In regards to the lying charges, they will be instructed to weigh the facts only. They will not hear from Casey herself, I don't think, so the state will have to present what she said and why it's not true. The jury will be read the law, and they told to only consider what the state can prove to be true.
In the neglect charge, I think they will be read the law and be told to consider only the evidence......only the fact that the mother was unable to say exactly where she last saw her child. I think this the one charge the defense will not "fight" as much, and may be willing to take a guilty verdict, in hopes that the jury will feel OK about getting justice if they pronounce guilty on the neglect/abuse charge.
For the murder charge, they will be read the law and all statues. They will be instructed that must consider only the evidence presented in court, and that the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1, a murder occurred, 2, no one else could have been involved, and 3, Casey alone is responsible.
Historically, jury instructions in criminal cases have found their roots in Constitutional or statutory law and then evolved through case law. I wonder if the internet discussions are going to impact jury instructions; by showing a need to refute misguided concepts held by the public and on the blogs. For example, in the Guilty/Not Guilty poll thread there is an extensive discussion about some some called a "reasonable explanation" jury instruction, and that turned out to be a perception that was not entirely accurate. When we looked up the exact language of the jury instruction and the case law that spawned the jury instruction, it turned out it was only addressing the sufficiency of evidence when addressing circumstantial evidence. These street myths on legal standards have, no doubt, impacted cases in the past, to be sure. However, with the invention of the computer, the internet and blogs, there may arise a compelling need to address not only the law and legal standards, but also to address and refute the street myths.
That and there seems to be a misconception between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond the shadow of doubt".
In essence there can still be a doubt in the mind of the juror, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.
Beyond the shadow of doubt implies that there can be no doubt in the jurors mind what so ever, and that is not what is implied by the jury instructions if I'm not mistaken.
Yeah, well, about 3 jury trials ago I was worried about jurors writing their own jury instructions based upon TV programs, etc., I requested an instruction to dispel what I thought a layperson might believe was the law. The judge said no, because nothing in the instructions he planned to give was going to suggest that idea to the jury, and nothing the opposing counsel was going to say would give them such an idea. Basically he adopted the fiction that the jurors walk in as "blank slates" regarding the law.
So...we lost, and afterward we spoke to the jury foreman, and he explained, "Well, we thought it was really weird that no one mentioned that upon the happening of [X event], of course, [Y would be the legal result]. But several of us knew about that rule from watching Court TV, etc., so we just applied the rule anyway."
Grrr. Arrrgh. :banghead:
That and there seems to be a misconception between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond the shadow of doubt".
In essence there can still be a doubt in the mind of the juror, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.
Beyond the shadow of doubt implies that there can be no doubt in the jurors mind what so ever, and that is not what is implied by the jury instructions if I'm not mistaken.
That and there seems to be a misconception between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond the shadow of doubt".
In essence there can still be a doubt in the mind of the juror, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.
Beyond the shadow of doubt implies that there can be no doubt in the jurors mind what so ever, and that is not what is implied by the jury instructions if I'm not mistaken.
SNIP
Basically he adopted the fiction that the jurors walk in as "blank slates" regarding the law.
SNIP
Grrr. Arrrgh. :banghead:
SNIP
For example, in the Guilty/Not Guilty poll thread there is an extensive discussion about some some called a "reasonable explanation" jury instruction, and that turned out to be a perception that was not entirely accurate. When we looked up the exact language of the jury instruction and the case law that spawned the jury instruction, it turned out it was only addressing the sufficiency of evidence when addressing circumstantial evidence.
SNIP
The explanatory hypo I posted specifically conditions but "circumstantial evidence".
Perception problem?
Myth?
HTH
Hi Wudge,
I asked a ? on the GuiltyvsNot Guilty thread about Circumstantial evidence,but it was OT.I'll ask here.
You stated that juries are not allowed to speculate,period.
I thought that circumstantial evidence,by it's very nature,requires speculation to reach a reasonable conclusion.Casey not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days,the video of KC and TL at Blockbuster the night of the 16th,the party pics ,NO ONE seeing Caylee after the 16th/17th,KC lying about dropping off Caylee at Sawgrass apts,KC lying about having a job.
All is circumstantial to the actual death and requires speculation on how it relates to Caylee's murder.Otherwise it's of no use to the SA,is it not?
I am not a lawyer , been a juror a few times. Isn't there something in the law that states "if a fact can be applied either way (for defense or prosecution) it must go to the defense.
In other words that it is just as reasonable a person was seen walking into a bank, that the person may have robbed the bank or did not rob the bank. Probably a bad example but it is early I haven't had my coffee yet.