Trial By Jury or By Judge

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states:

(The first ten amendments being commonly known as the Bill Of Rights.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

For those few individuals living in caves in the Himalayas, Casey Anthony was accused by the State of Florida of the murder, in the first degree, of her two-year-old daughter.

July 11, 2011 I read in an article on ABC News a video recording taken at the moment Casey Anthony was notified her daughter’s body had been located may be allowed to be seen by the public, although it was not allowed by the State of Florida to be used as evidence in the trial.

“A Florida judge is considering whether to unseal a jailhouse video of acquitted murder suspect Casey Anthony that was considered so "highly inflammatory" that it would have made it difficult to give her a fair trial.”

I ask the question, is this judge daft?  I see nowhere in that sixth amendment where it says a judge has any right to determine what the jury may see, or not.  What is meant by “highly inflamatory”?  Is it more inflamatory to show a video of the accused’s reaction to the knowledge her victim’s remains have been found than it is to accuse her of murder of that same individual?

It seems to this poor layman that this Florida judge took it upon himself to overrule the Constitution of the United States.  Should this not mean the State of Florida Attorney General could not ask for a mistrial, and this entire charade of a trial could be tried again?