...
I doubt whether KC had any conscious thought of the benefit of allowing evidence to deteriorate - I think she initially was more intent on concealment of the truth from her parents and friends than anything else.
As I understand it, the defence is not required to put forward any theory or explanation of the evidence at all. The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, but for any proposition the prosecutor might want to put forward as to the inferences to be drawn from any testimony, fact or circumstance etc., the defence only has to show that the relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does. If the jury finds that alternative explanation to be reasonable (not necessarily more reasonable - just reasonable) they must weigh that evidence in favour of the defence.
Ya' know... as I was trying to find some instruction for us to include in this post, it occurred to me and I wonder if anyone has given much thought to this:
Isn't KC going to be tried for obstruction and/or false statements to police? How is that going to factor into the murder trial? Any thoughts?
Now back to your regularly scheduled post.
I agree it's unlikely that KC thought outside of her ten minute span or beyond hiding the truth from her parents and friends. But the result is the same: She successfully concealed Caylee's remains preventing discovery of at least a cause of death and who knows what else? I think this means the jury is going to have to sort of come up with the cause on their own, or at least can make some inferences and assumptions based on the evidence.
As for what the defense has to show, I agree to a point. The defense can make some headway in presenting their theory or poking holes in the prosecution's case with their questioning of the state's witnesses. 'So, Dr. G, can you tell us to a medical degree of certainty that the nanny didn't do it or that it wasn't an accidental death?' But I don't think they can make things up out of wholecloth without any foundation or facts in evidence. They can't expect the juror to accept the SONDI defense just because they offer it and the law doesn't say the jury must.
I'm not sure and I hope someone else is but I don't think the jury must accept
any explanation put forth by defense. I agree with your emphasis on 'reasonable' explanation. I'm just not yet convinced it's as bullet proof as some others seem to think. Again, I could be wrong but here's something to think on:
Excerpted from Barber v. State, Case No. 5D06-3529 (Fla. 5th DCA
2009):
"Because this is a purely circumstantial evidence case, a special standard of review applies to our analysis.
...
The question of whether the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for the jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the jury verdict, we will not reverse." Darling v. State, 808 So. 2d 145, 155 (Fla.) (quoting State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 848 (2002). In meeting its burden, the State is not required to "rebut conclusively, every possible variation of events" which could be inferred from the evidence, but must introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events. Darling, 808 So. 2d at 156 (quoting Law, 559 So. 2d at 189).
Once the State meets this threshold burden, it becomes the jury's duty to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
This Court does not have to determine that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded in this case. The sole determination we must make is whether there was competent, substantial evidence for the jury to make such a determination. See Darling, 808 So. 2d at 156 (citing Law, 559 So. 2d at 188-89)."
(emphasis added)
Excerpted from Jenkins v. State, No. 3D07-1211 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2009)
"[This] special standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence applies where a conviction is wholly based on circumstantial evidence. Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The question of whether the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for the jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the jury verdict, we will not reverse."
(emphasis added)