, Cindy, who literally -- I mean, that`s more like what I would expect somebody to look like when they`re talking about their child`s death and the justice being served for --

BARRINGER: Well, that`s true, but don`t forget, you`ve got defense attorneys like myself telling you not to do that. I am absolutely telling my client to sit there and not do that.

PINSKY: That may be true.

And Jen -- fair enough. Jen, thank you very much for joining me.

Robin, of course, thank you for being here.

Next, we`re going to hit the streets for your Casey Anthony questions and comments.

And later, the many faces of George Anthony. Who is Casey`s father and what do we really know about him? And what about that affair thing and all that craziness?

We`re going to look into all that. Stay with us.


SIMS: The vegetation that was found in the car that was driven by Casey Marie Anthony, do you have an opinion with regard to the vegetation that was found in that car versus the vegetation at the scene?

BOCK: It didn`t -- it isn`t in agreement.



PERRY: I`m going to ask both sides to turn around and look at that clock back there and tell me what time it is.

Enough is enough, and both sides need to be forewarned, exclusion may be the proper remedy if it continues.


PINSKY: I`m starting to love that Judge Perry. And he`s clearly frustrated with both the defense and the prosecution.

What do you think? We`re going to hit the streets.

One of our viewers here in Hollywood has a question.



I was just wondering, how come they haven`t looked deeper into Casey`s friends and past life? What are your thoughts?


PINSKY: I`ve been wondering that myself. That would help us make sense of things, if we understood the arc of this woman`s life, what she was like in high school. Did she have behavioral problems before?

I cannot understand why some of that hasn`t been heard in the courtroom. So, I`m sorry, I don`t know the answer to that, but I am fascinated to try to figure that out. I`ve been asking those questions of a lot of people down there in Florida, and I have a feeling I`m going to get something as time goes along.

Let`s now go to the phones.

Kathleen in California, what`s on your mind?


PINSKY: Kathleen?

KATHLEEN: I would like to know if Casey Anthony`s psychological profile causes her to actually enjoy the pain she`s currently inflicting on her family? Is there something in her that enjoys all of this attention, even though it`s negative?

PINSKY: There`s no doubt in my mind -- and again I`ve heard this from people in the courtroom -- that she seems to be enjoying the attention that she -- on some level, my sense is she doesn`t appreciate the gravity of what`s going on here. Like usual, I suspect that she believes on some level that she`s going to manipulate or lie her way out of this. I don`t believe she is so cruel as to actually enjoy the pain she`s inflicting on some of the other people who have been sucked into her vortex.

We have another woman on the street question. Let`s listen to this.



If Casey`s acquitted, what kind of therapy would you recommend for her based on what you`ve seen?


PINSKY: You know, I don`t know, because we just don`t know enough about this woman yet to know whether she is pure criminal, someone who`s coldhearted and just doesn`t care, or if she`s somebody who`s sick. I mean, that`s what I`m trying to figure out with this case.

Is this somebody who`s sick and we should be a little bit empathetic towards, and think in terms of her getting treatment some day? I don`t know the answer to that, based on what I`ve seen so far, at least.

Maybe a little drug and alcohol treatment might not be such a bad idea. I`m just saying.

Linda in Virginia, go ahead.


LINDA, VIRGINIA: Casey Anthony is an equal opportunity liar. Just as she`s been able to conform her personality and lie to fit multiple situations, that is exactly what she`s doing in her interactions with Caylee. I hope the state of Florida explains that as easily as she`s lied about everything else, the relationship she portrayed with Caylee was exactly what she created, a lie.


PINSKY: Well, there`s no doubt that if she killed this child, you are right. And the only thing we know for sure about this woman is she`s a spectacular liar. We know that for sure.

Mary asked on Facebook, "Do you generally see drug users humanizing their drug of choice?" (ex. "Zanny the Nanny")

It`s not about humanizing. It`s about colloquialism. It`s about common lingo. And street names for drugs get more and more elaborate every day, the longer certain drugs are around. And "Xanny" and "Xanabars," that`s Xanax.

That`s just what the street names are. I don`t know if it`s a coincidence here or not, but it`s again somewhat suspicious.

Later, you know that guy in the neck brace, the one you see running for a seat in the courtroom in the Pamplona episode, where people are running over each other? There they are. Well, he`s going to be here with us.

But before we talk to him -- oh, that`s so disturbing to watch that footage, every time. That guy, that guy`s going to be with me.

First, the real George Anthony. Does anybody truly know who he is?

Stick around. We`ll look into that.



PINSKY (voice-over): Another potential witness comes into play, saying she had an affair with George Anthony, and that`s not all. What does she know? Why would George seek comfort in another woman`s arms? And, are he and Cindy stronger now?

And later, the state of Florida has put several notable killers to death. Eileen Wuornos and Ted Bundy to name a couple, but there are also some heinous crimes where justice seems to have just fallen short, and it begs the question, could Casey Anthony actually walk?

KRYSTAL HOLLOWAY, POTENTIAL WITNESS: He threw her up against the wall and choked her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Do you know why he threw her up against the wall and choked her?

HOLLOWAY: Because he said, I know you killed her. What did you do with her? And he choked her and Cindy had to get George off of Casey.


PINSKY (on-camera): Well, the defense is about to call George`s so- called mistress. You just heard her there and saw her. They`re going to have her testify. Now, is the defense on to something here or they just once again causing distraction and dragging poor George Anthony further into the mud? He`s already been accused of sexually abusing Casey, a claim seemingly, like, lost to the vapors.

I mean, it`s not been proven in any way. There are -- and the question I have, and as we try to understand this thing, and I, like you, I want to understand it, are there two faces to George Anthony? Here`s how Krystal says -- this is the girlfriend, the one he had the affair with, I guess. This is what Krystal says about Caylee`s death.


HOLLOWAY: I don`t believe that George picked the body up, like they said. I think it was an accident.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did George tell you about that?

HOLLOWAY: That it was an accident that snowballed out of control.


PINSKY: And I was appropriately admonished by my producers, alleged mistress. I don`t know if I buy that theory either. Again, this is her claim, and you, guys, have to judge if you think that she is reliable and what she is reporting. Now, the question, though, before us is could grief push someone to cheat? Is the stress of all this too much for George? And if you just speculated that he did something inappropriate, is it because of what Casey`s dragged him into?

Former prosecutor, Robin Sax, is back and joining me is our friend, Mark Eiglarsh, a criminal defense attorney. Mark, do you adhere to that theory, that perhaps he misbehaved because of the overwhelming stress of the situation, if this thing even occurred at all, which it probably didn`t?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Listen, you`re the expert in that arena. I have no idea why men cheat. I can tell you, however, that this is a bombshell. I don`t like using that word. I`ll let Jane use it all she wants. I think this is a huge development. I`ll tell you why. I`ve been asking for weeks now, how are they going to prove that this was an accident, an accidental drowning, without her testifying, what she`s not going to do, because she`s not that crazy, and this is the way they do it.

Now, she`s going to say that George said to her that this was an accident that snowballed out of control. The prosecution`s going to object. That`s hearsay! But the judge is going to let it in because it goes to impeach George`s earlier testimony that he knew nothing about an accident or drowning or anything like that. This is going to help the defense.

PINSKY: So, then, Robin, is George going to have to get back up on the stand and answer some questions?

ROBIN SAX, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, that`s one potential, but the other potential is what they`re going to have to deal with as the prosecutors then going to have to go through and then present all of these other pieces of evidence that in the end is going to make this just another red herring that`s going to not amount to much other than to look like he`s a bad, dirty guy, and who really cares. If you`re the prosecutor, the fruit doesn`t fall far from the tree, and so, he`s one other scumbag in a family of scumbags.


EIGLARSH: Robin, you`re underestimating. Robin is underestimating the significance of pillow talk. You know, the defense is going to say, that`s when George was being truthful, when he was laying down with his mistress and he spoke about something. Again, I don`t necessarily --

SAX: The molester? She`s lying in bed. I mean, now, they`re going to have -- they put out here that he`s this molester, so she`s going to have to say, you hung out with a known molester? I mean, that`s a problem.

PINSKY: And Mark, you`re always saying that the defense shouldn`t put out theories that they have to prove. Now, they have to prove that he`s had an affair, to prove that that he has had pillow talk with this woman and that he`s a molester. They have to prove all of that now.

EIGLARSH: I agree. A critical mistake, a rookie mistake by a rookie lawyer, but that`s the bed that he prepared for himself, and he`s got to lie in it. And so, the way to do it without putting his client, his lying client on the stand, is through Krystal. It`s now crystal-clear to me pun intended how they`re going to do it.

PINSKY: All right. Let`s look at one side of George Anthony. Watch this tape.


GEORGE ANTHONY, CASEY ANTHONY`S FATHER: You guys don`t feel it. You don`t care me, you don`t care about her. You don`t care about my granddaughter. You don`t care about Caylee! Shut up. I`m talking. I am talking!


PINSKY: Now, Robin, I don`t know whether that makes George look good or bad. I mean, on one hand, he`s protecting his family, on the other hand, there`s open aggression there that we`re not accustomed to seeing from him. Jurors are probably not going to see that anyway, are they?

SAX: They probably won`t, but this is a conflicted man. This is someone who is got law enforcement training, has probably a sick idea of what happened, yet this person who is the killer, potentially his daughter, and he`s trying to protect her, and then, there`s his granddaughter, and then there`s all these other things. So, the focus of putting this on George is the defense strategy to take the heat off of Casey.

PINSKY: And you heard Mark say that he does not think Casey will take the stand, that that would be a crazy move. Particularly, now do you think --

SAX: I heard that. He can take me to dinner, too.

PINSKY: OK. Mark, you`re part of the dinner crowd. We`re all taking Robin out. It will be great. If Casey should take the stand --

SAX: She has to.

PINSKY: She has to. OK. But don`t you think that all this with George may be a way, as Mark is suggesting, an alternative strategy of putting Casey on the stand? Mark, is that what you`re saying?

EIGLARSH: Yes. I`m saying that the defense is, at least, smart enough to know, because they have Cheney Mason on the team, that you don`t have this entire trial come down to her word. So, how do you do it? You have Casey`s mom talk about the ladder being out. She already threw that out coupled with this pillow talk. I can see how they could throw this out there, and it`s enough for the jurors to say, this could have been an accident.

PINSKY: Hey, Robin, you, earlier in the show, admonished me during one of the breaks about something. I want to bring up here before we do go back to break, which is that I mentioned at the opening my concern about, what it would be like to be a jury to have to sentence somebody to death, and you admonished me. Go ahead.

SAX: I did admonish you just like the judge is admonishing those jurors that they should not be making any decision based on passion or prejudice or what they think the sentence is. So, no one should think about death penalties right now.

PINSKY: But hold on. You`re sitting in the jury box with 11 other people, and you`re on a death sentence case, you`re not supposed to have that in the back of your mind?

SAX: Well, you, Dr. Drew, on national television every night and say, can you sentence this person. So, I`m just asking you to follow the law that the judges and not with --

PINSKY: Which is?


PINSKY: Mark, go ahead. Mark, go ahead.

EIGLARSH: Wait a second. Robin, he`s not in the courtroom. He`s allowed not have to presume her innocent. He`s not in the courtroom, so he can talk about the possible penalty. And the reality is, jurors do factor that in. They know if they come back on murder one. They`ve got to now, especially juror number four, who can`t sit in judgment of someone, is now going to talk about whether she lives or dies. That is definitely in her mind.

PINSKY: Well, at least, I think, we should say, Mark, that that juror we`ve talked about before, she has been reported as saying she`s very religious and she doesn`t believe she can judge somebody. That even if she does render a judgment and sort of comes into the sway of the other 11 jurors, I don`t think that someone is going to go for the death penalty, that`s for sure.

SAX: That I agree with.


EIGLARSH: Right. Are you kidding me? I don`t think she should be on this jury. I think the judge should have tossed her when the prosecution requested that she be excused. That was a huge mistake.

SAX: I join in that motion.

PINSKY: All right. Robin, thank you. Mark, thank you. And it`s interesting we`re talking about this issue of the death penalty because when we come back, we`re going to try to answer the question, could Casey walk? And not just could she walk, but based on the history in Florida of what they`ve done with previous death sentence cases, particularly, for women, how she measures up against that.

And, another member of my jury, you might recognize -- there he is. There`s the man that risked life and limb to run with the humans there in Pamplona. That was Orlando on that lovely evening. oh, people are great. he`s Got a deeply personal reason, though, for following the trial, and it`s actually very interesting. Wait until you hear it. You`ll hear his story after this.


GEORGE ANTHONY: I want to take your pain away from you, so you can tell me anything.


GEORGE ANTHONY: I miss you, sweetie.

CASEY ANTHONY: I know that. I miss you, too.

GEORGE ANTHONY: I wish I could have been a better dad and a better grandpa, you know?

CASEY ANTHONY: You`ve been a great dad and you`ve been the best grandfather. Don`t for a second think otherwise.




JOSE BAEZ, CASEY ANTHONY`S ATTORNEY: I`ve already placed and given official notice to the state attorney`s office as well as the Orange County Sheriff`s Department that should an indictment come down, Casey will surrender herself.


PINSKY: That seems like a long time ago. And of course, the big debate surrounding this trial is whether or not Casey Anthony should get the death penalty if convicted. Now, did you know that in Florida history, in the history of Florida, only one woman has ever been sentenced to death for killing her child. This was in 1992 when Ana Maria Cardona was found guilty and sentenced to death for torturing and killing her three-year-old toddler by hitting him in the head with a baseball bat.

Her conviction was overturned on a technicality. Awesome. She was retried and again found guilty. The jury again recommended death which was upheld by a judge earlier this month. Now, that is a pretty obvious case. Contrast that with a Jacksonville case of Alexandra Tobias. Now, last year, Tobias pled guilty to shaking her three-month-old baby boy to death. It actually happens more than you might think.

It`s call the shaken baby syndrome. In her case, apparently, it was because he interrupted her computer game. Nice. Earlier this year, Tobias asked for mercy before sentencing. Take a look at that.


ALEXANDRA TOBIAS, CONVICTED OF SHAKING SON TO DEATH: This is a plea about pity. I`m asking for mercy. I realize I do deserve consequences, but the death of my son is a life sentence in itself. So, could you please consider that I am still young and I have ambition, potential, hopes, and dreams.


PINSKY: All of this stuff, this is the saddest material. In this case, the judge showed no mercy, sentencing Tobias to the max, 50 years in prison on a second-degree murder charge. Now with us is Ricardo Enriquez. He`s a former juror on the Phil Spector case. We`re going to hear what he thinks about the Casey Anthony trial, and rejoining us is defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh. Mark, are these cases an appropriate yardstick for what might happen to Casey?

EIGLARSH: Well, they have to be used. Listen, we`re trying to find justice for her, whatever that means to different people. Aristotle defined justice as like cases being treated alike. So, in the death penalty analysis, you have to say, well, how is her case similar to the other cases where women or other people have been put to death? And two people have been executed here in Florida since the death penalty laws have been revamped.

Both of those women were executed for killing multiple people, not just one. And again, don`t kill the messenger. I`m just comparing her to other similarly situated cases.

PINSKY: All right. Let`s look at the case of eight-year-old Kayla Adams. Now, in 1998, Kayla`s dad, Richard, hang on to this one, guys, he beat the child with a board then punched her so hard he actually ruptured her liver. After that, he stomped her to death and then buried her body in the Ocala National Forest. Did he get the death penalty? No. He`s getting three meals a day and a roof over his head for the rest of his life.

Ricardo, that case is even more brutal that the Caylee Anthony case, and yet, he did not get the death penalty. As a juror, how do you weigh these things out? How does that work?

RICARDO ENRIQUEZ, FORMER PHIL SPECTOR JUROR: It all depends on what the judge, how you`re asked --

PINSKY: How you`re instructed by the judge?


PINSKY: So, you`re able to dispassionately look at facts when a judge says, don`t consider, you know, anything you heard. Don`t consider that this is death penalty trial. You can just examine the facts.

ENRIQUEZ: You try.

PINSKY: You try.

ENRIQUEZ: You try. And obviously, you`re going to be affected by your whole personal life experience.


ENRIQUEZ: But you do try to please and to do your job. You know, please your own self, that you`re true to yourself.

PINSKY: All right. So, you`ve actually been in this position? You were there in the Phil Spector case. So, if you, based on what -- have you been watching this case?

ENRIQUEZ: Yes, I have.

PINSKY: All right. Based on what you`ve seen on television, it`s different, I`m sure, than sitting in the courtroom.

ENRIQUEZ: Absolutely.

PINSKY: What do you make of this? What would this feel like as a juror?

ENRIQUEZ: Well, it brings back a lot of feelings. I mean, I sympathize with the jurors, what they`re going through.

PINSKY: Which is what?

ENRIQUEZ: Which is a lot of bombardment of information, a lot of detail, and basically --

PINSKY: Do they get frustrated with it? Tired of it?

ENRIQUEZ: They do. Absolutely. They do, and sometimes, you take notes, sometimes you don`t. In our case, a couple of the jurors snoozed off and fell asleep during some of the expert testimony because it was so, so -- actually, boring.

PINSKY: Do you -- I like asking this of all my new guests. Do you have a take, so far, based on what you`ve heard, what`s your take on Casey? You`re a juror. Pretend you`re a juror. What`s your take?

ENRIQUEZ: I think she did it.


ENRIQUEZ: I think she did it.

PINSKY: Intentionally?

ENRIQUEZ: Potentially, and I think it might have been an accident.

PINSKY: So, based on what you heard, could you go for first-degree murder, as a juror?


PINSKY: You could. You could. OK. Mark, to hear that from a former member of a jury, does that surprise you?

EIGLARSH: No, not at all. I`m getting Facebook e-mails from people who think that this might have been an accident, you know, without hearing any evidence of it. It`s very important to note that the death penalty, first of all, costs, I`m not an advocate one way or the other, I`m just giving the facts, costs five, four times -- it cost five times more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life, because it takes so much to fund the appeal process.

The other thing is 68 percent of the time when someone`s given death, their convictions are reversed. Keep that in mind too. This is not going to be like, OK, death, and let`s take her out back and shoot her. Judge Perry, listen, he has reversed convictions, and then death penalties, a number of times. One of the times because the prosecutor withheld favorable information from the defense, and that was Jeff Ashton, the prosecutor in this particular case.

PINSKY: Oh, that`s interesting. Enrique -- Ricardo, I`m sorry, let me ask you another question. When you`re sitting there in the jury box and you got the whole family sitting in the courtroom there, does that affect you? Do you think your -- one of the things I mentioned in the opening of my program was that, you know, there are the parents of the woman who I`m sitting in judgment over, does that affect me? As a juror?

ENRIQUEZ: It did. It did. And, initially, we didn`t know who the family members were.

PINSKY: In your case?


PINSKY: So, family was in the court, but you haven`t identified --

ENRIQUEZ: No, we haven`t.

PINSKY: But in this case, they have been, because they`ve testified.

ENRIQUEZ: Well, you look at the family.


ENRIQUEZ: And after we found out the family, we did look at them and kind of had a little, maybe even sympathy for them.

PINSKY: So in this case, again, back to Casey Anthony, does it give you more sympathy for Casey given the agony the grandparents are being dragged through here? Or does it make you angry?

ENRIQUEZ: No, no. It actually gives me sympathy for the family.


ENRIQUEZ: For the mom and the dad.

PINSKY: But then, would you be able to convict her of a murder given that that could add increased stress to the family?


PINSKY: You think that?


PINSKY: OK. All right. Mark, last words to you. Any final thoughts on this being a death panel and the possibility of it being a conviction or whether or not Casey did this?

EIGLARSH: Well, most of the time when someone is given the death penalty, the crime is especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel. It`s known as HAC. The problem in this case is we`re all not very crystal clear on how it happened. It`s very different than those cases where, you know, torture and horrible facts, you know, I`m not minimizing it, but that`s that.

And then, couple that with George and Cindy who are going to look at the jurors and plead for their daughter`s life assuming she`s convicted. I think, ultimately, will tip the scales in the factors that weigh against the death penalty.

PINSKY: Well, that`s exactly why I wanted to do this little segment is to point out that the previous cases in Florida where people have been convicted of murder have been just, just disgusting, just brutal. I mean, not that this isn`t a disgusting situation, but as a yardstick, it`s different, a little different. It`s still awful and it`s easy to hate Casey and it`s easy to look at her parenting and her lying and be very angry with her, but it is not somebody stomping somebody to -- well, maybe, we don`t know.

EIGLARSH: One of the lead cases in Florida says death is different. It`s not for every first-degree murder case. So, is this the same as those where death has been doled out? That`s for the appellate courts to decide if she`s ever convicted.

PINSKY: And again, that`s something that`s done after this case is tried, right?

EIGLARSH: Absolutely. Assuming it`s not reversed for other reasons. This is -- listen, she`ll be post-menopausal if she ever gets the death penalty when she`s executed. If she`s ever convicted and given that, it`s been a long time before you see death.

PINSKY: Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Ricardo.

Next, a member of my jury, and if you want to know why he`s been running for a seat in the courthouse, you`re going to find out. It`s not what you think it is. Not just to see the trial. He has very personal reasons. There he is right there. We`ll talk to him.


CASEY ANTHONY: I just wanted to let everyone know that I`m sorry for what I did. I take complete and full responsibility for my actions. And I`d like to sincerely apologize to Amy. We should have been a better friend.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Thank you. Anything else?




PINSKY: Joining me tonight on my jury is Brian Maher. He`s also affectionately known as the guy with the neck brace. You can see Brian here as he was jockeying for position during the first week of the trial just to get into that courtroom, risking his life, risking injury. Lucky for Brian, he made it in that day, and so far, has gotten in ten times! Even hurt, Brian, you did OK. How`s your neck feeling now?

BRIAN MAHER, DR. DREW "JUROR": It`s getting much better. It is. I`m healing up real fast. The doctors are real impressed.

PINSKY: Now, Brian, my understanding is you had a very special reason for wanting to observe this case. Tell me what that is.

MAHER: Well, yes. My sister was brutally murdered here back in the 1970s and -- by a man who, he had a little money and his family was, you know, he had a grandfather who was an Orange County judge here, and his father was a prominent lawyer, and you know, he pulled some temporary insanity thing and walked away from it, and I feel like I kind of got screwed in the whole deal, you know, growing up as a kid.

But, you know, when I saw the opening arguments to this case, it was like, oh, no, you know, that`s just wrong. So, I kind of came and got in one time and then I sort of got really addicted to coming and that`s part of the reason why, yes, I do come here.

PINSKY: Brian, tell me what your take is. I mean, you`re someone who`s been through a very personal and awful experience with murder and with injustice, let`s call it. What do you think is going on in this court case?

MAHER: Well, you know, I keep waiting for Baez to drop some kind of bomb, but he just bores -- you know, he`s just -- it`s not happening. She`s, you know -- I definitely got her guilty, you know? I keep waiting for Baez to come up with something, but he just -- I think he just wants to hurry up and get done with this so he can start a book deal or something, because he doesn`t seem like he`s really -- he doesn`t seem like he`s really trying.

PINSKY: Brian, you seem kind of cynical about this. I agree with you. I was expecting to see some fireworks, and so far, I`m not hearing anything, but for you, having been in the courtroom now ten times, what`s the most riveting thing you`ve seen?

MAHER: Wow, ah, when she -- when they were grilling Cindy, you know?


MAHER: I really felt for her, you know? She had to leave the courtroom, you know, two, three times, and I kind of felt for her.


MAHER: Just what that family`s going through.

PINSKY: And I know this about people that do bad things, they create a vortex, as we call it in my work, where they just suck lots of people in. We saw Vasco yesterday and the parents and all these people`s lives were being affected by one person`s behavior. I`ve got just about 30 seconds left with you, Brian. I want to ask you. You were going to do something special with that neck brace. Tell us about that.

MAHER: Yes. Somebody came up with the idea today that, you know, if we could get -- I got Judge Alex to sign it, if we could get a few more people and, you know, let somebody auction it off for a good cause, you know, if they want it, if somebody really wants to shell out some money for it, and we can do something good with that money, then let`s do it, you know? I want to get rid of it.


MAHER: I`ve got five more weeks of it.

PINSKY: All right. Well, I wish you well, and I`m sure we`ll talk to you more as we go along. Thank you for being part of my jury today, my friend. And if you observe anything interesting thoughts, let us know. We love having eyes and ears there in the courtroom. And again, reminding everybody, this is just -- all right, buddy.

MAHER: All right. You have a good day.

PINSKY: This is about justice for a young girl`s whose life was cut inappropriately short, and looking more and more like Casey is the one that`s going to be held responsible for this. Thank you for watching and see you next time.