Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Themis]

If a poster demands that another poster cite legal authority for their position, it seems only fair that the one making the demand should first cite their legal authority. IMHO, of course.

 

[lin]

If a poster demands that another poster cite legal authority for their position, it seems only fair that the one making the demand should first cite their legal authority. IMHO, of course.

Or refrain from claiming legal authority without citation...

 

[Wudge]

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 ?

Duct tape is physical evidence. It is not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Garbage bags are physical evidence. They're not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Casey's lies to LE are evidence. They're not evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caey committed a premeditated murder.

Decomposition evidence is physical evidence. It's not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Lies Casey might have told regarding a Nanny could be evidence. However, any such lies are not evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.


There is no direct evidence. So what specific inculpatory circumstantial evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder? If there is any such circumstantial evidence that you hold does this, please layout the premises you believe enables a true and valid inferred conclusion from that evidence that proves premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lin]

Duct tape is physical evidence. It is not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Garbage bags are physical evidence. They're not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Casey's lies to LE are evidence. They're not evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caey committed a premeditated murder.

Decomposition evidence is physical evidence. It's not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Lies Casey might have told regarding a Nanny could be evidence. However, any such lies are not evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.


There is no direct evidence. So what specific inculpatory circumstantial evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder? If there is any such circumstantial evidence that you hold does this, please layout the premises you believe enables a true and valid inferred conclusion from that evidence that proves premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nice job laying out the case. Where we disagree, I think, is in that in the totality of this evidence, each strengthens the other and leads to the inescapable conclusion of KC's guilt.

 

[tweety933]

Duct tape is physical evidence. It is not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Garbage bags are physical evidence. They're not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Casey's lies to LE are evidence. They're not evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caey committed a premeditated murder.

Decomposition evidence is physical evidence. It's not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Lies Casey might have told regarding a Nanny could be evidence. However, any such lies are not evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.


There is no direct evidence. So what specific inculpatory circumstantial evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder? If there is any such circumstantial evidence that you hold does this, please layout the premises you believe enables a true and valid inferred conclusion from that evidence that proves premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Casey lied about a nanny named Zanny months prior to Caylee going missing, and then blamed a nanny named Zanny when Caylee went missing, is that evidence of anything in your opinion Wudge? TIA

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

a reference in case law or other authority is just as good.

In Scott Peterson's trial, jury instructions 41, 50 and 76 clearly show the limits of corroborative evidence.

41. If you find that before this trial the defendant made willfully false or deliberately misleading statements concerning the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider these statements as a circumstance
tending to prove a consciousness of guilt. However, that conduct is not sufficient, by itself, to prove guilt, and its weight and sufficiency or significance, if any, are for you to decide.

50. Evidence of dog tracking of the victim has been received for your consideration. This evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder. Before guilt may be inferred, there must be other evidence that supports the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence. The evidence can be direct or circumstantial, and must support the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence.

76. The attempted flight of a person after the commission of a crime, or after he is accused of a crime, is not sufficient, in itself, to establish his guilt, but is a fact with which, if proved, may be considered by you in the light of all the other proved facts in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

HTH

 

[Devon]

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Foundation.

There have been numerous no-body, no cause of death convictions. It is not necessary to prove circumstances of the killing. It is necessary to prove the victim died, which in this case, the remains prove beyond any doubt. It is not necessary to prove how.

The cumulative effect of all the other evidence, the car trunk containing Caylee's body and KC's possession of said car; KC's being the last person seen with Caylee; KC's lies to LE to avoid prosecution or indeed, her lies to avoid investigation; etc. etc. will all prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KC is responsible for Caylee's death. The state need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt how she did it; just that she did it.

Can anyone think of a reasonable explanation for lying to LE in obstruction of the search for Caylee?

Can anyone think of a reasonable explanation for lying about receiving a call from her long deceased daughter, once the investigation she had long attempted to prevent actually started?

Can anyone think of a reasonable explanation for fabricating a babysitter and lying to LE about leaving her child with the imaginanny?

These are just a few of the hurdles the defense must overcome.

ETA: 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).

The problem is that whilst all the evidence you've quoted points to KC's knowledge of Caylee's death, to concealment of her body and to lying to, and obstructing, LE, none of it goes further than a potential level of reliable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that (in your own words) KC was 'responsible for Caylee's death'.

It's the 'it' in 'The state need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt how she did it; just that she did it' that's the crux of the issue. KC's behaviour after June 16 does not tell us if Caylee's death was premeditated murder, or unintentional during a loss of control or the result of some negligent act or omission by KC. In all these circumstances I would expect her behaviour to be exactly as it was - evasive, deceptive, deceitful and obstructive. None of that behaviour proves premeditation.

As for the 'circumstances of the killing' that may be taken into consideration when assessing whether premeditation is proved, since it appears that there's insufficient evidence to show how Caylee died, when she died, where she died, why or when the duct tape was applied, or even who she was with (GA's testimony about June 16 is weak and full of errors and inconsistencies), I'm not sure there's any relevant 'circumstances of the killing' capable of valid consideration for the purpose of determining premeditation.

 

[lin]

In Scott Peterson's trial, jury instructions 41, 50 and 76 clearly show the limits of corroborative evidence.

41. If you find that before this trial the defendant made willfully false or deliberately misleading statements concerning the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider these statements as a circumstance
tending to prove a consciousness of guilt. However, that conduct is not sufficient, by itself, to prove guilt, and its weight and sufficiency or significance, if any, are for you to decide.

50. Evidence of dog tracking of the victim has been received for your consideration. This evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder. Before guilt may be inferred, there must be other evidence that supports the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence. The evidence can be direct or circumstantial, and must support the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence.

76. The attempted flight of a person after the commission of a crime, or after he is accused of a crime, is not sufficient, in itself, to establish his guilt, but is a fact with which, if proved, may be considered by you in the light of all the other proved facts in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

HTH

Scott Peterson's case is not applicable Florida law.

Perhaps this discussion will help us to understand applicable Florida law:

JOHNSON v. STATE FLORIDA (Fla. 1985)
"The appellant was charged with and convicted of the first-degree murder of Jacqueline Propster. The evidence presented against appellant at trial consisted principally of inculpatory pretrial statements voluntarily made by appellant to police investigators, together with the circumstances of appellant's conflicting series of statements to police, which included false exculpatory statements; testimony about incriminating out-of-court statements made by appellant to other persons; corroboration of that testimony by tangible evidence; and testimony concerning the discovery and examination of the body of the victim. The evidence was sufficient to establish appellant's guilt of first-degree murder."

"Next appellant argues that the trial court erred in giving the following instruction to the jury: Inconsistent exculpatory statements can be used to affirmatively show consciousness of guilt and unlawful intent.

Appellant argues that this instruction had the effect of plainly telling the jury that appellant's pretrial statements were inconsistent, exculpatory, and conclusively probative of guilt. He argues that the instruction constituted an impermissible conclusive or mandatory presumption of appellant's guilt in violation of his rights to due process of law. Appellant also contends that the instruction was an improper judicial comment on what the evidence showed.
...
We find that the instruction merely made the jury aware of a legally permissible inference from certain evidence, if found, and did not have the effect of creating a mandatory or conclusive presumption. Nor did the instruction constitute a judicial comment mandating or suggesting that the jury find certain facts from the evidence. The cases cited by appellant on improper judicial comment on evidence are vastly distinguishable. It was left to the jury to determine whether the statements were inconsistent and exculpatory and even then the instruction plainly allowed the jury to consider whether such facts, if found, had any value in deciding whether there was intent or consciousness of guilt.

The instruction was a correct statement of the legal relevance of inconsistent pretrial statements. Smith v. State, 424 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1145, 103 S. Ct. 3129, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1379 (1983); State v. Frazier, 407 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We find the appellant's argument on this point to be without merit."

 

[Wudge]

Nice job laying out the case. Where we disagree, I think, is in that in the totality of this evidence, each strengthens the other and leads to the inescapable conclusion of KC's guilt.

Because there is no direct evidence, the only evidence sufficient to prove premediation beyond a reasonable doubt would be inculpatory circumstantial evidence used to develop an inferred conclusion. As discussed yesterday, the level of certainty for such evidence requires that before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

You cannot add evidence coefficients, which means that if the individual items of evidence do not prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, the sum (total) of such evidence cannot produce proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

 

[lin]

In Scott Peterson's trial, jury instructions 41, 50 and 76 clearly show the limits of corroborative evidence.

41. If you find that before this trial the defendant made willfully false or deliberately misleading statements concerning the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider these statements as a circumstance
tending to prove a consciousness of guilt. However, that conduct is not sufficient, by itself, to prove guilt, and its weight and sufficiency or significance, if any, are for you to decide.

50. Evidence of dog tracking of the victim has been received for your consideration. This evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder. Before guilt may be inferred, there must be other evidence that supports the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence. The evidence can be direct or circumstantial, and must support the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence.

76. The attempted flight of a person after the commission of a crime, or after he is accused of a crime, is not sufficient, in itself, to establish his guilt, but is a fact with which, if proved, may be considered by you in the light of all the other proved facts in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

HTH

If this were the applicable law, which I do not concede, but we may speculate the Florida court will give a similar instruction. If the Florida courts follow this exact model, I can live with it and don't feel it has contradicted anything I've suggested about false exculpatory evidence and the weight it may be given. In and of itself, it may not prove guilt but as I've explained in previous posts, this is NOT all the state has against KC, imo.

 

[MissJames]

Duct tape is physical evidence. It is not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Garbage bags are physical evidence. They're not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Casey's lies to LE are evidence. They're not evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caey committed a premeditated murder.

Decomposition evidence is physical evidence. It's not physical evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Lies Casey might have told regarding a Nanny could be evidence. However, any such lies are not evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.


There is no direct evidence. So what specific inculpatory circumstantial evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder? If there is any such circumstantial evidence that you hold does this, please layout the premises you believe enables a true and valid inferred conclusion from that evidence that proves premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

I can't a take a position of lawyer,or cite legal arguments. I'm a lay person ,who might be called on to be on a jury.I would look at the evidence presented as a lay person.I would listen to the judge,to the opening arguments,to the evidence,witnesses,any experts brought in from both sides.I would then listen to the closing arguments,the time both sides have to wrap it all up together into a cohesive package.I would then listen to the judge' s instructions. After that I would listen to my fellow jurors and hopefully they would listen to me.If we need clarification on instructions we would ask the judge.If no further clarification is forthcoming we would do the best we can. We would come to a conclusion,or aquittal,or maybe not agree and have a hung jury.
The fact that ,even with the legal cases presented here,there is still disagreement amongst those much smarter than me.
Above average IQ isn't a requirement to be a juror,nor is having a legal background.Being a citizen willing to serveis ,for the good of the community,is.

 

[Brini]

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?

And yet, several cases have been discussed, on this thread, wherin none of those were present. Yet, there were murder I convictions.

 

[lin]

The problem is that whilst all the evidence you've quoted points to KC's knowledge of Caylee's death, to concealment of her body and to lying to, and obstructing, LE, none of it goes further than a potential level of reliable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that (in your own words) KC was 'responsible for Caylee's death'.

It's the 'it' in 'The state need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt how she did it; just that she did it' that's the crux of the issue. KC's behaviour after June 16 does not tell us if Caylee's death was premeditated murder, or unintentional during a loss of control or the result of some negligent act or omission by KC. In all these circumstances I would expect her behaviour to be exactly as it was - evasive, deceptive, deceitful and obstructive. None of that behaviour proves premeditation.

As for the 'circumstances of the killing' that may be taken into consideration when assessing whether premeditation is proved, since it appears that there's insufficient evidence to show how Caylee died, when she died, where she died, why or when the duct tape was applied, or even who she was with (GA's testimony about June 16 is weak and full of errors and inconsistencies), I'm not sure there's any relevant 'circumstances of the killing' capable of valid consideration for the purpose of determining premeditation.

It's my position that showing the circumstances, how, when, where she died is not necessary for a murder 1 conviction. This is evidenced by numerous no body case convictions throughout the country and in Florida.

(And Brini doesn't believe in the CSI effect... ) I could be wrong but it appears to me that you expect a lot more than is legally necessary to prove. The jury will be instructed on what is legally necessary and will decide based on a totality of the evidence, both inculpatory and also exculpatory, if any exists. <snicker>

 

[Brini]

If a poster demands that another poster cite legal authority for their position, it seems only fair that the one making the demand should first cite their legal authority. IMHO, of course.

One cannot cite references that do not exist.

One can only pound the table, instead of the law.

 

[lin]

Because there is no direct evidence, the only evidence sufficient to prove premediation beyond a reasonable doubt would be inculpatory circumstantial evidence used to develop an inferred conclusion. As discussed yesterday, the level of certainty for such evidence requires that before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

You cannot add evidence coefficients, which means that if the individual items of evidence do not prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, the sum (total) of such evidence cannot produce proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

IIRC, my position was more like "credible" evidence, rather than pbrd. So while I assume the above is an accurate representation of your opinion, it is one I do not share.

 

[MissJames]

The problem is that whilst all the evidence you've quoted points to KC's knowledge of Caylee's death, to concealment of her body and to lying to, and obstructing, LE, none of it goes further than a potential level of reliable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that (in your own words) KC was 'responsible for Caylee's death'.

It's the 'it' in 'The state need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt how she did it; just that she did it' that's the crux of the issue. KC's behaviour after June 16 does not tell us if Caylee's death was premeditated murder, or unintentional during a loss of control or the result of some negligent act or omission by KC. In all these circumstances I would expect her behaviour to be exactly as it was - evasive, deceptive, deceitful and obstructive. None of that behaviour proves premeditation.

As for the 'circumstances of the killing' that may be taken into consideration when assessing whether premeditation is proved, since it appears that there's insufficient evidence to show how Caylee died, when she died, where she died, why or when the duct tape was applied, or even who she was with (GA's testimony about June 16 is weak and full of errors and inconsistencies), I'm not sure there's any relevant 'circumstances of the killing' capable of valid consideration for the purpose of determining premeditation.

If we look at KC's behavior after Caylee was last seen,she was engaged,smiling,partying,socializing and lying about where Caylee was.It is not reasonable ,IMO,to believe she would act this way after an accidental death.As was cited in a previous case,it was the husband's behavior after that was the main incriminating factor AND it held up on appeal,I believe.
There was also the Huck case where the FL Supreme Court stated there was no reasonable explanation for duct being placed on a body AFTER death.So the duct tape will be evidence of a non-accidental death,IMO.

 

[coco puff]

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?

BODY? Yes

Place of Disposal of body? Yes

Person last seen with child establised (eye witness other than perp)? Yes

Duck tape? Yes

Motive? Yes

Lies? Yes

Actions of accused not consistent of a mother losing a child in accident? Yes

Cooperation with LE, lie detector taken, admission of an accident. no no and no.

 

[Devon]

It's my position that showing the circumstances, how, when, where she died is not necessary for a murder 1 conviction. This is evidenced by numerous no body case convictions throughout the country and in Florida.

(And Brini doesn't believe in the CSI effect... ) I could be wrong but it appears to me that you expect a lot more than is legally necessary to prove. The jury will be instructed on what is legally necessary and will decide based on a totality of the evidence, both inculpatory and also exculpatory, if any exists. <snicker>

I appreciate that neither a body nor evidence of the cause/manner/time/place etc of death is necessary for a murder conviction, but I was addressing the FL jury instruction that allows 'circumstances of the killing' to be taken into consideration in determining if premeditation is proved. My point is that in this case there appears to be no evidence that meets the definition of 'circumstances of the killing' so IMO that particular jury 'tool' offers no assistance with the question of premeditation in this instance.

 

[Brini]

IIRC, my position was more like "credible" evidence, rather than pbrd. So while I assume the above is an accurate representation of your opinion, it is one I do not share.

Nor does it appear to be shared by the courts.

 

[lin]

Bringing this forward to move the discussion along about reasonable doubt and to examine the evidence from that standpoint.

To rephrase Imackon's excellent analysis:

1. Multiple witnesses have given statements regarding the odor, including trained LE officers.

2. KC's text messages acknowledge a smell of death; she tried to give a reasonable explanation of a dead squirrel but the evidence shows no sign of a squirrel or other animal. With her overall lack of credibility and it being only her text that indicates a squirrel rather than a human body...

3. Multiple trained cadaver dogs from different sources hit on the trunk.

4. Hair from deceased Anthony family member found in trunk.

5. GA and CA statements regarding the smell, including GA I believe under oath.

6. Air sample tests from Body Farm indicating 2.6 days-ish human decompositional event.

7. (added by Jolynna) Evidence of clean up in the car; coverup -- if trying to "frame" KC, why clean up?

I don't need #6 to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a dead body in the trunk of the Pontiac. I accept it and would rely on #6 if I was on the jury, but I don't need it, kwim?

So whose dead body was it? From the hair, we can conclude it was an Anthony family member. From the total circumstance, it being in KC's possession; she being the last seen w/Caylee; Caylee being the only known Anthony family member to die around the time frame of the smell, etc., I think it's reasonable to conclude it was Caylee; absent a showing from the defense that it was someone else's dead body and that would open a big can of worms, wouldn't it? lol I highly doubt the defense will try to use the SODDIT defense --- (Some Other Dude Died In Trunk) because I don't see it getting them anywhere other than another charge to KC, lol. (joking)

So, are we convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. there was a dead body in the Pontiac?

b. the body was Caylee's?

(This is an essay quiz, please explain your answers!!)

Trying to get back on something we can all discuss and in which I remain interested. Does anyone find the above unconvincing?

ETA: I'm assuming that some here are not as enthralled with case law as are others.