Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[MissJames]

"Circumstances of the killing" proved beyond a reasonable doubt would be inculpatory evidence if the act was criminal.

If the jury found the defendant's post crime behavior (conduct) to be consciousness of guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be corroborative evidence -- posters allude to a smorgasboard of corrobative evidence in this case.

The core question remains: as regards the circumstances of the alleged killing, what evidence proves the circumstances of the killing beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.]

The babies dead,Duct tape over her mouth,wrapped up in garbage bags and thrown into the woods for 7 months.Mom was out partying and playing house with her new boyfriend.
That's enough for me.
It's just really not that complicated.

 

[Wudge]

Been looking around a bit for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that KC's lies will be used to prove her guilt. If anyone remains unconvinced that this is well settled Florida law, then, imo, you haven't read the information below.

Burkell v. State, No. 4D06-1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
Walker v. State, 495 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (holding that evidence that defendant had lied to police to defeat or avoid prosecution was admissible as showing consciousness of guilt).

Brooks v. State, 2005.FL.0002957 (Fla. 2005)
When a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight, concealment, resistance to lawful arrest, or other indications after the fact of a desire to evade prosecution, such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstances.

See also United States v. Holbert, 578 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1978) (false exculpatory statements may be used as substantive evidence tending to prove guilt.)

From Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980) Brown lied about his whereabouts on the day of the crime. This was substantive evidence tending to prove Brown's guilt and was admissible in the State's case in chief.

United States v. Merrill, 484 F.2d 168 (8th Cir. 1973) (where the Government introduced in its case in chief both the defendant's statement that he had never been in the state where the crime was committed and proof that the defendant had been in the state the day the crime was committed); Matthew v. State, 263 Ind. 672, 337 N.E.2d 821 (1976) (where the state introduced in its case in chief the defendant's grand jury testimony that he had been at a certain friend's house on the night the crime was committed and the friend's testimony that the defendant was not at her house that night). See also United States v. Holbert, 578 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1978) ("the (defendant's) argument overlooks a long line of authority which recognizes that false exculpatory statements may be used not only to impeach, but also as substantive evidence tending to prove guilt."); United States v. Pistante, 453 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1971) (the defendant's pre-trial explanations were admissible in the Government's case in chief to prove consciousness of guilt and unlawful intent, even though defendant was not going to take the stand); Douglas v. State, 89 So.2d 659 (Fla.1956) (where, in dicta, the court stated that under circumstances where "one accused of a crime might deny guilt and then offer a false alibi, a false denial that he owned a weapon of the type employed in committing the crime or a similar statement that could be disproved independently of the proof of the commission of the crime by the defendant," proof of such false statement is evidence tending to show the defendant's guilt).

Samuels v. State, No. 4D07-359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
See Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903, 908 (Fla. 1981) ("When a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight, concealment, resistance to lawful arrest, or other indications after the fact of a desire to evade prosecution, such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstance").

Corroborative evidence can confirm (strengthen) inculpatory evidence, however, it is not inculpatory evidence. Lies to LE after an alleged crime are but corroborative evidence. In and of itself, corrobative evidence (consciousness of guilt, flight, etc..) is not sufficient to prove guilt.

Prosecutors could prove fifty items of corroborative evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, however, without inculpatory evidence, those fifty items of corroborative evidence would be insufficient to prove guilt.

 

[MissJames]

KC didn't even have the good sense to PRETEND she was trying to help find Caylee when she was out on bond.
I think her behavior during that period will also be evidence.

 

[MissJames]

Corroborative evidence can confirm (strengthen) inculpatory evidence, however, it is not inculpatory evidence. Lies to LE after an alleged crime are but corroborative evidence. In and of itself, corrobative evidence (consciousness of guilt, flight, etc..) is not sufficient to prove guilt.

Prosecutors could prove fifty items of corroborative evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, however, without inculpatory evidence, those fifty items of corroborative evidence would be insufficient to prove guilt.

Would you consider telling us what evidence you DO think the Prosecution has and where it falls into your categories of evidence?
What will it take[ in your opinion] for the SA to prove the charge?

 

[Brini]

Corroborative evidence can confirm (strengthen) inculpatory evidence, however, it is not inculpatory evidence. Lies to LE after an alleged crime are but corroborative evidence. In and of itself, corrobative evidence (consciousness of guilt, flight, etc..) is not sufficient to prove guilt.

Prosecutors could prove fifty items of corroborative evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, however, without inculpatory evidence, those fifty items of corroborative evidence would be insufficient to prove guilt.

Worked in quite a few other cases. SP being just one.

 

[Wudge]

The babies dead,Duct tape over her mouth,wrapped up in garbage bags and thrown into the woods for 7 months.Mom was out partying and playing house with her new boyfriend.
That's enough for me.
It's just really not that complicated.

Caylee's dead body does not prove how she died much less prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence does not establish that the tape was applied before she died. Rather the evidence simply states that the tape was applied before decomposition began. As regards the tape, there's no basis for proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt

Partying after the alleged date of Caylee's death is neither inculpatory evidence nor a basis for proving premeditation.

 

[Wudge]

Would you consider telling us what evidence you DO think the Prosecution has and where it falls into your categories of evidence?
What will it take[ in your opinion] for the SA to prove the charge?

The vast majority of what I read other posters refer to as evidence is but corroborative evidence at best. There's no direct evidence in this case. Therefore, as regards the premeditated murder charge, prosecutors must produce inculpatory circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lin]

Corroborative evidence can confirm (strengthen) inculpatory evidence, however, it is not inculpatory evidence. Lies to LE after an alleged crime are but corroborative evidence. In and of itself, corrobative evidence (consciousness of guilt, flight, etc..) is not sufficient to prove guilt.

Prosecutors could prove fifty items of corroborative evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, however, without inculpatory evidence, those fifty items of corroborative evidence would be insufficient to prove guilt.

Perhaps it would be helpful to read the cases before dismissing them? If you had, you'd know how much this post conflicts with the law. Again, People v. Scott, the only evidence they had was his behavior. Am I again misunderstanding your position? If so, please rephrase or explain in more detail.

Something that confirms (strengthens) something else doesn't seem to me to be substantively tending to prove guilt, which is well settled Florida law about false exculpatory statements.

I did read the cases and the lies told by the defendants were used as evidence of their guilt and the jury was allowed to consider this evidence in reaching their verdict. What am I missing?

 

[lin]

Caylee's dead body does not prove how she died much less prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence does not establish that the tape was applied before she died. Rather the evidence simply states that the tape was applied before decomposition began. As regards the tape, there's no basis for proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt

Partying after the alleged date of Caylee's death is neither inculpatory evidence nor a basis for proving premeditation.

Unless you can cite something other than your opinion to the contrary, we've established pretty conclusively that the "how" is not necessary. The state doesn't need to prove how.

As regards the tape, that is how you view the evidence. Taken in totality with all the other evidence, a jury may and imo most likely will, view it quite a bit differently.

 

[MissJames]

The vast majority of what I read other posters refer to as evidence is but corroborative evidence at best. There's no direct evidence in this case. Therefore, as regards the premeditated murder charge, prosecutors must produce inculpatory circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is that a no?
It's very hard for me to understand your point about the evidence if you won't be more specific.If you simply wish not to,that's fine,but it would help me understand your arguments better.

 

[Wudge]

Perhaps it would be helpful to read the cases before dismissing them? If you had, you'd know how much this post conflicts with the law. Again, People v. Scott, the only evidence they had was his behavior. Am I again misunderstanding your position? If so, please rephrase or explain in more detail.

Something that confirms (strengthens) something else doesn't seem to me to be substantively tending to prove guilt, which is well settled Florida law about false exculpatory statements.

I did read the cases and the lies told by the defendants were used as evidence of their guilt and the jury was allowed to consider this evidence in reaching their verdict. What am I missing?

Cite the law that states corroborative evidence is sufficient to prove murder one.

You do not understand the limits of corroboartive evidence. The judge will instruct the jury on what represents corroborative evidence and further instruct the jury that, in and of itself, it's insufficient to prove guilt.

Corroborative evidence is akin to a prosecutor showing the jury a boxed present wrapped in beautiful paper and adorned with ribbons and bows. He tells the jury that as pretty as the wrapping are, what's inside the box is the real proof of guilt (rock-solid inculpatory evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

Though the jurors were enamored with the wrapping, ribbons and bows (corroborative evidence), they did not find the required inculpatory evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This left them with pretty paper, bows and ribbons, all of which are insufficient to prove guilt.

 

[Wudge]

Is that a no?
It's very hard for me to understand your point about the evidence if you won't be more specific.If you simply wish not to,that's fine,but it would help me understand your arguments better.

You did not ask a yes or no question.

I hold the evidence we know of does not prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what the prosecutors need and lack. Hence, my point of view is that the evidence is insufficient to support the murder one charge.

Please recognize that the usual evidence sources for inculpatory evidence are void of evidence.

Eyewitness? No.

Confession? No.

Place of death crime scene? No

Forensic evidence from that crime scene? No.

Cause of death? No.

Mechanism of death? No.

Time of death? No.


What's the inculpatory evidence that proves premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[lin]

Cite the law that states corroborative evidence is sufficient to prove murder one.

You do not understand the limits of corroboartive evidence. The judge will instruct the jury on what represents corroborative evidence and further instruct the jury that, in and of itself, it's insufficient to prove guilt.

Corroborative evidence is akin to a prosecutor showing the jury a boxed present wrapped in beautiful paper and adorned with ribbons and bows. He tells the jury that as pretty as the wrapping are, what's inside the box is the real proof of guilt (rock-solid inculpatory evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

Though the jurors were enamored with the wrapping, ribbons and bows (corroborative evidence), they did not find the required inculpatory evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This left them with pretty paper, bows and ribbons, all of which are insufficient to prove guilt.

I have never suggested that corroborative evidence can prove any such thing. What I have done is cite numerous cases showing it is well settled Florida law that exculpatory lies are "substantive" and tend to show guilt.

Please cite your source that shows they are not substantive evidence and admissible; or are 'merely corroborative.' I didn't read the entire jury instructions but did a word search and was unable to even find the word "inclupatory." Please let me know where it is

Here's a link to the Florida Supreme Court website, standard jury instructions:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...ers/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

You wrote: "The judge will instruct the jury on what represents corroborative evidence and further instruct the jury that, in and of itself, it's insufficient to prove guilt." Can you please cite a specific page or section that shows the court will so instruct? I couldn't find it.

However, I did find this which I found interesting and hope others do as well:

"Under Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976), felony murder is included within a single indictment count of premeditated murder. Therefore, first degree felony murder should be given if requested by the state and if supported by the evidence, although it is not a lesser included offense."

 

[lin]

You did not ask a yes or no question.

I hold the evidence we know of does not prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what the prosecutors need and lack. Hence, my point of view is that the evidence is insufficient to support the murder one charge.

Please recognize that the usual evidence sources for inculpatory evidence are void of evidence.

Eyewitness? No.

Confession? No.

Place of death crime scene? No

Forensic evidence from that crime scene? No.

Cause of death? No.

Mechanism of death? No.

Time of death? No.


What's the inculpatory evidence that proves premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt?

Actually, I think the question was open ended, as in would you consider, easily answered with a yes or no but likely hoping for a detailed response. When one was not forthcoming, it appears our dear friend assumed the answer to 'would you consider' to be no.

 

[tweety933]

The vast majority of what I read other posters refer to as evidence is but corroborative evidence at best. There's no direct evidence in this case. Therefore, as regards the premeditated murder charge, prosecutors must produce inculpatory circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Would you consider the fabrication of the imaginanny, whom Casey claimed to be called Zanny, months prior to Caylee's death.....and the subsequent use of the kidnapping story blaming the same imaginanny (Now specifically Zanny ZFG), as circumstantial evidence that could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude there was..... pre-meditation. Because I think she made up the imaginary nanny (premeditating) to provide a historical basis to blame Caylee's eventual demise on! Why else tell everyone that Caylee was with a nanny, when in fact she was being cared for by known caregivers? There is NO evidence that a nanny EVER existed, and was only a ploy to set up a premeditated demise of her own daughter, whom could be then be blamed on the nanny of HISPANIC origin. KWIM?

 

[tweety933]

A bit off topic, but I think it is reasonable to conclude that Casey lied about her parents and their marital problems with each other, as well, to provide a historical dilemma (premeditation) that could be used as a possible motive that would involve either one or both of them being killed at a later time. JMHO

 

[MissJames]

The vast majority of what I read other posters refer to as evidence is but corroborative evidence at best. There's no direct evidence in this case. Therefore, as regards the premeditated murder charge, prosecutors must produce inculpatory circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

What do you consider the evidence? Not what other posters have discussed.
Please be specific and help a girl out here.
Is the duct tape evidence of anything?
Is the fact Caylee was placed in garbage bags and near the home evidence of anything?
Are the lies KC told evidence of anything?
The 31 days KC kept telling people Caylee was with the nanny,or with her mom....is that any type of eveidence ?
The decomp in the car,the hair from an Anthony female that showed evidence of decomposition that was found in KC's car?The one she left at Amscott ,the one TL saw her leave at Amscott?
Is any of this any type of evidence?
Can you think of anything else specifically ?

 

[lin]

Are we perhaps unwittingly debating apples and oranges? It is the rule that prior inconsistent statements may not be used substantively as the sole evidence to convict. That's different from false statements.

ETA: Even if there were no difference, that is not the sole evidence in this case.

 

[Wudge]

I have never suggested that corroborative evidence can prove any such thing.

You said: "If you had, you'd know how much this post conflicts with the law."

So I asked you to cite the "law".

 

[lin]

You said: "If you had, you'd know how much this post conflicts with the law."

So I asked you to cite the "law".

Which I have already done. If you had read the cases cited, you'd know...

So, again, please cite your authorities and reference the jury instruction you assert will be given. I provided the link to the standard; a reference in case law or other authority is just as good.