"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand?

[Brini]

I agree. I have long held that allegedly driving around for days with a body in the trunk of your car works strongly against premeditation.

Your problem is twofold: 1) KC has never shown the ability nor the desire to plan for the consequences of her actions. 2) Most people are going to believe that the guy who stashes the money from the bank heist in the trunk of his car is likely the thief.

Juries don't usually go with wild leaps of faith, in the face of logic, evidence, and above all, common sense.

 

[Brini]

I hit the 'Thanks' button, but wanted to say, "thanks" for saying this. I am curious too. I have never heard of this in my life. Perhaps I am naive, but I don't think so. I spent the first 10 or so years of my career as a medic, and I think the taping of a dead body to be bizarre.

This case is the only one that I have heard that argument put forth. Immediately it sounded really unlikely to me. Until proven otherwise, I just won't believe that someone would tape up a dead or decomposing body with the intention of preventing or stopping leaking fluid.

I have never heard of two things: 1) Anyone trying to stem decomp fluids w/ duct tape. It sloughs right off! 2) Any judge ordering a jury to weight the defense's evidence more heavily than the Stats's, even if it makes much less sense.

Is there an alternate universe, of which I am lot aware, here?

 

[Brini]

Yeah, and I'm still waiting for that clear picture JB promised to present...the one that would make us all understand.

If JB had ANY explanation that would "make us all clearly understand the reasons for her actions," she'd be out on the streets, even as I write.

 

[Baxter]

If JB had ANY explanation that would "make us all clearly understand the reasons for her actions," she'd be out on the streets, even as I write.

We will have to wait for the a-ha moment at trial, when we will all understand.

 

[MaedchenX]

I am no lawyer, but I was just thinking that IF Caylee's death was an accident (and no I do not believe it was) then when she was first arrested any lawyer worth anything would have had a pronto talk with the prosecutors explaining this terrible accident. Am I wrong ? Would that not be the job and duty of an attorney ?

I just think it's crazy to entertain the notion that Casey would sit behind bars this long under these very serious charges without screaming out..."It was an accident" ! Even if she was too ashamed to tell LE in the beginning, I can't see 24 hours in jail going by without the admission. When you are charged with the murder of your own child, an accident pales in comparison....no way, she'd sit there all this time and not say anything.

You bring up a very good point. Why not come clean if it was indeed an accident, how could a loving parent not? Then one would have to consider that Casey kept silent all of those months knowing where she dumped her daughter, allowing for searches to continue, for those that loved Caylee to cling to hope, for innocent people to be implicated in the search for answers... and why? Why, because she selfishly did not want Caylee to be found. That speaks against any remorse one might expect from a parent whose child has died accidentally due to inattentiveness or neglect.

 

[Wudge]

Bumping my own post because I'm very interested in what Wudge thinks of another circumstantial DP case and the legal aspect of the jury's guilty verdict.My original question was edited for mentioning the first name [I think]

Hello,

I just saw the post you bumped. Unfortunately, without knowing what case you are referring to, I have no idea if I'm familiar with the facts of the case. Without such, I have no way to assess whether, by my calibrations, there was sufficient relevant, material and highly reliable inculpatory evidence produced at trial to support the conviction and the punishment (death). Similarly, I can't guage the quality of the defense's case-in-chief, nor can I measure how pursuasive the defendant's attorneys were.

Wrongful convictions stem from many things; e.g., trial error (dent on the judge), jury error (this includes a jury with poor evidence assessment skills), a false or coerced confession (usually brought about by LE), manufacturing or withholding evidence by LE and/or prosecutors, woeful defense attorneys (this includes attorneys who lack significant powers of persuasion), stealth jurors, etc..

After OJ's trial, my belief is that, on balance, jurors became more jaded toward defendants, particularly in non-celebrity, high-profile cases. And it's my belief that, moreso than before, jurors have accordingly lowered their internal standard as regards the reliability of evidence and testing for the sufficiency of evidence. Hence, in crime forums, I often talk to whether the reliability of evidence necessary to support the charge truly exists -- as I do in Caylee's case.

In Websleuths "crimes in the news" forum, I posted a wrongful conviction case earlier today that recently saw a truly stunning reversal of fortune for defendants who had been in prison for fifteen years and had basically exhausted their appeals and lost all but the tiniest sliver of hope -- this case had long been #4 on my list of likely wrongful convictions. Moreso than anything else, my guages lay the primary responsibility for their wrongful convictions on the jury.

Be that as it may, I do hold that in murder trials held where no corpus delicti exists, the evidence can support a murder one charge provided the evidence is "clear and unyielding".

HTH

 

[Wudge]

I have never heard of two things: 1) Anyone trying to stem decomp fluids w/ duct tape. It sloughs right off! 2) Any judge ordering a jury to weight the defense's evidence more heavily than the Stats's, even if it makes much less sense.

Is there an alternate universe, of which I am lot aware, here?

When you say "Any judge ordering a jury to weight the defense's evidence more heavily than the Stats's [sic], even if it makes much less sense, I believe you are referring to the "reasonable explanation" jury instruction that was discussed earlier in this thread.

It does exist in this universe, but I can't speak to an alternate universe.

 

[Brini]

When you say "Any judge ordering a jury to weight the defense's evidence more heavily than the Stats's [sic], even if it makes much less sense, I believe you are referring to the "reasonable explanation" jury instruction that was discussed earlier in this thread.

It does exist in this universe, but I can't speak to an alternate universe.

Great! Maybe we will someday encounter a situation wherin it is applied to a real jury. For now, I think most of us doubt it, having never encountered it.

 

[Brini]

Hello,

I just saw the post you bumped. Unfortunately, without knowing what case you are referring to, I have no idea if I'm familiar with the facts of the case. Without such, I have no way to assess whether, by my calibrations, there was sufficient relevant, material and highly reliable inculpatory evidence produced at trial to support the conviction and the punishment (death). Similarly, I can't guage the quality of the defense's case-in-chief, nor can I measure how pursuasive the defendant's attorneys were.

Wrongful convictions stem from many things; e.g., trial error (dent on the judge), jury error (this includes a jury with poor evidence assessment skills), a false or coerced confession (usually brought about by LE), manufacturing or withholding evidence by LE and/or prosecutors, woeful defense attorneys (this includes attorneys who lack significant powers of persuasion), stealth jurors, etc..

After OJ's trial, my belief is that, on balance, jurors became more jaded toward defendants, particularly in non-celebrity, high-profile cases. And it's my belief that, moreso than before, jurors have accordingly lowered their internal standard as regards the reliability of evidence and testing for the sufficiency of evidence. Hence, in crime forums, I often talk to whether the reliability of evidence necessary to support the charge truly exists -- as I do in Caylee's case.

In Websleuths "crimes in the news" forum, I posted a wrongful conviction case earlier today that recently saw a truly stunning reversal of fortune for defendants who had been in prison for fifteen years and had basically exhausted their appeals and lost all but the tiniest sliver of hope -- this case had long been #4 on my list of likely wrongful convictions. Moreso than anything else, my guages lay the primary responsibility for their wrongful convictions on the jury.

Be that as it may, I do hold that in murder trials held where no corpus delicti exists, the evidence can support a murder one charge provided the evidence is "clear and unyielding".

HTH

Tell the to the many murderers who have been convicted w/o "clear and unyielding" evidence by your definition.

Like it or not, there is a mountain of circumstantial and forensic evidence against KC. And, there is little chance that any judge will direct the jurors to believe in Invisinannies.

There is also little chance of selling the idea that the poor thing was in "shock and disorientation," through all those months of calculated dissimulation.

What's left is finding 12 jurors who believe in the Tooth Fairy.

And, you seem to be pounding the table, not the evidence.

 

[Brini]

Hello,

I just saw the post you bumped. Unfortunately, without knowing what case you are referring to, I have no idea if I'm familiar with the facts of the case. Without such, I have no way to assess whether, by my calibrations, there was sufficient relevant, material and highly reliable inculpatory evidence produced at trial to support the conviction and the punishment (death). Similarly, I can't guage the quality of the defense's case-in-chief, nor can I measure how pursuasive the defendant's attorneys were.

Wrongful convictions stem from many things; e.g., trial error (dent on the judge), jury error (this includes a jury with poor evidence assessment skills), a false or coerced confession (usually brought about by LE), manufacturing or withholding evidence by LE and/or prosecutors, woeful defense attorneys (this includes attorneys who lack significant powers of persuasion), stealth jurors, etc..

After OJ's trial, my belief is that, on balance, jurors became more jaded toward defendants, particularly in non-celebrity, high-profile cases. And it's my belief that, moreso than before, jurors have accordingly lowered their internal standard as regards the reliability of evidence and testing for the sufficiency of evidence. Hence, in crime forums, I often talk to whether the reliability of evidence necessary to support the charge truly exists -- as I do in Caylee's case.

In Websleuths "crimes in the news" forum, I posted a wrongful conviction case earlier today that recently saw a truly stunning reversal of fortune for defendants who had been in prison for fifteen years and had basically exhausted their appeals and lost all but the tiniest sliver of hope -- this case had long been #4 on my list of likely wrongful convictions. Moreso than anything else, my guages lay the primary responsibility for their wrongful convictions on the jury.

Be that as it may, I do hold that in murder trials held where no corpus delicti exists, the evidence can support a murder one charge provided the evidence is "clear and unyielding".

HTH

So, what you are left with are many cases where murderers are convicted, again not within your definition of "clear and unyielding." Yet, so many of them do not have their convictions reversed, d/t "jury error."

Again, your definition, plus your description of jury directions don't seem to exist, in the main.

 

[JBean]

Great! Maybe we will someday encounter a situation wherin it is applied to a real jury. For now, I think most of us doubt it, having never encountered it.

I am not sure what you mean Brini. There are basics to jury instructions and Wudge is describing something that is SOP.
Unless I am misunderstanding something?

 

[Brini]

I am not sure what you mean Brini. There are basics to jury instructions and Wudge is describing something that is SOP.
Unless I am misunderstanding something?

A number of us have ever encountered a judge who has instructed the jury to give greater weight to the defense evidence, even if it is less probable or believable. One of us posted the jury instruction for FL. It was not found therin.

 

[Wudge]

Great! Maybe we will someday encounter a situation wherin it is applied to a real jury. For now, I think most of us doubt it, having never encountered it.

I did post a case example. I know you read that post, because you replied to it.

Nevertheless, by far, the most important thing is to understand the logic behind the instruction. And in post #554, I provided a hypo to illuminate "why"-- law schools use similar hypos. The answer is (as explained in the hypo) that logic precludes a situation where a juror finds the defense offered a REASONABLE explanation for an item piece of evidence, yet the juror still uses that evidence to find the defendant guilty based on our standard of proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

It's logically impossible to close that equation.

(Please understand, the absolute key is whether a juror finds the defense's explanation to be REASONABLE. This is true even if prosecutors offer an explanation that the juror evaluates to be more reasonable -- as brought out in the hypo.)

HTH

 

[Themis]

I have located the jury instruction from California. Reading the whole instruction gives a different picture IMHO. There is no numeric percentage or "calibration" described. It applies only to circumstantial evidence and the jurors are also cautioned to reject unreasonable conclusions. Remember, direct evidence is: you saw it raining outside, that is proof that it is raining. Circumstantial evidence is when you saw someone come in the building wearing a raincoat that is wet and has droplets of water on it, that is circumstantial evidence and the conclusion you may draw is that it is raining outside. The instruction only applies to circumstantial evidence.

Instruction will be in the next post.

ETA: I will post in pieces because it is long and I keep getting bumped offline attempting to do one post.

 

[Themis]

224. Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence

Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a

fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you
must be convinced that the People have proved each fact essential
to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.​

Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the
defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable
conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the
defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable
conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those
reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt,
you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when
considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable
conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable.​

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/calcrim_juryins.pdf

 

[Themis]

New January 2006​

BENCH NOTES​

Instructional Duty​

The court has a​

​

​

​

sua sponte duty to instruct on how to evaluate circumstantial
evidence if the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to
establish any element of the case. (People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46,
49 [286 P.2d 1] [duty exists where circumstantial evidence relied on to prove
any element, including intent]; see People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333,
351–352 [233 Cal.Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802]; People v. Heishman (1988) 45
Cal.3d 147, 167 [246 Cal.Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629].)
There is no sua sponte duty to give this instruction when the circumstantial
evidence is incidental to and corroborative of direct evidence. (People v.
Malbrough (1961) 55 Cal.2d 249, 250–251 [10 Cal.Rptr. 632, 359 P.2d 30];​

People v. Watson​

​

​

​

​

(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 831 [299 P.2d 243]; People v. Shea​

(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1270–1271 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 388].) This is so
even when the corroborative circumstantial evidence is essential to the
prosecution’s case, e.g., when corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony is
required under Penal Code section 1111. (​

​

​

​

People v. Williams (1984) 162
Cal.App.3d 869, 874 [208 Cal.Rptr. 790].)
If intent is the only element proved by circumstantial evidence, do not give​

this instruction. Give CALCRIM No. 225, Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or

Mental State​

​

​

​

. (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 849 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d​

347, 919 P.2d 1280].)

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/calcrim_juryins.pdf

 

[Themis]

Direct Evidence De​

​

​

​

fined. Evid. Code, § 410.​

•​

​

​

​

Inference Defined. Evid. Code, § 600(b).​

•​

​

​

​

Between Two Reasonable Interpretations of Circumstantial Evidence,
Accept the One That Points to Innocence. People v. Merkouris (1956)
46 Cal.2d 540, 560–562 [297 P.2d 999] [error to refuse requested
instruction on this point]; People v. Johnson (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 58,
62 [328 P.2d 809] [sua sponte duty to instruct]; see People v. Wade​

(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1492 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 645].​

•​

​

​

​

Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Entirely Consistent With a Theory of
Guilt and Inconsistent With Any Other Rational Conclusion. People v.
Bender (1945) 27 Cal.2d 164, 175 [163 P.2d 8] [sua sponte duty to
instruct]; People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49 [286 P.2d 1]
[same].​

•​

​

​

​

Difference Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. People v. Lim
Foon (1915) 29 Cal.App. 270, 274 [155 P. 477] [no sua sponte duty to
instruct, but court approves definition]; People v. Goldstein (1956) 139
Cal.App.2d 146, 152–153 [293 P.2d 495] [sua sponte duty to instruct].​

•​

​

​

​

Each Fact in Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Proved. People
v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 831 [299 P.2d 243] [error to refuse
requested instruction on this point].​

•​

​

​

​

Sua Sponte Duty When Prosecutor’s Case Rests Substantially on
Circumstantial Evidence. People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333,​

351–352 [233 Cal.Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802].

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/calcrim_juryins.pdf

 

[JBean]

A number of us have ever encountered a judge who has instructed the jury to give greater weight to the defense evidence, even if it is less probable or believable. One of us posted the jury instruction for FL. It was not found therin.

I am late to the thread so I'll read when I get a chance so I have a btter understanding of the debate.

 

[butwhatif?]

Personally I dont think we have seen enough duct tape evidence that could prove that it was used to suffocate, stem fluids, or anything else.

Until we see a full report, its impossible to reach an informed conclusion about how/when/why the tape was used.

We also have to remember that even if we believe KC to be 100% guilty, none of us will be on the jury pool.
They will not be hearing one side of the evidence as we have over the last year, they will be hearing from the defence forensics experts who will attempt to disprove the evidence the state presents.

Even 12 jurors may think she is guilty, but may not believe that there is enough evidence to find her guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just because most people believe the totality of the evidence is enough to get a guilty verdict, doesnt mean that will be the jurys findings.

So many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes (not that I think KC fits in this group), and too many guilty perps get to walk...... so one thing we know is that justice does not always prevail.
JMO

 

[FORDANIEL]

If JB had ANY explanation that would "make us all clearly understand the reasons for her actions," she'd be out on the streets, even as I write.

:woohoo:Well said!