GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #4

[Loio]

Although the monkey is dressed in silk, a monkey he is, and a monkey he will remain.

Monkey see, monkey do. Lol.

 

[puakenikeni]

These are the instructions for second degree murder in Hawaii:
9.07 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE:H.R.S. § 707-701.5
[In Count (count number) of the Indictment/Complaint,
the] [The] Defendant, (defendant’s name), is charged with the
offense of Murder in the Second Degree.
A person commits the offense of Murder in the Second
Degree if he/she intentionally or knowingly causes the death of
another person.
There are two material elements of the offense of Murder
in the Second Degree, each of which the prosecution must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt.
These two elements are:
1. That on or about the (date) in the [City and]County of (name of county), the Defendant intentionally orknowingly engaged in conduct; and
2. That by engaging in that conduct, the Defendantintentionally or knowingly caused the death of another person.
Notes
H.R.S. §§ 707-701.5, 702-206(1) and (2).
For definition of states of mind, see instructions:
6.02 – “intentionally”
6.03 – “knowingly”

Jury Instructions for all crimes, see 9.07 for 2nd degree murder (quoted above), has a table of contents.
http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/docs4/crimjuryinstruct.pdf

Verdict instructions:
A verdict must be responsive to the evidence. In otherwords, the possible verdicts submitted to the jury are determinedand limited by the evidence submitted during trial. State v.Shon, 47 Haw. 158, 385 P.2d 830 (1963).

When the defendant is charged with lesser and greater offenses that would merge into one offense if committed concurrently, the court should instruct the jury that if it so finds, it must return a verdict only on the greater offense. State v. Ah Choy, 70 Haw. 618, 780 P.2d 1097 (1989); see alsoState v. Briones, 71 Haw. 86, 784 P.2d 860 (1989); State v.Reyes, 5 Haw. App. 561, 706 P.2d 1326 (1985).

Thought you might find the Alibi instructions of interest:
7.14 ALIBI
The Defendant has introduced evidence to show that he/she
was not present at the time and place of the commission of the
offense charged in [Count (count number) of] the
Indictment/Complaint. The State has the burden of establishing
beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant's presence at that time
and place.
If, after consideration of all the evidence in the case, you
have a reasonable doubt as to whether the Defendant was present
at the time the crime was committed, you must find the Defendant
not guilty.

 

[Kapua]

I agree Kapua, but the law isn't that simple. Casey Anthony was not found guilty because the jury did not believe enough evidence was presented per the instructions. Doesn't mean they didn't think she did it, just that the law didn't support a guilty verdict.

I'm trying to find the specific jury instructions for 2nd degree murder for Hawaii and haven't had luck yet.

I didn't follow the Casey Anthony case. I'll have to read up.

I did follow the Peterson case in 2002, however, and this one intrigued me because of its similarities: the unwanted pregnancy, the new girlfriend, the suspect with an alibi that made no sense, leading the police close to the site of the murder, giving an interview to the media thinking that he could fool everyone. And if you are familiar with that case, you know that Scott Peterson was found guilty and is now a guest of the state of CA in San Quentin, overlooking the bay where he disposed of the body of his beautiful wife, Laci. The state presented no DNA evidence or theory as to the manner in which she was killed.

Anyway, there's a lot more to come. The prosecution is just getting warmed up. There's a lot of evidence we haven't seen/heard. What did they find in his vehicle? What size were those jeans? What about the arson charge? How did they determine that SC burned Charli's vehicle? What will the cell phone records reveal? What will Cassie testify to? What do the other witness have to say? Do they really have video proving that SC's vehicle was not where he said it was overnight? And the forensic entomologist will be able to estimate time of death. Just a few things off the top of my head.

 

[Kapua]

Monkey see, monkey do. Lol.

More like you can't make a silk purse out of a monkey's ear. LOL

 

[heartgoesout]

Agreed Kapua, there is much more to come. We are only in the first week. I guess I'm just so nervous for him to walk.

 

[heartgoesout]

Pua, I don't have the time to look now but there are actual juror instructions.

 

[Kapua]

Agreed Kapua, there is much more to come. We are only in the first week. I guess I'm just so nervous for him to walk.

I totally agree that that would be tragic. And I am very disappointed that the State will not be able to present the DNA evidence (at least, as it stands now).

 

[puakenikeni]

Pua, I don't have the time to look now but there are actual juror instructions.

Those are the juror instructions in that pdf that are available by law in Hawaii. There are separate instructions for various parts of the whole. I think the judge is able to make them into his own set of instructions for the trial, that will conform to those requirements, adding the "you must" and "you must not" to address the jurors.
Legal docs in Hawaii are somewhat less user friendly and conversational than some other states, I have noticed.
But I'll definitely be interested in what you come up with when you have time to look.

 

[puakenikeni]

I didn't follow the Casey Anthony case. I'll have to read up.

I did follow the Peterson case in 2002, however, and this one intrigued me because of its similarities: the unwanted pregnancy, the new girlfriend, the suspect with an alibi that made no sense, leading the police close to the site of the murder, giving an interview to the media thinking that he could fool everyone. And if you are familiar with that case, you know that Scott Peterson was found guilty and is now a guest of the state of CA in San Quentin, overlooking the bay where he disposed of the body of his beautiful wife, Laci. The state presented no DNA evidence or theory as to the manner in which she was killed.

Anyway, there's a lot more to come. The prosecution is just getting warmed up. There's a lot of evidence we haven't seen/heard. What did they find in his vehicle? What size were those jeans? What about the arson charge? How did they determine that SC burned Charli's vehicle? What will the cell phone records reveal? What will Cassie testify to? What do the other witness have to say? Do they really have video proving that SC's vehicle was not where he said it was overnight? And the forensic entomologist will be able to estimate time of death. Just a few things off the top of my head.

I followed the Peterson case at the time, one of those cases that grabs your heart and shakes you to the core much like this case. There are so many similarities that it's almost like Steven emulated it, although who in his right mind copies a murder where the killer was caught and convicted I am not so sure.

Peterson had a whole fake life with another job and address where he was not legally married, so he took that part farther than Steven. At least Cassie knew about the baby.

As you say, there is weeks of this to come and lots more evidence and witnesses. It's for that reason I'm not into speculating what kind of verdict is shaping up. If the jurors follow the instructions, they are not permitted to lean towards a verdict prior to hearing the entire set of evidence.

 

[puakenikeni]

Especially since jurors probably​ wont Google and learn his dirty background.

that would be grounds for dismissal of that juror if they did.
Because Maui is like a small town where everyone knows everyone, and Steven was born and raised there, at least some of the jurors may know something about him, but they're supposed to disregard it if they do.

 

[puakenikeni]

Going back to the instructions I posted, the one on Alibi, it's interesting I think and challenging for the State. The charge for 2nd degree murder states a date and place that he did some act with either intent to kill her or knowing that such conduct would kill her (if you stab someone repeatedly, you are aware death is likely), and she did die due to his conduct.

The alibi defense says that if Steven presents a story placing himself elsewhere at that date and time (which he does), then the State has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was present at the time and place where she died.

It it does not say the State can do this by proving his story false. The State has to prove he was there, at Paraquat's with Charli, and could not have been somewhere else. It's only human to read a lot into him making up a story back when she disappeared, but people lie, even innocent people.

On the plus side, they can establish a time frame (how exact I don't know) for death from the bugs, and I suppose a place. That's much better than if they had found no remains. On the negative, they don't seem to have his DNA at the crime scene. They can't seem to prove the jeans with her blood on the legs were worn by him. They don't have a witness who can place him there.
They have cell phone pings, assuming that he doesn't try to deny that his phone was with him that night. I hope there are good pings.
I'm trying to think what else they might have to prove he was there. Remember, he does NOT have to prove that he was elsewhere, although it's helpful if he can. He does not have to prove his innocence. In practice though, a lot of people have been convicted for having no alibi that holds up. But those outcomes are questionable as to the justice they got.

 

[Napili]

I am very much interested in any testimony given by SC's former girlfriend, Cassie.

 

[Kapua]

Going back to the instructions I posted, the one on Alibi, it's interesting I think and challenging for the State. The charge for 2nd degree murder states a date and place that he did some act with either intent to kill her or knowing that such conduct would kill her (if you stab someone repeatedly, you are aware death is likely), and she did die due to his conduct.

The alibi defense says that if Steven presents a story placing himself elsewhere at that date and time (which he does), then the State has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was present at the time and place where she died.

It it does not say the State can do this by proving his story false. The State has to prove he was there, at Paraquat's with Charli, and could not have been somewhere else. It's only human to read a lot into him making up a story back when she disappeared, but people lie, even innocent people.

On the plus side, they can establish a time frame (how exact I don't know) for death from the bugs, and I suppose a place. That's much better than if they had found no remains. On the negative, they don't seem to have his DNA at the crime scene. They can't seem to prove the jeans with her blood on the legs were worn by him. They don't have a witness who can place him there.
They have cell phone pings, assuming that he doesn't try to deny that his phone was with him that night. I hope there are good pings.
I'm trying to think what else they might have to prove he was there. Remember, he does NOT have to prove that he was elsewhere, although it's helpful if he can. He does not have to prove his innocence. In practice though, a lot of people have been convicted for having no alibi that holds up. But those outcomes are questionable as to the justice they got.

In addition to the cell phone records, SC admits to being with Charli the night she disappeared, and very near to the place where some of her remains were found. There may be evidence from his Forerunner, too. If there is one tiny drop of Charli's blood in there, he is toast. Another thing I failed to mention is that I wonder if they traced the distinctive grille from Charli's Forerunner back to SC, and also the doors that were removed. That would be pretty incriminating. There's no way that Charli would willingly let SC take the grille and doors off of her car. I don't believe that the police/prosecution has yet laid all of their cards on the table. And there is some reason that he is charged with arson as well as murder.

In terms of the lies, there are just so many of them... This is one of the things that sunk Scott Peterson.

In terms of justice, justice to me means that innocent people go free, and cold-blooded killers go to jail. I hope justice is served in this case.

 

[puakenikeni]

I am very much interested in any testimony given by SC's former girlfriend, Cassie.

Me too!
Did she dump him immediately? Before she got on the plane? I seem to recall she met with Brooke when she got here.

 

[puakenikeni]

In addition to the cell phone records, SC admits to being with Charli the night she disappeared, and very near to the place where some of her remains were found. There may be evidence from his Forerunner, too. If there is one tiny drop of Charli's blood in there, he is toast. Another thing I failed to mention is that I wonder if they traced the distinctive grille from Charli's Forerunner back to SC, and also the doors that were removed. That would be pretty incriminating. There's no way that Charli would willingly let SC take the grille and doors off of her car. I don't believe that the police/prosecution has yet laid all of their cards on the table. And there is some reason that he is charged with arson as well as murder.

In terms of the lies, there are just so many of them... This is one of the things that sunk Scott Peterson.

In terms of justice, justice to me means that innocent people go free, and cold-blooded killers go to jail. I hope justice is served in this case.

I agree about what justice should be. Actually my comment about people convicted because they were without alibis but not proved positive to commit the crime was in thought of all the people of color and/or poverty who have been scapegoated all too easily.

i wouldn't feel too bad for Steven, myself, but I'm not sworn to follow the instructions.

 

[puakenikeni]

Scott Peterson had a whole other "life" he was playing. That's an extreme lie. He was older too, more established, and yet he went rogue.

I am not defending Steven and would not, but objectively he's a 24 year old youth with some pretty normal hobbies and loves organic food and protests Monsanto. So he has had a few girlfriends, and is shocked when a bar encounter leads to parenthood. None of that is evil. What he did is evil, and a complete disconnect with how he seemed to live. The evil has to be exposed or it is hard to believe, for someone like me anyway.

I've read many comments from local news readers who seem ready to believe with little evidence that any guy is a murderer whose ex gets pregnant. I guess they have a more cynical view of human beings than I do. But yet, in this case I believe they are correct.

 

[puakenikeni]

Right, Napili, I remember the one copied over dialogue. I think what happened here on this site is that it was off limits at the time to sleuth her (discuss her, name her). I think, but am not sure, that it is OK to discuss now that she is a witness and has been mentioned in the testimony, but I'm not a WS vet, so I could be very wrong.

My recollection from some form of Maui social media is that the Scotts were not holding her to blame, so that set the tone for their friends. Two years is a lot of perspective to gain, so hope she has something good to contribute.

I'm with you, not on Maui, not privy to many aspects, appreciate what is shared here.

 

[Loio]

I don't think Steven will claim to have misplaced his phone Sunday evening when he admittedly said he texted Charli on Monday morning to say "thank you."

Looking over his public blog to establish a timeframe for his breakup with Taylor, I wonder if his September 25th date is in fact correct. Apparently he posted about the breakup on September 15, 2013. If the interview with Loo is to be believed, the night he broke up with his gf and threw her things in the street is the same night he went home with Charli. Conception is tricky to pinpoint but at least we know it didn't happen the day before. The correct day is crucial in my opinion because the posts following 9/15/13 were those of a broken hearted man, with a tinge of bitterness and confusion. It establishes a pattern with SC. He seems to stew over his predictament and then snap or do something extreme, like slashing tires and burglary (and murder). He definitely wears his heart on his sleeve when it comes to women.

 

[DaleTray]

I am very much interested in any testimony given by SC's former girlfriend, Cassie.

As a newbie I have heard mention of Cassie (the ex gf of SC). I recall the detective saying she was pretty when SC displayed her pic on his phone and that she was ok w the pregnancy. If someone could provide me her last name maybe I can find some interview on You Tube or a transcript. TIA

 

[heartgoesout]

I am not defending Steven and would not, but objectively he's a 24 year old youth with some pretty normal hobbies and loves organic food and protests Monsanto. So he has had a few girlfriends, and is shocked when a bar encounter leads to parenthood. None of that is evil. What he did is evil, and a complete disconnect with how he seemed to live. The evil has to be exposed or it is hard to believe, for someone like me anyway.

snipped by me

This is what I've been thinking as well. Seems Daletray was here too. IMO Its hard for good people to fathom that this crime could have been done by someone she loved. Our brains want it to be some stranger psycho monster because it's easier to understand. I need to hear these inconsistencies. I need it all wrapped up where it makes sense. For some reason my brain is trying to tell me that he did kill her but had someone else finish because I don't know him and I'm having a hard time picturing this nature loving, skinny man, who loved art and animals with a cheery unassuming voice using a serrated blade on her. It's just heartbreaking.