Cindy, Perjury and the state of Justice

by Heather Hyatt

I have been pondering the situation regarding Cindy Anthony, who perjured herself in her daughter Casey's murder trial last week, and have come to some conclusions.

It is clear that Cindy lied, and that she did so because she wanted to take premeditation out of the case.  Cindy's lie was designed to have a significant consequence; that is, to force the jury to consider only lesser charges against Casey, since it could not longer be argued that Casey planned months in advance to put little Caylee to sleep with chloroform.  

While it seems likely that the jury may have surmised that Cindy was lying when she told her tale about her sleepy pooch suffering the effects of chlorophyll, it may have been enough to create reasonable doubt as to the issue of premeditation.   Cindy's perjury was intended to have a significant impact on the eventual outcome for Casey in this trial. 

There is speculation that Cindy will not face prosecution, and it has been suggested on blogs that perjury charges are rarely pursued, because it would take too much time and cost too much money.

Many talking heads have excused Cindy's behavior as understandable, even acceptable, because she was trying to save the life of her daughter. 

It stands to reason that anyone who lies on the stand, after taking an oath to tell the truth, has a compelling reason to do so.  Anyone who lies on the stand does so to "save" a daughter, a son, or themselves.   They must have a "good" reason, or they wouldn't lie.  

If the State Attorney's Office chooses not to prosecute Cindy Anthony for perjury, the message is clear:  it is alright to lie under oath as long as you have a good reason.    If that is the case, who should determine if one's reason is good enough to excuse perjury?   Is it acceptable to lie for a child, for a spouse or loved one?  Is it acceptable for a paid expert to lie, if telling the truth would mean the end of their career and reputation?  Is it acceptable for an attorney to lie, if they think their lie could help their client?  Who is to say that one reason is more or less acceptable than the other?  

If it is alright in some situations to lie under oath, then there seems to be no point in having trials at all.  Witnesses are supposed to swear an oath to tell the truth, and that is supposed to make the playing field level.   If everyone tells the truth, the truth comes out in trial.    

But if lying and perjury are acceptable under certain circumstances, there is no way to level the playing field, no way to ensure that everyone is held to the same standard, and the truth becomes a jumbled mess of confusion.  

This is what we have seen in the Casey Anthony trial, and it appears that this is what our judicial system has become.

Cindy Anthony's perjury is not a victimless crime, as some might want us to believe.

There are two victims:

One is the memory of Caylee Marie Anthony, which should be honored with justice.

The other victim is all those who seek justice, having confidence that when someone places their hand on the Bible to tell the truth will do just that:  tell the truth.


If Cindy Anthony's perjury is excused in the name of "motherhood" or network ratings, then the precedent set will be the perversion of justice for all victims.



  No Contest : How the Power Lawyers Are Perverting Justice in America