Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[coco puff]

one last time about duck tape. You have three choices:

One, Caylee had an accident and KC didn't know how to handle it so while she was thinking about what to do, she taped the child's mouth and nose just in case she could not come up with a plan dispose of the body before Caylee started leaking all over her trunk (a lot of planning for a supposed accident)
OR

She was trying to fake a kidnapping (even though nothing else she did was consistant of faking a kidnapping like disposed of the body close to home and left articles from the home with Caylee and wrapped her in a bag from the house)

OR

SHE KILLED HER! NO one puts duct tape on a recently deceased body. It makes NO sense.

 

[lin]

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.

I guess I'm just not understanding your meaning. Maybe a whole lot of very little words? Or at least just some different ones and in a different order? Please?

 

[Devon]

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.

It could be deemed reasonable behaviour if there was a perceived responsibility for the accident and resultant
self-blame, guilt and fear of reprisal/punishment/criminal charge.

It's clear to me that KC was NOT living 'the good life' after Caylee's death - she was just acting as if everything was superdooper and hunky dory so that the truth (whatever that really was) would not be discovered.

However, is a person likely to behave differently following a killing caused by culpable negligence (manslaughter) than they would if the killing was a spur-of-the-moment loss of control(2nd/3rd degree murder), or if there had been prior intent (ist degree murder? Which one of those types of murder does her behaviour after the event prove? Which does it exclude?

 

[lin]

It could be deemed reasonable behaviour if there was a perceived responsibility for the accident and resultant
self-blame, guilt and fear of reprisal/punishment/criminal charge.

It's clear to me that KC was NOT living 'the good life' after Caylee's death - she was just acting as if everything was superdooper and hunky dory so that the truth (whatever that really was) would not be discovered.

However, is a person likely to behave differently following a killing caused by culpable negligence (manslaughter) than they would if the killing was a spur-of-the-moment loss of control(2nd/3rd degree murder), or if there had been prior intent (ist degree murder? Which one of those types of murder does her behaviour after the event prove? Which does it exclude?

Ok, maybe I'm starting to understand. That will be up to the jury to decide. What is apparently not enough evidence to prove these things to you and others, is overwhelmingly proven to me. I think this may be one of those things we'll just have to agree to disagree, as one will never be able to convince the other. But then after trial, whomever was right will receive an appropriate photo of something yummy from the one who disagrees with the jury's verdict. Deal?

 

[lin]

PS: Devon, are you convinced Caylee's body was in the car trunk? If not, are you convinced any body was in the car trunk? TIA

 

[MissJames]

It could be deemed reasonable behaviour if there was a perceived responsibility for the accident and resultant
self-blame, guilt and fear of reprisal/punishment/criminal charge.

It's clear to me that KC was NOT living 'the good life' after Caylee's death - she was just acting as if everything was superdooper and hunky dory so that the truth (whatever that really was) would not be discovered.

However, is a person likely to behave differently following a killing caused by culpable negligence (manslaughter) than they would if the killing was a spur-of-the-moment loss of control(2nd/3rd degree murder), or if there had been prior intent (ist degree murder? Which one of those types of murder does her behaviour after the event prove? Which does it exclude?

I was a very young mom once.I was 19 when I had my first child. I have experienced the unexpected death of a child.I have met with groups of parents who experienced unexpected deaths of their children.Some of these were accidents due to parents neglect. No one ever hid the child and carried on for a month while the child lay in the woods.
I was also a foster parent and had many ,many babies who were injured due to neglect or abuse. Even then,those parents took the child to the dr or hospital ER.They may have lied about what really happened,but they got the child help.
So I don't find KC's behavior reasonable after accidental death or negligence.KC is a known liar.If there had been an accident she would have made up a story about it.She didn't want Caylee's body found because there was evidence of murder.

 

[Tuba]

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.

"This is certaily not a capital case, and if it were, they certainly would file it, if they had the evidence to," Baez said. "There is circumstantial evidence of a possible homicide, I'll give them that. But circumstantial evidence has not made them confident enough to charge her with any specific homicide or kidnapping, or any capital offense."

h[URL="http://www"]ttp://www.msn.com/id/25802988/wid/7468326[/URL]

I often think how foolish we are to, from a great height, assess the state of the inculpatory evidence. We are not in the custodial rooms with the physical evidence, we haven't seen or read the prosecution strategy nor are we privileged to study the evidence still being tested or even know the extent of it and yet we judge. How presumptuous.

A similar argument could be made in behalf of defense potential. We can share impressions but how dare we talk in absolutes?

 

[lin]

[/B]
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.

All around excellent post; analysis and presentation outstanding.

Don't worry about anyone here being smarter than are you, I'm not sure such a beast exists. Being able to spout a bit of legalese doesn't make anyone smart, even those who do it for a living. And believe me, above average IQ is not required to practice law. And I can assure you of that with some authority.

 

[Themis]

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

You might know that jury instructions in the Scott Peterson case from a trial court in California are not really legal authority binding on a trial court Florida. Care to cite some Florida jury instructions, Florida statutes, Florida appellate case law or US Circuit Courts in Florida or US Supreme Court opinions?

 

[lin]

"This is certaily not a capital case, and if it were, they certainly would file it, it they had the evidence to," Baez said. "There is circumstantial evidence of a possible homicide, I'll give them that. But circumstantial evidence has not made them confident enough to charge her with any specific homicide or kidnapping, or any capital offense."

h[URL="http://www"]ttp://www.msn.com/id/25802988/wid/7468326[/URL]

I often think how foolish we are to, from a great height, assess the state of the inculpatory evidence. We are not in the custodial rooms with the physical evidence, we haven't seen or read the prosecution strategy nor are we privileged to study the evidence still being tested or even know the extent of it and yet we judge. How presumptuous.

A similar argument could be made in behalf of defense potential. We can share impressions but how dare we talk in absolutes?

This post should be mandatory reading at all forums. Of that I am absolutely convinced.

 

[Wudge]

You might know that jury instructions in the Scott Peterson case from a trial court in California are not really legal authority binding on a trial court Florida. Care to cite some Florida jury instructions, Florida statutes, Florida appellate case law or US Circuit Courts in Florida or US Supreme Court opinions?

What do you think is not true?

 

[Themis]

[/b]
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.

You would make a wonderful juror! You have perfectly described the duty of a juror. Please don't take my comments as discouraging participation in this discussion by non-lawyers. That was not intended in any way. A real lawyer will be able to provide binding authority and real legal citations for those of us who can check the citations to do that. Posers, of course, probably can't do that.

 

[Themis]

What do you think is not true?

Cute. Clever tactic to respond to a question with a question. Sorry. Not going to bite. Answers my question. Thanks. :waitasec:

 

[lin]

To MissJames:

Read the post I quoted to my near perfect hubby; he insisted I write that you obviously have more common sense by far than anyone else on this thread.*

*I haven't discussed all, or even many of the posts so he doesn't have a whole lot to compare but so far, you're the first that he insisted on commenting upon.

ETA: Hope I was clear that no slight was meant to anyone else; he was just very impressed with MissJames' description of jury duty.

 

[Themis]

"This is certaily not a capital case, and if it were, they certainly would file it, it they had the evidence to," Baez said. "There is circumstantial evidence of a possible homicide, I'll give them that. But circumstantial evidence has not made them confident enough to charge her with any specific homicide or kidnapping, or any capital offense."

h[URL="http://www"]ttp://www.msn.com/id/25802988/wid/7468326[/URL]

I often think how foolish we are to, from a great height, assess the state of the inculpatory evidence. We are not in the custodial rooms with the physical evidence, we haven't seen or read the prosecution strategy nor are we privileged to study the evidence still being tested or even know the extent of it and yet we judge. How presumptuous.

A similar argument could be made in behalf of defense potential. We can share impressions but how dare we talk in absolutes?

[Emphasis added.] Wow! Just WOW! I didn't know Baez gave away this much of an admission against his client's penal interests in public! WOW!!!
:waitasec::bang:

 

[MissJames]

You would make a wonderful juror! You have perfectly described the duty of a juror. Please don't take my comments as discouraging participation in this discussion by non-lawyers. That was not intended in any way. A real lawyer will be able to provide binding authority and real legal citations for those of us who can check the citations to do that. Posers, of course, probably can't do that.

I enjoy learning from the legal eagles here. I was replying to Wudge when he asked me to pose a legal something or other.I can't,not the way a lawyer would.But I can express my views of the evidence I've been privy to,as a lay person and as potential juror would .

 

[Themis]

I enjoy learning from the legal eagles here. I was replying to Wudge when he asked me to pose a legal something or other.I can't,not the way a lawyer would.But I can express my views of the evidence I've been privy to,as a lay person and as potential juror would .

You do an excellent job of that too. You're usually spot on. :blowkiss:

 

[lin]

You would make a wonderful juror! You have perfectly described the duty of a juror. Please don't take my comments as discouraging participation in this discussion by non-lawyers. That was not intended in any way. A real lawyer will be able to provide binding authority and real legal citations for those of us who can check the citations to do that. Posers, of course, probably can't do that.

I would add to this excellent post that even those who haven't stepped foot into a courtroom much less a law school can often interpret law or theory as well or better than those who have become so indoctrinated over many years of practice that they just 'know what they know' and sometimes start to slow on their ability to think outside of the box.

So, please, everyone, if you have a comment or question or observation, just cos it's presented in a formal way, don't think your input isn't valuable. In fact, I'm requesting it with a pretty please. I've repeatedly stated I'm no criminal law expert and never had much interest in it and here I am digging up cases and such. Hope I'm not making too big of a fool of myself. But it wouldn't be the first or the fiftieth time*, anyway.

*this week on this forum.

 

[MissJames]

To MissJames:

Read the post I quoted to my near perfect hubby; he insisted I write that you obviously have more common sense by far than anyone else on this thread.*

*I haven't discussed all, or even many of the posts so he doesn't have a whole lot to compare but so far, you're the first that he insisted on commenting upon.

ETA: Hope I was clear that no slight was meant to anyone else; he was just very impressed with MissJames' description of jury duty.

Oh my goodness! My hubby might take exception to that!
I have a lot of life experiences to call upon. What can I say.:blowkiss:

 

[lin]

I enjoy learning from the legal eagles here. I was replying to Wudge when he asked me to pose a legal something or other.I can't,not the way a lawyer would.But I can express my views of the evidence I've been privy to,as a lay person and as potential juror would .

How much do you want to be you can't? I'm thinking a picture of something very chocolate as the stake and I'll try to prove you wrong on this one. Bet?

ETA: Here's the question:

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 think it's a flawed question but even so, just read it as plain English because that is all it is; there's no Latin or Japanese or anything else in there.