FORT WAYNE, Ind. (Indiana's NewsCenter) --- The question being asked by so many people who closely followed the Casey Anthony murder trial, how could the jury have found her not guilty?
One Fort Wayne defense lawyer predicted three weeks ago, this is exactly how the case would turn out.
William LeBrato is convinced Anthony got off because of the bedrock tenet of U.S. law known as reasonable doubt.
LeBrato believes it's more likely than not Casey Anthony had something to do with the death of her daughter, but he says the prosecution had to do better than that, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony was responsible.
The defense team maintained in the trial that the little girl wasn't murdered, but rather drowned in the family swimming pool, and that Casey Anthony’s father covered up the death.
LeBrato says he's not sure the defense lawyers did a good job of backing up their theory with facts, but he believes the prosecution was short on evidence as well.
In a criminal case, the law says the burden of proof rests with the state not the accused.
William LeBrato/Ft. Wayne Defense Lawyer: " There was no physical evidence. In this day and age of CSI and TV shows similar to that, people want to see physical evidence and without physical evidence and without eyewitness evidence, there wasn't a lot there."
LeBrato thinks the state took a risk in this case that didn't pay off.
He wonders why the state didn't charge Casey Anthony with something like child neglect resulting in death.
It would have nullified the death penalty, but he believes it would have been much easier to get the jury to come back with a guilty verdict for that charge, making it more likely she would spend significant time behind bars.
What are your thoughts CLICK HERE to leave us a "QUESTION OF THE DAY” comment.
© Copyright 2014, A Granite Broadcasting Station. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.