Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Wudge]

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

Thank you for clarifing your need. After understanding your need, my answer is: No

 

[lin]

[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:

That's not the only time; check out my sig line.

 

[lin]

Again, one cannot offer what does not exist.

One can only restate and insist.

So the car trunk discussion crashed; I'll chalk that up to everyone is convinced and has no reasonable argument against it; at least until someone brings it back up.

Should I bring up Imbackon's list for the disposal site? Or should we get to working on Consciousness of Guilt or Behavior Evidence or something else? Everyone?

 

[JBean]

Okay the "not so veiled insults" are not cool.
This is a great discussion, don;t make it personal please. thanks.

 

[strach304]

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?

IMO like Scott Peterson.

 

[lin]

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.

Did you read the discussion about the Huck case at the beginning of this thread? Jolynna posted a Florida 5th DCA case where the court's opinion includes the same observation you just made -- there is no reason to put duct tape on someone deceased.

 

[MissJames]

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?

Welllll,there is one lawyer I might be able to write some motions for. I would probably do a better JoB.

 

[lin]

Welllll,there is one lawyer I might be able to write some motions for. I would probably do a better JoB.

lol, ITA!!

 

[Brini]

Did you read the discussion about the Huck case at the beginning of this thread? Jolynna posted a Florida 5th DCA case where the court's opinion includes the same observation you just made -- there is no reason to put duct tape on someone deceased.

The Huck case offered circumstantial evidence, some of which was similar to KC's. The trash bags that were traced back to Huck's house, for one. That was considered to be a significant break, IIRC.

I believe some dog hairs also connected the victim to Huck's house.

That, and a couple of phone calls he made to the victim were about it, for evidence, I think.

There was no direct evidence.

 

[mitzi]

Remember CA' famous quote? "I will walk every inch of land, I will open every door..."

Seems like many of us would be right out there with TM, taking advantage of the trained and experienced searchers. TM hasn't JUST found dead people.

Bold mine.

I sure do remember this. I think though, that Cindy meant she would walk every inch of, and open every door of the NBC, ABC, and CBS studios in New York and Los Angeles. :crazy: :crazy:

 

[Themis]

That's not the only time; check out my sig line.

WOW again! I do remember that one, but in light of what has happened since ... just amazing. This one also admits KC did know where Caylee was and deserves, at a minimum, a life sentence for it! Do you recall any case, just off the top of your head, where there was a reversal of a criminal conviction or sentence for comments a lawyer said to the press pretrial outside of the courtroom? It is so unexpected that this should happen I don't even recall such a circumstance.

 

[Jolynna]

The Huck case offered circumstantial evidence, some of which was similar to KC's. The trash bags that were traced back to Huck's house, for one. That was considered to be a significant break, IIRC.

I believe some dog hairs also connected the victim to Huck's house.

But, all there were no smoking guns. No direct evidence.

You are right. Huck's case contained no direct evidence.

The dog DNA in the Huck case pinpointed dog hair on the tape to the same breed of dog Huck owned. Which isn't as specific as Caylee being found in a laundry hamper from the Anthony house or a wadded up paper towel with some of what was left of Caylee being found in KC's car trunk.

However, in my opinion, whether or not KC is convicted of first or second-degree murder boils down to whether or not, after hearing all the trial testimony, the jury believes the duct taping occurred before or after death. Before equals premeditated. No question in my mind about that.

I am comfortable that there is no reason for ever duct taping over a dead child's face. IMO, the last thing a parent would do is upon discovering a beloved child has been killed is to handle, cover up and further mutilate the baby's face. Duct tape doesn't make death prettier. Unless KC spent hours pouring over online putrefaction sites she wouldn't know about fluid leakage in advance of the death. If leakage was visible the tape wouldn't stick.

Here's a case in Florida where a first-degree murder conviction was reduced to second-degree because the state failed to exclude a reasonable hypothesis that the homicide occurred other than by premeditated design. The necessary elements for premeditation are discussed as part of the reason the conviction was reduced. (HOWEVER, also keep in mind that HUCK established duct taping AFTER death NOT to be reasonable. That means the state CAN exclude the possibility of the duct tape being a reasonable hypothesis without worry of giving KC grounds for an appeal.)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:SSjK3zm92eIJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dfl%26vol%3Dalpha9806%255C2%255Ccummings_vs_state86413%26invol%3D2+weight+jurors+should+give+circumstantial+evidence+Murder+one+Florida+jury+instructions&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (Go to the bottom and then up to where it talks about elements necessary for premeditation.)

 

[Imbackon]

If there is evidence given by a psychiatrist/s that Caysee is a psychopath (sociopath), can that be used as evidence?
I think one of the best pieces of circumstantial evidence against Caysee is the fact that on July 7th, she text messaged Iassen about Zanny and said "I love her!).
For me that was case closed.
Did we established that lots of circumstantial evidence is enough for murder conviction?
Seems to me it is, because by it's nature murder is usually inferred thru circumstances because the main witness is dead.

 

[Jolynna]

If there is evidence given by a psychiatrist/s that Caysee is a psychopath (sociopath), can that be used as evidence?
I think one of the best pieces of circumstantial evidence against Caysee is the fact that on July 7th, she text messaged Iassen about Zanny and said "I love her!).
For me that was case closed.
Did we established that lots of circumstantial evidence is enough for murder conviction?
Seems to me it is, because by it's nature murder is usually inferred thru circumstances because the main witness is dead.

I think there is definitely enough evidence for a murder conviction. We are disagreeing about whether or not the necessary premeditation needed for first-degree murder is there. I bolded your last sentence because I like it. Well said.

 

[Brini]

If there is evidence given by a psychiatrist/s that Caysee is a psychopath (sociopath), can that be used as evidence?
I think one of the best pieces of circumstantial evidence against Caysee is the fact that on July 7th, she text messaged Iassen about Zanny and said "I love her!).
For me that was case closed.
Did we established that lots of circumstantial evidence is enough for murder conviction?
Seems to me it is, because by it's nature murder is usually inferred thru circumstances because the main witness is dead.

KC had two evals by psychiatrists. My guess is that sociopathy was one of a couple of dx.

However, that is not material to the case. Most sociopaths are not criminals.

The only thing that matters is that she is competent to work with counsel on her defense.

 

[Brini]

You are right. Huck's case contained no direct evidence.

The dog DNA in the Huck case pinpointed dog hair on the tape to the same breed of dog Huck owned. Which isn't as specific as Caylee being found in a laundry hamper from the Anthony house or a wadded up paper towel with some of what was left of Caylee being found in KC's car trunk.

However, in my opinion, whether or not KC is convicted of first or second-degree murder boils down to whether or not, after hearing all the trial testimony, the jury believes the duct taping occurred before or after death. Before equals premeditated. No question in my mind about that.

I am comfortable that there is no reason for ever duct taping over a dead child's face. IMO, the last thing a parent would do is upon discovering a beloved child has been killed is to handle, cover up and further mutilate the baby's face. Duct tape doesn't make death prettier. Unless KC spent hours pouring over online putrefaction sites she wouldn't know about fluid leakage in advance of the death. If leakage was visible the tape wouldn't stick.

Here's a case in Florida where a first-degree murder conviction was reduced to second-degree because the state failed to exclude a reasonable hypothesis that the homicide occurred other than by premeditated design. The necessary elements for premeditation are discussed as part of the reason the conviction was reduced. (HOWEVER, also keep in mind that HUCK established duct taping AFTER death NOT to be reasonable. That means the state CAN exclude the possibility of the duct tape being a reasonable hypothesis without worry of giving KC grounds for an appeal.)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:SSjK3zm92eIJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dfl%26vol%3Dalpha9806%255C2%255Ccummings_vs_state86413%26invol%3D2+weight+jurors+should+give+circumstantial+evidence+Murder+one+Florida+jury+instructions&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (Go to the bottom and then up to where it talks about elements necessary for premeditation.)

Yes, I think the duct tape is going to give any parent on the jury considerable pause.

 

[milliac]

[/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.

Nicely done! (thanks wasn't enough). Nevertheless, this thread has been educational.

 

[chefmom]

Yes, I think the duct tape is going to give any parent on the jury considerable pause.

That, and the 31 days! IMO, those two things alone will seal KC's fate!

 

[lin]

From Florida Standard Jury Instructions:

3.9 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.

 

[lin]

WOW again! I do remember that one, but in light of what has happened since ... just amazing. This one also admits KC did know where Caylee was and deserves, at a minimum, a life sentence for it! Do you recall any case, just off the top of your head, where there was a reversal of a criminal conviction or sentence for comments a lawyer said to the press pretrial outside of the courtroom? It is so unexpected that this should happen I don't even recall such a circumstance.

I can't think of anything even remotely similar. Criminal law is not my strong suit but not only have I never read it as an appellate issue, don't remember ever seeing/hearing/reading another attorney do it publicly.

Will be very interesting to see if this plays into a change of venue hearing. I mean, does the state play it up, HE poisoned the pool? Or would that be an automatic issue on appeal that they'd want to sidestep or is that already impossible? Is this part of the whole KC at the hearings and reaffirming her choice?

Although imo this crime is not special, some of the legal angles have been very interesting.