Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Marina2]

Yes, arguing for a lesser charge makes perfect sense. But what about those cases wherein the defense seeks an acquittal? Maybe we're missing some important steps in the process. Maybe the motion or whatever it is for judgment of acquittal that is almost inevitably filed plays a significant role in how these things all play out in the real world.

I swear, I get so obsessive sometimes. Maybe it's best for me to just let this side issue go in favor of discussing things applicable to the current facts/circumstances and worry about this bridge (motion, petition or other pleadings) when they're more relevant to the case. I really can't see any defense theory that is consistent with all the evidence and will result in an acquittal or a verdict less than felony murder. If I'm right, the rest is just theoretical and totally irrelevant to the case we're discussing.

But thanks so much for your input. It has been very helpful and instructive.

Your welcome, Lin. I'm trying to participate in this discussion not in how it relates to KC's case but in general. This way, when the case goes to trial and we have all the information I'll be better informed on issues that might come up. To relate it to the defense theory or whether the state has enough for premeditation is difficult for me at this point because I don't have all that infomation.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

But I highly recommend that you not insist that Knight does not control

SNIP

Quote me.

 

[lin]

"Consider the totality of the evidence" means that the jury is not to ignore evidence.

(It's an admonishment.)

So then we agree, in the context I'm using 'totality' it is not a myth but instead, is the law. Thank you. I suspected it was a semantics disagreement and appreciate your clarification of same.

 

[MissJames]

Well done! Now here I've spent half the day and too much of last night overworking both of the functioning brain cells and you figured it out and explained it in, again, 4 sentences.

Are you kidding? I've learned so much from your posts!
Please keep up the good work! :blowkiss:

 

[lin]

Quote me.

As you wish.

My post:

Jurors are required to consider the totality of the evidence and either acquit or convict based thereupon. It's not a mistake; it's the law.

To which you responded indicating or implying that my statemet, that jurors must consider the totality of the evidence, is not true, not the law and a myth that you have often addressed:

Your statement is not true and that's not the law. I have often addressed this mythology -- most recently in yesterday's post# 669.

The law requires prosecutors to produce evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt -- in this case we are discussing the premeditated murder charge against Casey. All the evidence could accrue to the People, but if that evidence is insufficient to support a guilty verdict, juries cannot then use a totality of the evidence measure or a weight of the evidence measure to convict the defendant.

HTH

 

[lin]

OKay it took is forever to determine that
1. Felony Murder is a separate charge from Premeditated murder.
2. Felony Murder is not a lesser charge of Premeditated murder.
3. By definition Premeditated Murder and Felony Murder are equal in weight and can carry the same sentence.

The debate is whether felony murder can be considered if the defendant is not specifically charged with it.

Please take that debate back to the thread where it all is hashed out for pages and pages and let's not start it all over in this one.

I love the adversarial nature of our justice system and it is well represented on this thread. but take it back to the original discussion please.

I agree with points 1 - 3 and haven't posted anything to the contrary. The point I made was different and specifically covered under jury instructions. But I'll repost the citation in that thread.

The reason I'm responding is for clarification. This debate started when, in a post to Marina2, I mentioned that I was confident that the least that KC would be convicted of is felony murder. Are we not allowed to mention that part of the jury instructions or reference our interpretations of same when discussing the matter, or is the meaning more like agree to disagree and stop the current debate?

 

[lin]

Quote me.

Thanks, as I have your request/permission I'll move it to the appropriate thread. See ya' there!

 

[Wudge]

So then we agree, in the context I'm using 'totality' it is not a myth but instead, is the law. Thank you. I suspected it was a semantics disagreement and appreciate your clarification of same.

I posted: "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."

Against my post, you replied: "Jurors are required to consider the totality of the evidence and either acquit or convict based thereupon. It's not a mistake; it's the law."

If all you meant was that jurors cannot ignore any of the evidence, I agree.

 

[lin]

Your welcome, Lin. I'm trying to participate in this discussion not in how it relates to KC's case but in general. This way, when the case goes to trial and we have all the information I'll be better informed on issues that might come up. To relate it to the defense theory or whether the state has enough for premeditation is difficult for me at this point because I don't have all that infomation.

Yes, exactly. I just can't believe any reasonable person would think there was even a remote chance of acquittal on these facts but we're not talking about reasonable people, imo. So no clues as to the defense yet; they probably don't have much of a clue either. And I'm not going to suggest any defense strategy, even if I could think of a plausible/do-able/maybe-could-work one!

 

[lin]

I posted: "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."

Against my post, you replied: "Jurors are required to consider the totality of the evidence and either acquit or convict based thereupon. It's not a mistake; it's the law."

If all you meant was that jurors cannot ignore any of the evidence, I agree.

Thanks for clarifying. As I posted, I couldn't believe you were taking the stance it appeared you were. It seemed so contrary to my view of your knowledge. Sometimes it's not the law at issue, it's the words chosen to explain that law.

 

[Brini]

Yes, exactly. I just can't believe any reasonable person would think there was even a remote chance of acquittal on these facts but we're not talking about reasonable people, imo. So no clues as to the defense yet; they probably don't have much of a clue either. And I'm not going to suggest any defense strategy, even if I could think of a plausible/do-able/maybe-could-work one!

Well, we beat the SODDI theory to death.

The accident theory has the Buck case in the way.

What else is there?

 

[Wudge]

Thanks for clarifying. As I posted, I couldn't believe you were taking the stance it appeared you were. It seemed so contrary to my view of your knowledge. Sometimes it's not the law at issue, it's the words chosen to explain that law.

I've consistently referred to people who believe they could legally base a guilty verdict using a total (sum), of the evidence, such 100%, 99% 90% 80% that might favor the prosecution. The same holds true for "weight" of the evidence that might favor the prosecution. My hypo clearly reflects upon and illuminates this myth.

Obviously, judges admonish jurors that they are to consider all (total) of the evidence; i.e., they're not permitted to ignore any of the evidence.

 

[tweety933]

This is what the jury will see as their instruction, correct?

7.2 MURDER—FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony murder, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

Transferred intent. Give if applicable.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

 

[lin]

Well, we beat the SODDI theory to death.

The accident theory has the Buck case in the way.

What else is there?

ETA: :doh: that'll teach me to flit back and forth from computer. I totally misunderstood and get it now. So very sorry.

 

[lin]

I've consistently referred to people who believe they could legally base a guilty verdict using a total (sum), of the evidence, such 100%, 99% 90% 80% that might favor the prosecution. The same holds true for "weight" of the evidence that might favor the prosecution. My hypo clearly reflects upon and illuminates this myth.

Obviously, judges admonish jurors that they are to consider all (total) of the evidence; i.e., they're not permitted to ignore any of the evidence.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between the former and the latter. Are you speaking of quantity of evidence or quality? If it's quantity, including that specific word or similar may help to illustrate for those of us not already following your train of thought, kwim? When you mention totality of evidence or weight of evidence, to me and I daresay to most readers viewing in a legal context, it means something quite different than amount of evidence.

Just a suggestion; I realize you're not writing solely for my benefit but I think others may have also misunderstood your meaning.

In posts wherein you've explained this concept in terms of amounts/quantities, I had no trouble following and agreed with your reasoning. Of course it doesn't matter who brings forth more pieces of evidence. Where I disagree/don't understand and can't imagine, is any juror really basing a verdict on who had a greater quantity of evidence. Either the elements are proven beyond a reasonable doubt or they are not, regardless of the amount of evidence shown; 0 - infinity. I still think this is more of a yes/no proposition and any type of numerical quantification.

 

[Wudge]

This is what the jury will see as their instruction, correct?

7.2 MURDER—FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony murder, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

Transferred intent. Give if applicable.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

There's no doubt that Florida's statute for first-degree murder is as shown. What's been debated (on another thread) is whether the judge will simply lift and instruct the jury as shown.

 

[lin]

This is what the jury will see as their instruction, correct?

7.2 MURDER—FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony murder, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

Transferred intent. Give if applicable.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

That's not all of it and there may be other things included by stipulation or order of the court that aren't listed in the standard instructions but yes, that's part of the "official" instructions.

[ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3986961&postcount=663]Here's another part of the jury instructions posted in another thread that until clarified, we can't discuss in this thread.[/ame]

 

[Wudge]

I'm not sure I understand the difference between the former and the latter. Are you speaking of quantity of evidence or quality? If it's quantity, including that specific word or similar may help to illustrate for those of us not already following your train of thought, kwim?

SNIP

If you have a problem with the hypo I posted, please explain it.

 

[lin]

If you have a problem with the hypo I posted, please explain it.

I did; at some length. Which part didn't you understand?

ETA: Not meant to be snarky, sincere question: Which part of my explanation of my understanding of your post was unclear?

 

[Themis]

:waitasec: Hummm. Big difference between "Totality of the Evidence" and "total (sum)" of the evidence. In "totality of the evidence" it is more like all the pieces of a puzzle that create the big picture. In "total (sum)" of the evidence it sounds like trying to mathmatically quanitify the truthfulness of witnesses, reliability of science and other "weight" to be given to the evidence into a mathmatical exercise. No math here. Big picture is the theme. Totality = do the pieces fit?