Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lin]

Snipped and bolded by me.

I think the key is the 'reasonableness' of any alternate explanation but forward by the defence in the circumstances of the case and that is what I meant.

However, if the defence is putting forward an alternative explanation for any piece of circumstantial evidence then they are merely offering a different interpretation of the same evidence that the prosecution has offered their interpretation of. Both sides need to explain why their interpretation of any piece of evidence is more reasonable, but I don't see why the defence would have to 'back up' their interpretation with further evidence when the prosecution does not. To illustrate what I mean, the prosecution might say 'the defendant's father has testified that he last saw Caylee at around xx time on June 16. She was in the care of the defendant and left the house with her. That is the last time Caylee was seen alive. The witness clearly recalls the time of day, the clothes the victim was wearing, the conversation with the defendant and the hugs he gave to his daughter and granddaughter before they left the house. This is reliable evidence that the defendant was the last person seen with Caylee'. The defence might counter with 'the witness's recollection of the events of that morning is unreliable. He has stated that he can remember precisely what the victim was wearing and carrying when she left, and the conversation he had with the defendant, but is unclear about what TV programme he was watching at the relevant time. How likely is it that a person can remember such precise details about what someone was wearing on a date that was a month prior? Can any members of the jury remember what clothes a family member or close friend were wearing on a date a month ago? If it is not likely to you that the witness's recollections about the victim's clothing on June 16 are reliable, what reliance should you place on his other testimony about the events of that day? This is not reliable evidence of the fact the prosecution is attempting to prove.'

Both sides are using the same evidence (GA's testimony) but putting forward different arguments as to the inferences that may be drawn from it. IMO, the defence is no more required to back up their version of this evidence with further evidence than the prosecution is.

Would you please use a different example? I didn't quite grasp your point and didn't get help from the illustration. Testimony is one of those things the jury weighs for credibility and I don't think you're showing a different interpretation of that evidence so much as attacking the credibility, at least to my mind. Jurors can believe or not, in whole or in part, any testimony. Maybe the meaning is there and I just don't get it but would much appreciate a different example. TIA

 

[lin]

Here's a few. Plenty more out there. I googled -state fails to show premeditation +florida

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc90977/op-sc90977.pdf

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc00-1688/00-1688rep.pdf

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc05-245.pdf

I read Randall and while I understand the ruling; it matches Jolynna's case from last night, Cummings. They lead me to think that these 'reasonable explanations' were not advanced at trial because that would have defeated the defense goal of an acquittal. However, on appeal, the defense can argue these different theories. Does this make sense? This would make these opinions not conflict with what I interpreted other opinions to mean.

If true, then team KC can try SONDI or whatever and if convicted of premeditated murder, they can come up with some other theory on appeal to try to explain away the premeditation found by the jury. If there is evidence to support it, like in Randall and Cummings.

Just theorizing here, folks. Does anyone know the answer?

 

[lin]

Snipped and bolded by me.

I think the key is the 'reasonableness' of any alternate explanation but forward by the defence in the circumstances of the case and that is what I meant.

However, if the defence is putting forward an alternative explanation for any piece of circumstantial evidence then they are merely offering a different interpretation of the same evidence that the prosecution has offered their interpretation of. Both sides need to explain why their interpretation of any piece of evidence is more reasonable, but I don't see why the defence would have to 'back up' their interpretation with further evidence when the prosecution does not. To illustrate what I mean, the prosecution might say 'the defendant's father has testified that he last saw Caylee at around xx time on June 16. She was in the care of the defendant and left the house with her. That is the last time Caylee was seen alive. The witness clearly recalls the time of day, the clothes the victim was wearing, the conversation with the defendant and the hugs he gave to his daughter and granddaughter before they left the house. This is reliable evidence that the defendant was the last person seen with Caylee'. The defence might counter with 'the witness's recollection of the events of that morning is unreliable. He has stated that he can remember precisely what the victim was wearing and carrying when she left, and the conversation he had with the defendant, but is unclear about what TV programme he was watching at the relevant time. How likely is it that a person can remember such precise details about what someone was wearing on a date that was a month prior? Can any members of the jury remember what clothes a family member or close friend were wearing on a date a month ago? If it is not likely to you that the witness's recollections about the victim's clothing on June 16 are reliable, what reliance should you place on his other testimony about the events of that day? This is not reliable evidence of the fact the prosecution is attempting to prove.'

Both sides are using the same evidence (GA's testimony) but putting forward different arguments as to the inferences that may be drawn from it. IMO, the defence is no more required to back up their version of this evidence with further evidence than the prosecution is.

:doh: Maybe I do get it. Ignoring the illustration and focusing just on this:

"Both sides need to explain why their interpretation of any piece of evidence is more reasonable, but I don't see why the defence would have to 'back up' their interpretation with further evidence when the prosecution does not."

Prosecution puts forward car trunk evidence. JB can try to attack the credibility of it, junk science, chain of custody, whatever. Or he can try to come up with an alternate explanation, for example, other people had access to the car. But he has to be able to show that other people really did have access. Or he can say as an alternate theory that it could have been pizza that caused the smell. But he's got to show that's a real possibility either through questioning the state's witnesses, 'could it also be consistent with pizza?' Or by adding some evidence of his own. He's the one that brought up the pizza; not the state.

The state has already backed up what they're saying; they provided evidence of a dead body in the trunk. That's all they're trying to prove and that's all they have to show. If what he's saying is different, he has to back it up.

At least that's how I think it works.

 

[lin]

I bolded two parts of your post for discussion.

As to the first part, I couldn't agree more that the jury won't have the luxury of time and a chance to view everything that WSers have been able to see. That alone could make a big difference.

As to the second part, IMHO, it is a bit skewed. Defense has no burden to produce any evidence. Said another way, the Defendant has a right to remain silent. We start with a presumption of innocence. Then, the prosecution presents its case-in-chief. As each piece of evidence is offered and as each witness testifies, certain "facts" are offered into evidence and witness testimony is subject to cross examination. Certain objections may be made. If the evidence meets the requirements of the Rules of Evidence, it will generally be admitted as "competent" evidence. Thus, the jury will have the right to determine its credibility, reliability and value in proving the elements of the charged offenses. Each element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for a charge to stand.

IF THE JURY IS DEALING WITH CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence as opposed to direct evidence, and there are two reasonable conclusions or facts that may be drawn from that evidence, then the "BEYOND" a reasonable doubt has not been met and the conclusion favoring acquittal must be drawn. However, a piece of evidence may be both direct and circumstantial. For example, if a truthful witness testifies under oath that it is raining outside, that is direct evidence that it is raining. If that witness testifies that he/she saw someone come in with a wet raincoat and umbrella, then it is circumstantial evidence that it is raining. However, it is direct evidence that the person entering the building had a wet raincoat and umbrella. So the facts and evidence do not have to be "thrown out" but they do have to be used properly.

I disagree that defense only has to show that "relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does." This is what the courts warn of as "pie in the sky" theories. The universe of "possibly theories" like this would be endless. It would have prosecution trying to dream up all alternative realities and having the burden to stamp those out in order to obtain convictions even where the defendant's guilt was obvious to them. This is not the law. It is up to the jury to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges based on a totality of the evidence. In other words, defense can put on a defense by attacking the prosecution's case, but if they have alternative scenarios that would point to an acquittal, the defense needs to have evidence to back up that alternative scenario or it is just pie in the sky.

Great post, thanks. There really has to be limits to what is expected of the prosecution and I think you've explained it beautifully. Especially the bit about alternative realities.

 

[JBean]

Great post, thanks. There really has to be limits to what is expected of the prosecution and I think you've explained it beautifully. Especially the bit about alternative realities.

The last time i was called to jury duty, during voir dire the judge asked to consider this.
She said suppose there is a plate of chocolate chip cookies in the kitchen and you set them on the table and leave the room. You come back a few minutes later to find your child in the kitchen and there is one cookie missing. There is a small dark spot of chocolate on his face but he insists he didn't take it.
Now you didn't see the child take the cookie and you don't really have any proof that he did.
But there is no one else home, no one else has come in or out but the window is open.
So it is POSSIBLE that an alien or a neighbor came in through the window stole a cookie and then left unnoticed. But it would be unreasonable to reach that conclusion with the circumstances surrounding the cookie caper.

 

[Marina2]

I read Randall and while I understand the ruling; it matches Jolynna's case from last night, Cummings. They lead me to think that these 'reasonable explanations' were not advanced at trial because that would have defeated the defense goal of an acquittal. However, on appeal, the defense can argue these different theories. Does this make sense? This would make these opinions not conflict with what I interpreted other opinions to mean.

If true, then team KC can try SONDI or whatever and if convicted of premeditated murder, they can come up with some other theory on appeal to try to explain away the premeditation found by the jury. If there is evidence to support it, like in Randall and Cummings.

Just theorizing here, folks. Does anyone know the answer?

Text bolded by me.

I believe the theory was advanced at trial.

"Randall contended at trial that, at most, the evidence established second-degree murder under section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (1995) (second-degree murder is perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life)" pg.20​

The "act imminently dangerous to another" refers to his habit of choking women during sex. I don't think a defendant can put on a new defense on appeal. ​

ETA: From Wikipedia on appellate courts:
U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.​

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

I don't think a defendant can put on a new defense on appeal. [/SIZE]

SNIP
[/FONT][/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

They can't. Appeals are usually based on claims of trial error, jury error -- such as returning a guilty verdict based on insufficent evidence -- ineffective counsel or Constitutional issues. However, if the defense finds new evidence (withheld exculpatory evidence is a Constitutional issue), they can use that on appeal.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Both sides need to explain why their interpretation of any piece of evidence is more reasonable,[/I]

SNIP

Stay away from the idea of "more reasonable". More reasonable matters not. What matters is simply whether or not an explanation put forth by the defense is reasonable.

Prosecutors could have a far more reasonable explanation, however, as long as the defense's explanation is reasonable, the jury must accept it, which means that evidence can't be used to used to support a "guilty" verdict.

 

[Theonly1]

The burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But this language is not in the Constitution. It evolved from the Due Process Clause that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.” In re Winship stated that the Due Process Clause requires the Government to persuade the factfinder “beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged” (called the Winship Doctrine). Jurors must have an abiding conviction of a defendant’s guilt. Courts try to step away from percentages.

In Jackson v. Virginia, The Supreme Court has said that the standard requires that a juror’s mind be in a “subjective state of near certitude” of guilt. According to the Supreme Court, “the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course. According to Victor v. Nebraska, the judge may tell a jury about reasonable doubt, but the Constitution does not require a definition. And frankly, courts are loathe to set forth a definition.

The “No Waiver or Vacillation” Instruction is the Florida standard jury instruction on the burden of proof.

 

[countzero]

Dearest lin;

I just had a hormonal light bulb moment. I think this might be the right thread for it.

The forensic evidence so far released had many and I mean many items which were collected and sent to the labs but the reports on these items have not been released.

What if, huge IF in KC talk, the SA releases info close to the trial that proves, beyond any reasonable doubt that KC did in fact commit the murder. What IF they also include forensic evidence that again proves beyond any reasonable doubt that another A clan member participated either during or after the murder.

Will the defense still attempt to call it junk science or what? And without any definitive forensic evidence of guilt will the defense proceed to put doubt into their case? How does a judge give jury instructions then?

I love reading these jury threads ya know. Whether or not evidence is provided in the future that does or does not fall into the reasonable doubt portion, I have learned so much from everyone. Oh, and if this post falls into one of the other legal threads being discussed would a mod please move it there, thanks. :crazy:

Carry on

 

[Wudge]

The burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But this language is not in the Constitution. It evolved from the Due Process Clause that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.” In re Winship stated that the Due Process Clause requires the Government to persuade the factfinder “beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged” (called the Winship Doctrine). Jurors must have an abiding conviction of a defendant’s guilt. Courts try to step away from percentages.

In Jackson v. Virginia, The Supreme Court has said that the standard requires that a juror’s mind be in a “subjective state of near certitude” of guilt. According to the Supreme Court, “the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course. According to Victor v. Nebraska, the judge may tell a jury about reasonable doubt, but the Constitution does not require a definition. And frankly, courts are loathe to set forth a definition.

The “No Waiver or Vacillation” Instruction is the Florida standard jury instruction on the burden of proof.

Good background post.

 

[Devon]

Here's a few. Plenty more out there. I googled -state fails to show premeditation +florida

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc90977/op-sc90977.pdf

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc00-1688/00-1688rep.pdf

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc05-245.pdf

Thank you for posting these links - reading these cases has been very interesting and informative.

In your previous post, you stated (not verbatim) that it was quite shocking to see convictions of 1st degree murder and sentences of death vacated where the evidence of premeditation was quite overwhelming. Do you see such evidence in either of the 3 cases you have linked to here, or are you referring to different cases? I see no such evidence in any of these 3 examples (from the information available) and can clearly see why the original conviction was determined to be wrong and therefore overturned in each case. If you do see it in these examples, could you explain what evidence you are referring to and why you think it shows premeditation?

 

[MissJames]

Dearest lin;

I just had a hormonal light bulb moment. I think this might be the right thread for it.

The forensic evidence so far released had many and I mean many items which were collected and sent to the labs but the reports on these items have not been released.

What if, huge IF in KC talk, the SA releases info close to the trial that proves, beyond any reasonable doubt that KC did in fact commit the murder. What IF they also include forensic evidence that again proves beyond any reasonable doubt that another A clan member participated either during or after the murder.

Will the defense still attempt to call it junk science or what? And without any definitive forensic evidence of guilt will the defense proceed to put doubt into their case? How does a judge give jury instructions then?

I love reading these jury threads ya know. Whether or not evidence is provided in the future that does or does not fall into the reasonable doubt portion, I have learned so much from everyone. Oh, and if this post falls into one of the other legal threads being discussed would a mod please move it there, thanks. :crazy:

Carry on

I started to write something similar two minutes ago.I typed it out,then squashed it,so I'm glad you said something.
The bottom line is ,we have not seen everything the SA has . I believe she is one bright cookie and is well aware of what she needs to prove premeditation.I think she has it.We just haven't seen it yet.
The defense keeps pushing the trial date back so the prosecution has plenty of time to release what is left.
It was the SA who pushed to get a DP qualified attorney on record for the defense. They intend to stick with the charge and to prove it.

 

[Marina2]

Thank you for posting these links - reading these cases has been very interesting and informative.

In your previous post, you stated (not verbatim) that it was quite shocking to see convictions of 1st degree murder and sentences of death vacated where the evidence of premeditation was quite overwhelming. Do you see such evidence in either of the 3 cases you have linked to here, or are you referring to different cases? I see no such evidence in any of these 3 examples (from the information available) and can clearly see why the original conviction was determined to be wrong and therefore overturned in each case. If you do see it in these examples, could you explain what evidence you are referring to and why you think it shows premeditation?

Yes and no. I stated that the evdence "seemed" to overwhelmingly indicate premeditation, not that it in fact did. Prior to being educated, enlightened, whatever you want to call it, I would have put out the same argument for premeditation as the jury, the state, and the dissenting justices. Now, after reading the opinions within these appeals, I can clearly see that these were wrong verdicts. Some, but not all of the appeals I read, were death sentence verdicts. Those on death row were guaranteed an appeal. What happens if one is not sentenced to death and can't afford a good appellate attorney?

 

[lin]

Text bolded by me.

I believe the theory was advanced at trial.

"Randall contended at trial that, at most, the evidence established second-degree murder under section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (1995) (second-degree murder is perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life)" pg.20​

The "act imminently dangerous to another" refers to his habit of choking women during sex. I don't think a defendant can put on a new defense on appeal. ​

ETA: From Wikipedia on appellate courts:
U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.​

You are probably right on this but it just doesn't seem logical to argue both innocence and guilt of a lesser charge to me. In fact, it seems counterintuitive to me. Perhaps some of the former jurors posting here can shed more light on how that works in the real world.

On the same page 20 you reference, I drew a different inference from the court writing 'argued here' as opposed to later writing 'argued at trial.' So I hope you can see I did have some basis for theory I put forth.

FTR, Wiki is not a reliable source for info; but I do generally agree with what is written in your citation of Wiki. I'm just not 100% convinced that usually means always because of what I perceive to be a conflict in the opinions between Barber and Cummings or Randall. Barber's case was affirmed. Here's a bit more:

"Justin Barber was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm for the killing of his wife and sentenced to life in prison. He appeals the judgment and sentence, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence at trial, which was wholly circumstantial, did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Late in the evening of April 17, 2002, Barber and his wife were celebrating a belated third wedding anniversary on a desolate strip of beach located between Ponte Vedra and St. Augustine. According to Barber's version of events, he and his wife were accosted by an unknown assailant as they walked along the ocean, the assailant shot and killed his wife at the surf's edge, and Barber dragged her body to the dune walkover before going for help. According to the State, Barber half-drowned his wife in the ocean, then dragged her to the end of the dune walkover, where he shot and killed her."

Surely it's possible that the guy was telling the truth and SODDI. Maybe I'm overthinking again and the point is that the SODDI didn't cover all the incriminating evidence, life insurance etc. I also found the case on google:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/floridastatecases/app/app5_1_2009/5d06-3529.pdf

I'm not disagreeing with you at all and again concede you're probably right. But if you take a look at that case, it may give you more confidence that the 'any other story is bullet proof' concept isn't necessarily the law of the land.

 

[lin]

Text bolded by me.

I believe the theory was advanced at trial.

"Randall contended at trial that, at most, the evidence established second-degree murder under section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (1995) (second-degree murder is perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life)" pg.20​

The "act imminently dangerous to another" refers to his habit of choking women during sex. I don't think a defendant can put on a new defense on appeal. ​

ETA: From Wikipedia on appellate courts:
U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.​

PS: I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought a person can put on a new defense, just that I thought it may be possible to put a new spin on the things already presented.

 

[Marina2]

Respectfully snipped:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all and again concede you're probably right. But if you take a look at that case, it may give you more confidence that the 'any other story is bullet proof' concept isn't necessarily the law of the land.

Bold is mine.

Well, I never meant to give the impression that I felt "any other story is bullet proof" and is the law of the land. If I did, I certainly want to clear that up. The law as I understand it is that in a circumstantial case, any "reasonable" hypothesis put out by the defense should result in an acquital of the defendant.

 

[Marina2]

PS: I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought a person can put on a new defense, just that I thought it may be possible to put a new spin on the things already presented.

Thanks for clarifying. It did seem as though you were asking if they could put out a new defense on appeal when you suggested that:

"However, on appeal, the defense can argue these different theories." when referring to theories that were not advanced at trial.

 

[Wudge]

Yes and no. I stated that the evdence "seemed" to overwhelmingly indicate premeditation, not that it in fact did. Prior to being educated, enlightened, whatever you want to call it, I would have put out the same argument for premeditation as the jury, the state, and the dissenting justices. Now, after reading the opinions within these appeals, I can clearly see that these were wrong verdicts. Some, but not all of the appeals I read, were death sentence verdicts. Those on death row were guaranteed an appeal. What happens if one is not sentenced to death and can't afford a good appellate attorney?

You used the words: "seemed to overwhemingly indicate premeditation". Those words are very representative of a vast number of people who mistakingly believe that if they were seated on the jury, they could validly and legally convict a defendant on a murder one charge by using the totality of evidence or the weight of evidence. Totality of evidence or weight of evidence can certainly create a false impression -- to say nothing of the fact that we have yet to hear Casey's defense.

(I believe much of this misplaced belief stems from the fact that preponderance (more likely than not) of the evidence is a standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff in a civil trial. The standard in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a far cry from "more likely than not".)

 

[lin]

Dearest lin;

I just had a hormonal light bulb moment. I think this might be the right thread for it.

The forensic evidence so far released had many and I mean many items which were collected and sent to the labs but the reports on these items have not been released.

What if, huge IF in KC talk, the SA releases info close to the trial that proves, beyond any reasonable doubt that KC did in fact commit the murder. What IF they also include forensic evidence that again proves beyond any reasonable doubt that another A clan member participated either during or after the murder.

Will the defense still attempt to call it junk science or what? And without any definitive forensic evidence of guilt will the defense proceed to put doubt into their case? How does a judge give jury instructions then?

I love reading these jury threads ya know. Whether or not evidence is provided in the future that does or does not fall into the reasonable doubt portion, I have learned so much from everyone. Oh, and if this post falls into one of the other legal threads being discussed would a mod please move it there, thanks. :crazy:

Carry on

Darling countzero,

No expert in criminal law so my guess is no better than any other while at the same time being a lot worse than some. Doesn't slow me down much though.

For the first question: I think most here will agree that the smart person would recognize the evidence was irrefutable and try to make the best of a bad situation by trying to plead. KC is the "CEO" and she's never impressed me as being smarter than a rock; in fact, to the contrary, I've opined she's dumber than a rock. JB may not be as dumb as he looks, (how could he be??), and may be playing along with her to keep the case for his own benefits, whereas he'd insist any non-infamous client plead out.

What will they do if such evidence is proven? No way to know for sure with these jokers in the deck. May throw it the towel but wouldn't surprise me if they argued it to the very last, as you suggested, 'junk science,' (cos hypothetically it's only been around 50 years), 'chain of custody,' (whether or not there's an issue, just saying it repeatedly may make it so, according to CA), or some other nonsense. If it is ironclad evidence, it won't work but it appears to me that KC would be narcissistic enough to think the evidence isn't as important as what she, KC, wants.

The defense is always going to try to raise a reasonable doubt and a lack of forensics may be one way they attempt to do it. With all the other evidence in this case and especially with the reputation of Florida juries, I don't think it will work.

I'm also not as convinced as some others that any old alternate theory will do. And even if that were the case, I can't imagine any theory consistent with all the evidence. As I argued in my usual long winded way last night, a theory that explains away the duct tape may conflict with a theory that explains away the car trunk and vice versa and I don't think they can have it both ways. Yeah, it was a horrible accident and Caylee ended up in trunk. No, wait, it was a staged kidnapping and that's why there is duct tape. (Bad theory anyway, imo, 'cos what kidnapper puts duct tape on a victim's nose??). No wait, it was a heat of passion thing and 34 month old Caylee provoked her mother. Those theories are incompatible and yet imo not one of the three explains all of the evidence to my personal satisfaction. And I hope not to the jury's.

Make sense to you? Or do you have a different theory?

Totally with you on enjoying this thread and learning from it. Me too.