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

[cecybeans]

Hello,



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.

HTH

respectfully snipped by me...

While it is true that jurors may have become more jaded toward defendants, it is also true that what some legal talking heads are referring to as the "CSI Syndrome" is also occurring, in that juries are becoming unreasonably persnickety about the quantity and quality of forensic evidence necessary to reasonably point to guilt, due to the preponderance of TV shows and movies in which dna evidence, fingerprints and all kinds of other circumstantial forensics are not only readily available but apparently necessary in order to convict at all. In fact, the OJ trial is an example of that fact, in which, although the chances of another killer having the same dna profile of OJ's found on the scene were something like one in a gazillion, people chose to look at that as "reasonable" doubt because perhaps less than a handful or so unnamed people on the entire planet might have a similar dna profile even though the odds of them being in Brentwood or even knowing the victims were infintisimally small. I think that both forces might tend to neutralize each other when it comes to jury predispositions.

 

[JBean]

Soooo guilty or not guilty? where do you stand?

break out the discussion to the appropriate threads please.

Guilty or not guilty where do you stand?


ETA: It is going to be very difficult to locate this great discussion in the future.

 

[Brini]

Well, actually I think at this point it would need to be argued in court.

Maybe, maybe not. If there is real reason to believe that the BHM did it, or the Invisinanny, and she exists, KC could walk now, and LE could go after whomever. And, that has happened in the annals of law enforcement. They arrest the boyfriend, and find out it really WAS a burglar who did the deed.

Or, as JB has hinted, a convincing reason why she behaved as she did that would exonerate her.

Other people have been let out of jail, when the real perp is exposed. With LE's deepest apologies. Or, when LE found out that they were where they were WHEN they were for a perfectly legit reason.

 

[Brini]

break out the discussion to the appropriate threads please.

Guilty or not guilty where do you stand?


ETA: It is going to be very difficult to locate this great discussion in the future.

Guilty.

 

[Brini]

respectfully snipped by me...

While it is true that jurors may have become more jaded toward defendants, it is also true that what some legal talking heads are referring to as the "CSI Syndrome" is also occurring, in that juries are becoming unreasonably persnickety about the quantity and quality of forensic evidence necessary to reasonably point to guilt, due to the preponderance of TV shows and movies in which dna evidence, fingerprints and all kinds of other circumstantial forensics are not only readily available but apparently necessary in order to convict at all. In fact, the OJ trial is an example of that fact, in which, although the chances of another killer having the same dna profile of OJ's found on the scene were something like one in a gazillion, people chose to look at that as "reasonable" doubt because perhaps less than a handful or so unnamed people on the entire planet might have a similar dna profile even though the odds of them being in Brentwood or even knowing the victims were infintisimally small. I think that both forces might tend to neutralize each other when it comes to jury predispositions.

Well, I guess I've been lucky. All my juries went by common sense.

On one trial, we were initially thinking that the guy did it. The cop said so. The guy was not an appealing sort of person. He was not a sterling citizen, either, and was guilty of some stuff.

Enter common sense. We let him off. For sound, legal reasons.

 

[Brini]

BTW-- YOu folks know where the term, "Scot free" came from?

There are, or were, anyway (I don't know which) three verdicts that could be given in Scots courts: Guilty, Not Guilty, or Not Proven.

A female poisoner, infamous, at the time, was found "Not Proven."

 

[cecybeans]

break out the discussion to the appropriate threads please.

Guilty or not guilty where do you stand?


ETA: It is going to be very difficult to locate this great discussion in the future.

Sorry JB if I was OT,(I thought I was being a tad heavy-handed about saying why I thought KC is guilty) - I was just trying to add that I think it would be hard for a jury to rule otherwise either, given that I can't imagine anything that would hold up well as "reasonable" doubt under the circumstances.

 

[JBean]

Sorry JB if I was OT,(I thought I was being a tad heavy-handed about saying why I thought KC is guilty) - I was just trying to add that I think it would be hard for a jury to rule otherwise either, given that I can't imagine anything that would hold up well as "reasonable" doubt under the circumstances.

This discussion is fantastic cecybeans..but it is going to be hard to locate and revisit in the future. I am not going to close anything I am just bumping other threads, creating new ones and hoping for the best

 

[MissJames]

The defense is asking for a later trial date so that Andrea Lyon has the opportunity to prepare for the case which is entirely reasonable, IMO. The later trial date has nothing to do with what the defense will be whatsoever. There may, in fact, be a reasonable explanation. We will have to wait and see at the trial.

Not buying it.If there was a reasonable explaination they would run with it.
The reason AL needs more time to prepare is because the defense wants to try and find ways to pick at the overwhelming evidence of KC's guilt.Yes,AL teaches ,and that is interferring in the time she has to devote to KC's case.So be it.The judge is bending over backwards to avoid an appeal.It's what they do.
But if there truly was a reasonable explanation the defense would be all to happy to get into court and clear this up.
ALSO the farther away we get from the incident ,the better it is for the defense and they know it.They hope for lost evidence and faulty memories after so much time.Makes their job easier.
So I believe the stallig has EVERYTHING to do with what their defense is ,or isn't.Or the fact they don't have one ,yet.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge,
Do you think they will change to an accident defense?

When the trial starts, I believe the current defense counsel construction might well be different and the defense offered on behalf of Casey might well surprise. Moreover, experience has taught me that significant evidence revelations after a high-profile trial starts are far more likely to come from the defense.

LE and the D.A.'s office feel immense pressure in high-profile cases to demonstate progess, make arrests and gain indictments. To achieve pressure relief, it's common for them to leak the names of persons of interest (suspects) and evidence to the media as soon as they have something new. Defense counsel more often arrives later and are less prone to let the cat-out-of-the bag if they have exculpatory or exonerating evidence that is unknown to the public.

(For example, consider what took place in OJ's murder trial as time passed.)

 

[Tuba]

Guilty. A year and a half ago, Leah Hickman was murdered in her apt. bldg. in WVA. Her body was after a time discovered in the crawl space of the basement. The other tenant in the bldg. was on a trip to OH. The killer has not been apprehended but I think from what evidence police have he will be charged with murder one. What he did after killing Leah was not a clever concealment. It does not represent careful disposal. Yet premeditated design in homicide cases is merely the mental purpose, the formed intent, to take human life. Premeditation does not require a well thought out plot with no loose ends. I do not believe the sloppy handling of KC's victim after the fact argues that the homicide was unintentional.

 

[MissJames]

When the trial starts, I believe the current defense counsel construction might well be different and the defense offered on behalf of Casey might well surprise. Moreover, experience has taught me that significant evidence revelations after a high-profile trial starts are far more likely to come from the defense.

LE and the D.A.'s office feel immense pressure in high-profile cases to demonstate progess, make arrests and gain indictments. To achieve pressure relief, it's common for them to leak the names of persons of interest (suspects) and evidence to the media as soon as they have something new. Defense counsel more often arrives later and are less prone to let the cat-out-of-the bag if they have exculpatory or exonerating evidence that is unknown to the public.

(For example, consider what took place in OJ's murder trial as time passed.)

In this case LE and the DA's office didn't need to leak anything due to the Sunshine Laws

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Soooo guilty or not guilty? where do you stand?

GUILTY. The 31 days. That was it for me. The rest of it........just validated my first reaction to a mother not reporting her daughter missing.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

When the trial starts, I believe the current defense counsel construction might well be different and the defense offered on behalf of Casey might well surprise. Moreover, experience has taught me that significant evidence revelations after a high-profile trial starts are far more likely to come from the defense.

(snipped)

Well, being an "everyday lay person", I have been trying to conceive a defense that not only would surprise us but explain the evidence we have seen thus far. But according to your previous posts, I guess any explanation that the defense offers has to be given more merit than what the SA has to offer. :crazy:

 

[Wudge]

Honey, you offered an equation . I only remember half of it. But, I believe you said if the defense poses an explanation that is 35% reasonable, and the state poses an explanation that is (I forgot what %age, but it was larger) (65%?), the jury must give greater weight to the defense's explanation.

No. Please reread my hypo (post #554). I've never said "the jury must give greater weight" to the defense's explanation.

What I have consistently stated and/or explained is that if the prosecution and the defense both offer reasonable explanations, jurors are instructed that they must accept (adopt, yield to) the defense's "reasonable" explanation -- the word "reasonable" is the key to the logic behind this much discussed instruction.

HTH

(Please quote from my hypo if you find otherwise.)

 

[Murdock]

Soooo guilty or not guilty? where do you stand?

Guilty. As interesting as some of the alternate theories have been, I just can't see a resonable situation where a mother doesn't report her kid missing, or injured, unless she has something to hide.

 

[cecybeans]

When the trial starts, I believe the current defense counsel construction might well be different and the defense offered on behalf of Casey might well surprise. Moreover, experience has taught me that significant evidence revelations after a high-profile trial starts are far more likely to come from the defense.

LE and the D.A.'s office feel immense pressure in high-profile cases to demonstate progess, make arrests and gain indictments. To achieve pressure relief, it's common for them to leak the names of persons of interest (suspects) and evidence to the media as soon as they have something new. Defense counsel more often arrives later and are less prone to let the cat-out-of-the bag if they have exculpatory or exonerating evidence that is unknown to the public.

(For example, consider what took place in OJ's murder trial as time passed.)

I respect your experience and this is most likely true. However, all the name leaking and innuendo on suspects has been done by the defense in this case. By using every imaginable delay tactic and parading themselves in front of the media at every given opportunity, this defense, when the case finally gets to trial may find that the cat they finally let out of the bag has simply suffocated.

(and I tend to agree with Bugliosi's excellent vivisection of that trial in his book about the same, and his contention of how poorly the prosecution team performed as one of the significant reasons for OJ's acquittal in the criminal case).

 

[Wudge]

(snipped)

SNIP

But according to your previous posts, I guess any explanation that the defense offers has to be given more merit than what the SA has to offer.

SNIP

I never said nor implied that more merit has to be given to "any" defense explanation. What has been most discussed is the instruction that only relates to a particular condition; i.e., when the prosecution and the defense both provide reasonable explanations.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

Guilty. As interesting as some of the alternate theories have been, I just can't see a resonable situation where a mother doesn't report her kid missing, or injured, unless she has something to hide.

Consider that Casey might have hoped to hide something other than that she committed a premeditated murder.

 

[Balthazar]

Bu, Princess, if there was an explanation that exonerates KC, as JB has hinted, he could go to LE and spring her right this minute.

Not necessarily. The explanation might be such that it is best presented in court.