"I don't know all the details, but the burden was on the state to prove its case to every juror beyond a reasonable doubt," said Holicker. "And obviously every juror was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt."
Local attorney Ed Rebrook, who does a lot of criminal defense work, said he was surprised by the verdict, and couldn't help but remember the Putnam County murder trial of Michael Merrifield, accused of killing Logan Goodall.
"He was convicted of the murder of a three-year-old boy. There was no evidence in that trial that he killed him," Rebrook said. "When a child is murdered a jury is going to convict someone, even if it's an innocent person.
Rebrook said that after listening to testimony in the Casey Anthony trial involving duct tape on the child's head and computer searches for chloroform, he was "very, very surprised" that Anthony wasn't convicted.
"I thought they'd convict her of felony murder at least," Rebrook said. "But the state could not prove the means or method of death so it was all speculation.
"They were trying to get the jury to convict because she went out and partied and had sex with strangers," he said. "But I think the jury really listened to the instructions and did what they should have done.
Rebrook said within his law office, interest was keen in the trial.
"They all hated the defense attorney," he said. "I thought he was abrasive. But both sides tried to play games with that judge. And he was patient, more than he should have been."
Troy Giatras, another local criminal attorney, has also followed the case carefully and was on hand for the verdict.
"We were huddled around the computer and it was reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial," he said.
"The television coverage got viewers thinking it was an open and shut case," Giatras said. "It really began to play out in the last few days, with the defense team bringing out evidence that was not in the public domain.
"As we watched around the table, most everyone in here said it's going to be guilty, she deserves it," Giatras said. "I held out, and said we only heard what television telling us. The jury heard the actual evidence.
"And it was shock and surprise when it went contrary to public perception," he said. "But the jury heard everything for 33 days. They were sequestered and not influenced by the papers, the TV. They heard the evidence, not the highlights.
"They heard the best case for the state and best case for the defense," Giatras said. "It's hard to argue they did the wrong job. Against what measure?
"There's a lot of disdain and outrage right now," he said. "There will still be a segment of the population that will be saying she did it and she beat it.
She spent three years in jail with no bond. There's still a baby dead and no killer or cause of death," Giatras said. "This could be the kind of case that in five, 10, 15 years somebody's bragging and it could all be opened again."
Giatras said he respects the jury.
"When you are trying to put someone to death, there are old fashioned ways and new fangled ways," he said, referring to the science relating to the "smell" theory in the car.
"But you have to be really certain," he said. "You would want it to work that way if you were in her seat. That the jury would listen to the evidence and decide."
Contact writer Cheryl Caswell at cher...@dailymail.com or 304-348-4832.