Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lisalei321]

I've gotten so confused, I'm not even sure what's being discussed

 

[tweety933]

Whether or not this first degree murder charge can be proven as having the element of premeditation, I think, is what is being debated here.....Personally, I don't think that the death penalty requires premeditation, or does it?

 

[JBean]

Whether or not this first degree murder charge can be proven as having the element of premeditation, I think, is what is being debated here.....Personally, I don't think that the death penalty requires premeditation, or does it?

no it does not. because felony murder does not require premeditation and it can be punishable by death.

ETA: again ...awesome debate. thanks everyone.

 

[Wudge]

: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?

When judges admonish jurors on this point, they usually say that jurors must consider "all" the evidence; that is, they are not to ignore any of the evidence. In your original post to me on this topic, you said that jurors are required to consider the "totality" of the evidence. You later explained that your words "consider the "totality' of the evidence" meant that jurors are not to ignore any of the evidence. ["you simply used "totality' instead of all"]

According, I replied: if that is what you meant, I agree.

Clearly, my hypo does not, in any way, reflect that jurors ignored any of the evidence when they examined the evidence and found that it did not prove premeditation, which is insufficient evidence.

If you have a problem with my hypo, please explain it.

 

[Brini]

Whether or not this first degree murder charge can be proven as having the element of premeditation, I think, is what is being debated here.....Personally, I don't think that the death penalty requires premeditation, or does it?

Well, Caylee's age is an aggravating circumstance, IIRC.

 

[lin]

When judges admonish jurors on this point, they usually say that jurors must consider "all" the evidence; that is, they are not to ignore any of the evidence. In your original post to me on this topic, you said that jurors are required to consider the "totality" of the evidence. You later explained that your words "consider the "totality' of the evidence" meant that jurors are not to ignore any of the evidence. ["you simply used "totality' instead of all"]

According, I replied: if that is what you meant, I agree.

Clearly, my hypo does not, in any way, reflect that jurors ignored any of the evidence when they examined the evidence and found that it did not prove premeditation, which is insufficient evidence.

If you have a problem with my hypo, please explain it.

pssst... Wudge... did you mistake Themis for me? If so, I'm flattered.

 

[Wudge]

pssst... Wudge... did you mistake Themis for me? If so, I'm flattered.

Yes, I did.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

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.

You do not have a problem with my hypo.

Though you might not agree or fathom that people think in terms of a numerical "weight" of the evidence favoring one side or the other in a criminal trial or perhaps even thinking along those lines as regards a numerical weight for the totality of the evidence to reach a verdict they do exist. Moreover, our nation is polluted with people who believe this to be true, so our jury pools suffer accordingly.

I noted earlier that I believe (from talking to many such people) that a good deal of their confusion and falsehoods stems from the fact that people do hear of the weight of evidence being used to render decisions in civil trials. And they simply impute this over to criminal trials even though our standard for conviction (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) is much higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard that exists in civil trials.

 

[Marina2]

You do not have a problem with my hypo.

Though you might not agree or fathom that people think in terms of a numerical "weight" of the evidence favoring one side or the other in a criminal trial or perhaps even thinking along those lines as regards a numerical weight for the totality of the evidence to reach a verdict they do exist. Moreover, our nation is polluted with people who believe this to be true, so our jury pools suffer accordingly.

I noted earlier that I believe (from talking to many such people) that a good deal of their confusion and falsehoods stems from the fact that people do hear of the weight of evidence being used to render decisions in civil trials. And they simply impute this over to criminal trials even though our standard for conviction (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) is much higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard that exists in civil trials.

I believe that more juries than most would like to acknowledge use a "more likely than not" standard when deciding a case. Even a "much more likely than not" isn't enough for a conviction. But, in many jurors minds, this is what reasonable doubt is. I may be wrong but I suspect that I'm not. It's not that they don't take their responsibility seriously but that they define "reasonable doubt" incorrectly.

 

[Wudge]

I believe that more juries than most would like to acknowledge use a "more likely than not" standard when deciding a case. Even a "much more likely than not" isn't enough for a conviction. But, in many jurors minds, this is what reasonable doubt is. I may be wrong but I suspect that I'm not. It's not that they don't take their responsibility seriously but that they define "reasonable doubt" incorrectly.

Talk with jurors after a trial and you will find that more than a few will admit to some incredible things (which they do not see as being such).

 

[lin]

I've gotten so confused, I'm not even sure what's being discussed

That happens to me a lot...

 

[Mamabear1963]

Well, Caylee's age is an aggravating circumstance, IIRC.

IIRC, in FL it most certainly does. So we don't need premeditation. Right?

 

[lin]

IIRC, in FL it most certainly does. So we don't need premeditation. Right?

I think we have enough to meet a legal standard of premeditation but no, no needed per se. Even without it, imo, there's enough evidence for felony or 2nd degree; she could still get lwop or possibly dp with felony.

 

[lin]

The lists that were started here have been moved here. The lists have been updated on subsequent pages. After checking out the lists, please come back and let us know if you have any reasonable doubt:

1. That a dead body was in the trunk of KC's car
2. That the body was Caylee's
3. That KC put her there

Also, please let us know if you have a reasonable doubt:

4. as to KC's guilt of premeditated murder
5. if the answer to #4 is yes, as to her guilt of felony murder, with aggravated child abuse as the underlying felony?

If the answer to #4 or #5 is yes, please explain why. Also, any help with making the lists will be appreciated. TIA!

 

[Marina2]

Talk with jurors after a trial and you will find that more than a few will admit to some incredible things (which they do not see as being such).

I gather from reading your posts that you've interviewed many jurors over the years. I'd love to read about some of the "incredible things" you've heard from them. You should write a book.

 

[Themis]

The following post might need its own thread: "Jury Instructions and Accident Theories." I don't know how to start a thread.

 

[Themis]

There are threads discussing theories that Caylee died by accidental means such as drowning in the pool or being left in a hot car. There are threads discussing whether or not KC had premeditation or her acts were just cover-up. None of these discussions actually go to the jury instructions that include the instructions for premeditated murder, 2nd degree murder, justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. The next post will include those jury instructions.

 

[Themis]

Under Florida Law, Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crime of
Murder in the Second Degree, both of which are unlawful.
A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force
is lawful.
If you find [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](victim) [/FONT]was killed by [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT], you will then consider the
circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the First Degree or was Murder in the Second Degree, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force.

 

[Themis]

Florida Statute 782.02 defines justifiable homicide. The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing.

 

[Themis]

Florida Statute 782.03 defines excusable homicide. The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any
lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any
unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting
from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
A “dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in
which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.