Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lin]

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.)

How about someone that isn't particularly cared for? A stranger? A nosy, inconsiderate neighbor that comes to borrow sugar and drops dead? I agree, that it was a child makes it much worse; that it was her child worse to the nth degree. But seriously, even if wasn't someone so close, who's kneejerk reaction is to grab the duct tape?

Interesting case, thanks. Reasoning was sound but sure stunk, huh?

 

[lin]

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 knew what she did was wrong, evidenced by her attempts to avoid investigation and prosecution. She was legally sane, no matter the diagnosis, imo.

Excellent point on the IM. When are you going to get moving on another of your great lists; this time the behavioral stuff??

We established that and so much more... Catch up already!

Last sentence is so very, very true. Don't know how anyone can see it otherwise and assume most don't.

 

[lin]

And one more thing --- I believe the standard is the same as civil -- competent substantial evidence; not beyond a reasonable doubt evidence. So that's a lesser standard than was suggested in this thread. To rephrase, the prosecution must present competent substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Both standards apply in criminal cases, just in different ways. At least, that's how I'm reading it. But there are plenty of cases listed below as a starting point for anyone who wants to research this further.

Again, not a criminal law expert; don't keep up on it; things may be different. But so far, I haven't seen any reference to any statute or case indicating that the evidence itself must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a good ideal but it doesn't appear to be Florida law, from my reading.



When there is competent, substantial circumstantial evidence from which a jury can infer guilt (that is, the jury can infer the existence of all essential elements of some charged criminal offense and that the defendant was the perpetrator) to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt,*fn2 then the truth of the underlying, evidentiary, implicative facts; the strengths and weaknesses of the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from those facts; the reasonableness of any doubt as to guilt (meaning the reasonableness and weight of all possibilities as to, or hypotheses of, innocence); all questions of credibility, including that of the defendant ; and the total convincing force and effect of all the evidence in the case, are all for the jury to weigh and consider under the proper jury instructions because these matters go to the weight of the evidence in the case. See Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S. Ct. 303, 83 L. Ed. 2d 237 (1984); State v. Williams, 444 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1984); Williams v. State, 437 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 909, 104 S. Ct. 1690, 80 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1984); Rose v. State, 425 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909, 103 S. Ct. 1883, 76 L. Ed. 2d 812 (1983); In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 1981), citing with approval Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 (1954); Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981), aff'd., 457 U.S. 31, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 72 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1982); Herman v. State, 472 So.2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1986); Dunn v. State, 454 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Stewart, 404 So.2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Teague v. State, 390 So.2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bouler v. State, 389 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Lowery v. State, 450 So.2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Knight v. State, 392 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1981).

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

And what about in that same conversation where she said she was happier than she had been in a long time??

 

[Themis]

And one more thing --- I believe the standard is the same as civil -- competent substantial evidence; not beyond a reasonable doubt evidence. So that's a lesser standard than was suggested in this thread. To rephrase, the prosecution must present competent substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Both standards apply in criminal cases, just in different ways. At least, that's how I'm reading it. But there are plenty of cases listed below as a starting point for anyone who wants to research this further.

Again, not a criminal law expert; don't keep up on it; things may be different. But so far, I haven't seen any reference to any statute or case indicating that the evidence itself must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a good ideal but it doesn't appear to be Florida law, from my reading.



When there is competent, substantial circumstantial evidence from which a jury can infer guilt (that is, the jury can infer the existence of all essential elements of some charged criminal offense and that the defendant was the perpetrator) to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt,*fn2 then the truth of the underlying, evidentiary, implicative facts; the strengths and weaknesses of the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from those facts; the reasonableness of any doubt as to guilt (meaning the reasonableness and weight of all possibilities as to, or hypotheses of, innocence); all questions of credibility, including that of the defendant ; and the total convincing force and effect of all the evidence in the case, are all for the jury to weigh and consider under the proper jury instructions because these matters go to the weight of the evidence in the case. See Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S. Ct. 303, 83 L. Ed. 2d 237 (1984); State v. Williams, 444 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1984); Williams v. State, 437 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 909, 104 S. Ct. 1690, 80 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1984); Rose v. State, 425 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909, 103 S. Ct. 1883, 76 L. Ed. 2d 812 (1983); In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 1981), citing with approval Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 (1954); Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981), aff'd., 457 U.S. 31, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 72 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1982); Herman v. State, 472 So.2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1986); Dunn v. State, 454 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Stewart, 404 So.2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Teague v. State, 390 So.2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bouler v. State, 389 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Lowery v. State, 450 So.2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Knight v. State, 392 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 1981).

I agree. The jury doesn't have to fine that each fact is true or that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Only the elements of the charged offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As to whether a particular fact is competent, it has to comply with the Rules of Evidence, like the hearsay rules and exceptions, the best evidence rule, the business records rule, the foundation rules for science, photography and handwriting etc. Once admitted, it is up to the jury to decide issues of credibility and importance of the evidence and how it fits into proving an element of the charged offense. That is the weighing. Upon the totality of the compented, admitted evidence and proof of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury decides whether or not the defendant should be found guilty of the charges.

 

[Themis]

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.

With the internet and these forums discussing high profile cases, he tainted the jury pool in the whole nation! They'll just have to handle it on voir dire. (Not sure the prosecution would want a juror who had never heard of this case -- I'd want to know what it was in their style of living that caused them to miss hearing about it.)

 

[Devon]

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?

I take it we're talking here about 'guilty of premeditated murder' v 'not guilty of premeditated murder'? If so, I accept the wager and look forward to a mouth-watering 'virtual feast' of confectionery delights!

 

[Devon]

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

On the evidence we know of, the defence would have to pull something very persuasive out of the bag to change my opinion on the following:

Caylee died on or around June 16 2008.

KC knew her daughter was dead.

She knew when and how it happened.

At the very least she was present when it happened, and it's highly probable she bears some sort of responsibility for it.

She concealed Caylee's body in the trunk of her car.

She disposed of the body where it was later found.

None of her family or any of the friends that have been questioned had any involvement in Caylee's death or the disposal.

There was no nanny.

There was no kidnapping.

On the other hand, the evidence we have seen so far does not persuade me (not even close) that there was a premeditated design to kill Caylee. Every single piece of evidence that is in any way suggestive of that is either insufficiently reliable, riddled with conjecture or capable of an alternate, but equally reasonable explanation. IMO.

 

[MissJames]

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.

Another thing the jury will be looking for is the evidence that backs up the claims made during opening arguments. The opening and closing arguments are so critical,but the PROOF lies in between. Does the evidence to back up the story laid out seem credible. And that goes for either side.

 

[lin]

With the internet and these forums discussing high profile cases, he tainted the jury pool in the whole nation! They'll just have to handle it on voir dire. (Not sure the prosecution would want a juror who had never heard of this case -- I'd want to know what it was in their style of living that caused them to miss hearing about it.)

lol, ITA. But there are a lot of folks, even locally, who barely recall any of the details today. By the time of trial, there will be even more who recall even less. Example: I have a near perfect hubby and 3 adult daughters who know almost nothing about the case. It's not that I haven't mentioned things or discussed it with them, it's not important to them and they don't retain as does, for another example, my mother or I. Near perfect hubby, (one of the many reasons he's nearly perfect), has sat through several NG shows with me and probably still couldn't give much of a representation of the general facts of the case. He knows the names of the major players and that the baby was murdered, imo by her mother. No doubt, absolutely no doubt that man could go into a courtroom completely unbiased and without prior knowledge of the case that would be detrimental to the defense.

Of course, he'd be excused anyway because during voire dire, when asked about prior knowledge, he'd explain, "All I know about the case is that I'm going to vote guilty because that little iron bench outside is not where I want to sleep for the next few years."

 

[lin]

I take it we're talking here about 'guilty of premeditated murder' v 'not guilty of premeditated murder'? If so, I accept the wager and look forward to a mouth-watering 'virtual feast' of confectionery delights!

And I'll start collecting some "fresh" photos, just in case the jury is composed of engineers.*

*In the spirit of the bet and in no way meant to offend anyone unconvinced of premeditation, referencing a drug case wherein two engineers agreed with the panel as to the clear guilt of the defendant but couldn't agree on the weight of the narcotics; the weight difference having no bearing on the charges; and hung the jury.

 

[countzero]

lol, ITA. But there are a lot of folks, even locally, who barely recall any of the details today. By the time of trial, there will be even more who recall even less. Example: I have a near perfect hubby and 3 adult daughters who know almost nothing about the case. It's not that I haven't mentioned things or discussed it with them, it's not important to them and they don't retain as does, for another example, my mother or I. Near perfect hubby, (one of the many reasons he's nearly perfect), has sat through several NG shows with me and probably still couldn't give much of a representation of the general facts of the case. He knows the names of the major players and that the baby was murdered, imo by her mother. No doubt, absolutely no doubt that man could go into a courtroom completely unbiased and without prior knowledge of the case that would be detrimental to the defense.

Of course, he'd be excused anyway because during voire dire, when asked about prior knowledge, he'd explain, "All I know about the case is that I'm going to vote guilty because that little iron bench outside is not where I want to sleep for the next few years."

lin, you gave me my morning giggle. :clap::clap::clap: Thank you.

And thank all of you for explaining so well how this case can go. I am sitting on the fence waiting for the trial to actually begin before I step toes into any type of discussion like these.

 

[lin]

On the evidence we know of, the defence would have to pull something very persuasive out of the bag to change my opinion on the following:

Caylee died on or around June 16 2008.

KC knew her daughter was dead.

She knew when and how it happened.

At the very least she was present when it happened, and it's highly probable she bears some sort of responsibility for it.

She concealed Caylee's body in the trunk of her car.

She disposed of the body where it was later found.

None of her family or any of the friends that have been questioned had any involvement in Caylee's death or the disposal.

There was no nanny.

There was no kidnapping.

On the other hand, the evidence we have seen so far does not persuade me (not even close) that there was a premeditated design to kill Caylee. Every single piece of evidence that is in any way suggestive of that is either insufficiently reliable, riddled with conjecture or capable of an alternate, but equally reasonable explanation. IMO.

Wow! Thanks for this! Ok, so we agree that Caylee died and that she was aware and likely present; Caylee was in car trunk prior to KC disposing of her.

This isn't a private discussion, so these questions are meant for all:

As a juror, does it sway you that the reason there is no proven COD is because she hid the body, preventing a lot of evidence from being collected? I think some will be swayed by this; it's kind of like the logic behind no body case: Because someone is so clever or lucky as to be able to destroy or hide a body, should they get away with the crime?

As a juror, what evidence would JB have to show and how could he show it to rebut the state's contention it was premeditated murder? I could be very wrong, knowing so little about criminal law, but my position is JB would have to provide something to show his theory of the case. He can't merely suggest that the boogeyman did it without anything to support it. There has to be a foundation. Make sense?

 

[lin]

PS: To Devon, what are your thoughts on the duct tape? That because it's not proven to be the mechanism of death it is to not be considered? I am in complete agreement with Huck, there is no reasonable purpose for duct tape to be placed on a body. And I do believe the jury will have to consider it.

I guess part of what I'm getting at is, so far, the defense has indicated they're going for acquittal. That means they're not going to offer an explanation for the duct tape other than their client didn't put it there. Do you agree that KC did put the duct tape on Caylee?

 

[lin]

lin, you gave me my morning giggle. :clap::clap::clap: Thank you.

And thank all of you for explaining so well how this case can go. I am sitting on the fence waiting for the trial to actually begin before I step toes into any type of discussion like these.

Glad I caused a giggle. And thanks for all of your input on the issues in this case too. Probably the smart money is on the fence, waiting to see what will actually be admitted and what the defense strategy will be. Doesn't slow me down from theorizing though.

 

[countzero]

Glad I caused a giggle. And thanks for all of your input on the issues in this case too. Probably the smart money is on the fence, waiting to see what will actually be admitted and what the defense strategy will be. Doesn't slow me down from theorizing though.

I am all for theorizing. I am not married to my theory that CA participated in Caylee's murder either. Although I am putting one leg down from the fence on that one. I enjoy reading this thread. Sometimes it does make my head spin a few degrees more than it usually does, and like a train wreak waiting to happen I simply cannot quit opening it either.

I just hope the future document dumps let me get off my fence before winter sets in because the winters around here can be nasty at times.

Keep on theorizing . I wish we had a bus smilie cause I would be using it a lot over in other threads as well as here.

 

[lin]

Ok, since no one else is going to do it despite my numerous hints, I'll get it started:

1. 31 days evading investigation during which time she mentioned to no one about Caylee

2. Fabricated call from deceased Caylee to investigators

3. IM with Iasson: I love nanny; happier than ever

4. Inconsistent pretrial statements: Dropped at Sawgrass; kidnapped at park

5. Obstruction of investigation

6. Borrowed shovel from neighbor shortly after last time Caylee disappeared; highly unusual behavior; suggestive of possible planned burial.

7. Gave incorrect date of last seen

8. Was at Blockbuster within 24 hours of last time seen alive, admitted last date seen by perp, and gave no outward showing

And...?

ETA: Coco puff, lampchop and countzero's additions; added numbers for discussion purposes

 

[lin]

I am all for theorizing. I am not married to my theory that CA participated in Caylee's murder either. Although I am putting one leg down from the fence on that one. I enjoy reading this thread. Sometimes it does make my head spin a few degrees more than it usually does, and like a train wreak waiting to happen I simply cannot quit opening it either.

I just hope the future document dumps let me get off my fence before winter sets in because the winters around here can be nasty at times.

Keep on theorizing . I wish we had a bus smilie cause I would be using it a lot over in other threads as well as here.

Your wish is my command; or at least well taken suggestion. In recognition of all of your efforts at this forum, I hereby award you a bus:

ETA: For anyone not familiar that wants to hijack this bus, click quote and in the text of my post you'll see

Just copy that and save it.

 

[coco puff]

Ok, since no one else is going to do it despite my numerous hints, I'll get it started:

31 days evading investigation
Fabricated call from deceased Caylee to investigators
IM with Iasson: I love nanny; happier than ever
Inconsistent pretrial statements: Dropped at Sawgrass; kidnapped at park
Obstruction of investigation

And...?

Doesn't tell ANYONE, she is gone, kidnapped or otherwise
Borrows a shovel to remove bamboo in the back yard for a child that has been kidnapped

AND the heart-shaped sticker residue on the duct tape.

 

[lin]

Doesn't tell ANYONE, she is gone, kidnapped or otherwise
Borrows a shovel to remove bamboo in the back yard for a child that has been kidnapped

AND the heart-shaped sticker residue on the duct tape.

Done and thanks. Didn't add heart sticker because I'm going for more of her proven behavior and statements to indicate her guilt and I'm not sure the heart sticker, while important, imo, would really fit on this particular list. I guess what I'm saying is, this list is more to show that it was her that put the sticker on; not that the sticker shows it was her, kwim? The sticker would be more like on a physical evidence list.

I'll add to this list as long as I can but nothing wrong with anyone copying it and adding to it themselves. And, of course, in the meantime, we can discuss.