Not guilty as charged

There you go folks. The ultimate Defense mindset.

"This defendant probably guilty. That’s right. Guilty."
"Even though Steven Rios is probably not innocent, I don’t think he’s guilty as a matter of law."

Both sides of her mouth!!!

There was additional evidence that the police should have investigated, to allow the defense attorney more smoke to cloud the jury's minds.

Defense attorneys, including Jami, operate under one theory: It is better to let 20 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person.
I'm not sure I agree with that theory, just because...well, because...that theory exists. Based on that idealology, guilty people have been acquitted throughout the history of our legal system. Those guilty people are among us, committing crimes. Crimes that they are never arrested for. Then when they are caught and prosecuted, some defense attorney gets them acquitted by playing the system. Of the small percentage of people convicted of crimes they didn't commit, how many of those where guilty of a previous crime they had been acquitted of, thanks to a good, jury blinding, defense attorney?
Don't we all want our legal system to keep criminals off the street and make them pay for their crimes?

"It’s the least we can do in the interest of justice. And the least we can do wasn’t done in this case."

Seems to me, Jami, that, ever since you decided to give up your position as a law clerk, you HAVE been doing the least you can do for the justice system. Sit back and complain about how one table or the other did their jobs, or criticize the police for their investigations, or the judges for their rulings.
Much easier than standing up in a courtroom and presenting your case to the judge and/or the jury, now isn't it, Jami?

Jami,

Agree with you on this one. "if you are going to take away a man’s freedom, the least you can do is test all the evidence..". Due process should include all matters pertaining to evidence. We're told innocent until proven guilty. We don't have a perfect system of justice and that's well known and documented. But shouldn't our lawyers and judges be accountable to uphold the highest standard possible?

I'm with Jami on this. I definitely think Steven Rios is guilty, but in the eyes of the law, as far as I'm concerned, he should have been found not guilty. There was plenty of reasonable doubt for me and the defense did a great job of pointing everything out. I agree with the defense attorney that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the two had sex and little more. Steven Rios' bizarre behavior and the timeline involved certainly was enough for me to believe the guy did it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He had clear motive and ample opportunity. The circumstantial evidence more or less proves he did it. But, the physical evidence didn't back it up beyond a reasonable doubt and I have a problem with that.

I truly believe Rios committed the crime and I feel that the state was incredibly lucky they didn't have to meet the burden of proof in order to get a conviction from this jury. This is a prime example of juries reaching verdicts that an accredited judge would never reach if for no other reason than to maintain the integrity of the law.

I know plenty of you will think I'm crazy for what I'm saying (a guilty man should have gone free), but a true legal scholar can see the holes in this case and the dangerous precedent it sets for our legal system.

Is it any wonder that no one wants to get "involved" even if they have pertinent information in any case? The police "decide" who is guilty and set out to find "facts" to back up their decision. Your name alone may get you a role of suspect in a case and then the police can try to find "facts" to prove you guilty, since in any trial these days if you are brought to trial it is assumed that they have evidence against you including some that isn't allowed into the trial.

Not testing all of the evidence in ANY case is tantamount to fixing a case that is supposedly being investigated and no one should be convicted on incomplete facts. Nor should they be convicted by a trial judge torturing a jury into a quick verdict by setting out purposely to making them spaced-out tired. Both the prosecution and the judge in the Steven Rios case should be severely reprimanded for their misuse and abuse of the justice system and the defendant should have a new trial in front of not only a new prosecutor but definitely in front of a different judge.

Does not the defendant have a right to present their defense by presenting an alternate theory of what happened and the judge in this case did the unthinkable by telling them they could not present anything against the other person who's DNA was proven to be present. Does anyone other than me find that to also be a way of "fixing" the outcome of a trial?

What a farce our judicial system has become!

So, should Rios have opted for a judge trial rather than a jury trial?

And, assuming he is guilty, if he had just been smart enough to brush off the victim's chest, then he likely would have got away with it?

I thought the evidence was relatively weak even with DNA evidence on the hair.

I also thought the allegation that he carried and owned the clip knife was very damaging. Assuming it was true, I wonder if he had not disposed of the knite, whether the prosecution could have proved it was hte murder weapon.

My son found the body. He did not have any inside information, or any detailed knowledge about the facts or the evidence, but he testified twice, looked at the guy in court as he testified about finding the body, and he subjectively felt that Rios was guilty.

Jami ~ As always, I enjoyed your sidebar. I have to say though, as a longtime fan of your channel, I am thoroughly disappointed in how you guys completely abandoned this trial to cover what your channel considered would be the ratings boost from covering Las Vegas. I was extremely frustrated that not only did you leave the trial on t.v., you totally abandoned it online. Your channel abandoned live stream coverage online as soon as the Vegas trial started. You never announced the jury's verdict and then sentencing recommendation before or after it came out Friday evening, and never once followed up with online postings until Monday afternoon with your sidebar Jami. How can you guys do that to your loyal viewers who followed the Rios trial all week long only to find your channel totally leaving coverage both on t.v. and online? I am very disappointed not only for myself but also for your colleagues who worked long hours in Missouri only to find their hardwork cut short.

Wow....this is one of the few cases where a cop is actually found guilty of what he did....but then he is gay, so that makes sense. Heterosexual white and black cops, that's a whole nother issue...

Buh Bye...to him and now he can live with the people he jacked up for a long time

Regarding the Steven Rios Case... I don't feel that the Prosecution proving their case. The timeline... Several people had talked about the timeline and have forgotten that their was an argument that lasted approximately five to ten minutes. So Mr. Rios would have had to drive over tio the victim's house, parked car and go up to the Victims home, go into the residence, have the long argument and then chase the victim out into the open and kill him and drag is body approximately the length of two football fields and leave the scence, go home. Steven Rios ex-wife stated he arrived home around 5:15-5:25..a.m. well with all that would of happen. Steven Rios didn't have any marks, scratches, bruises and any identifying marks to show he had been in any struggle at all. The fact that the evidence had been tampered with is very concerning as well. I would have not been able to make this man quilty of this crime. There are others that should of been looked at more closely and I am not convince that Steven Rios committed this crime.

Thanks,
Kathleen C from Vista, California

Jamie...I have always wanted to know this. Can you name three court cases where the defendant is guilty and you "Agreed'" with the verdict.? I understand you are defense attorney, but I dont believe I have ever heard you agree beyond a shadow of a doubt that a defendants guilty on ANY case.

Actually, I'm not surprised you think he is guilty, any criminal defense attorney, unless they are deluded, will admit that the vast majority of their client's are guilty. Thier job is not to get "justice" for their clients, thier job is to get their clients off, guilty, or not.. Jami, you would be much more credible if you admitted this simple truth, instead of constantly going on your rants that this whole thing is about justice. You are a criminal defense attorney. You don't care one thing about justice.

Let's get serious; anyone of us that broke into a mans room and ordered people around would be put in jail hands down. The fact that OJ Simpson is getting what he deserves for this and his Karma finally coming around is the icing on the cake. Sooner or later this man who thinks he is able to do anything he wants and get away with it would have been put away evidentally for something it has just happened sooner than later thank God. Perhaps this jailing will save someones life in the future. I am glad he didn't go that far again to get his just deserts.

Mike Hill-

Jami's not a defense attorney. She's a CNN anchor.

There's an old saying:

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, talk about it on T.V. and online."

OK, I altered the old saying to fit my own personal needs. Sue me.
I won't hire Jami to defend me.

"I say, if you are going to take away a man’s freedom, the least you can do is test all the evidence. Pursue all the leads. Consider all the suspects. It’s the least we can do in the interest of justice. And the least we can do wasn’t done in this case."

Well, first of all, no one took away this man's freedom. This man took away the rights of the other guy that he killed. He willingly gave up his freedom when he committed the act of murder.

Second, why in the world would we want to waste thousands upon thousands of dollars to test a bunch of stuff when one test told the story? Perhaps Jami would like to foot the bill so that EVERYTHING could be tested properly. Only to discover that this creep is indeed the killer. Not very prudent, Jami.

Who is the father of Caylee? Where is he? And if he has passed as I heard, what was his name? And does he have family that would be interested in what has happened to their grandchild/niece??

Spider – You are right. Those who can't, whine about it online.

Those who can, hold and have held highly respected positions.

Good job Jami, I love your show and the perspective you bring to the cases covered.

my name is Linda Valencia and I am the Mother of Jesse James Wade Valencia, Who was slaughtered by Steven Rios. Rios is guilty. Let it go. This man took my only son and brutally murdered him without any remorse and if any of u believe that its not true read the manuscript I as Jesses mother have decided to write a book about the murder of my son and how it truly came to happen. It will be the truth. So watch for it to come out. it will be called , "Jesses Way" I hope one day u will read it. Thank you so much for your time. The world does not know what they truly lost when they lost my Son Jesse Valencia but soon they will know. Thank You Linda Valencia