Richard Gabriel was the defense jury consultant in that case. Here is his piece on the case.
Many of the hosts and regular guests of the HLN have admitted that they believed Casey Anthony to be guilty either before or during the trial. And it was with this prejudgment that both the press and the public became both police and prosecutors, poring over the evidence and forming theories about how and why Casey murdered her daughter. Not if, but how. The media also put the defense team, any potential witness for the defense, or anyone who spoke in favor of the defense on trial, even investigating aspects of their personal lives. As a result, the defense suffered from unfair hardships – potential witnesses were unwilling to testify on Casey’s behalf for fear of being denounced or humiliated in the press. Obviously, this impedes a high-profile defendant’s ability to put on a full defense, and thus his or her right to a fair trial. In fact, the vitriol on the Internet sites was so venomous and one sided, I purposely ignored the blogger’s posts and responses to news articles.
In the Anthony case, Florida State Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly proclaimed on a national news show before the trial that the “evidence was overwhelming” of Casey’s guilt[7].
Besides being wrong, is that an ethics violation? This appears to be a case where the prosecutors did not disclose potential Brady material, similar to Behenna.
In a smaller way this is what a military person accused of a sexual assault deals with: prejudgement (training says you must believe the complaining witness), an imbalance in resources, and a presumption of guilt.
An interesting rebuttal to Nancy Without Grace.