Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Wudge]

That would not be a factor w/ a 2 year old.

That's your gross assumption.

Using your hands to remove a breathing blockage is a natural reaction.

 

[coco puff]

We may not have evidence that they were not either. We have not yet seen all of the items that were found with the body. Much has been made about how unusual it was that the duct tape remained on the skull, some of which may have been due to the fact that it was stuck to the hair that did not separate from the skull and helped hold the duct tape in place.

If other pieces of duct tape (or string, cloth, or other, materials) were used to bind her hands or feet, it is very likely they fell away from the body after it skeletonized and may have shifted in location away from the body. I am looking forward to the experts' interpretation of what was found at the crime scene at trial because it's really difficult and frustratring for us to intelligently speculate not having all the facts and their specialized knowledge.

or simply removed when she succumbed to the lack of oxygen.

 

[Wudge]

We may not have evidence that they were not either. We have not yet seen all of the items that were found with the body. Much has been made about how unusual it was that the duct tape remained on the skull, some of which may have been due to the fact that it was stuck to the hair that did not separate from the skull and helped hold the duct tape in place.

If other pieces of duct tape (or string, cloth, or other, materials) were used to bind her hands or feet, it is very likely they fell away from the body after it skeletonized and may have shifted in location away from the body. I am looking forward to the experts' interpretation of what was found at the crime scene at trial because it's really difficult and frustratring for us to intelligently speculate not having all the facts and their specialized knowledge.

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Based on the evidence in the public domain, prosecutors would not even have a basis to argue that Caylee was bound (or sat on).

 

[coco puff]

There is a lack of evidence that anyone else killed Caylee. I guess we are done!

 

[marspiter]

Seems to me that "Huck" is pretty clear about the duct tape. When you look at Huck and compare it to this case it reminds me of the autopsy finds as well when it says that the tape was applied before decomp and decomp starts with in moments of death.

Given Caylee's age and the fact that it was her mother doing it.....

Lets also keep in mind this is a small child yes removing a breathing obstruction is a natural reaction, but when one is in fear there are numerous reactions. Caylee could have just froze because she was afraid of her mother. The situation around her must have been hard for a less then 2 year old to fully comprehend.

If Caylee were older I could see Wudges point about the hands and feet but given Caylee's age I would have to disagree with his assessment.

 

[Jolynna]

I found Huck's case through a Scott Peterson forum.

Before Scott Peterson's verdict came in, the Huck case was being cited as a case where the defendant was convicted minus any direct evidence or actual cause of death.

 

[MissJames]

The Court used the facts in "Huck". The facts are much different in this case.

If you are of the mind that the trial Judge will use "Huck" as a settled law precedent and so instruct the jurors that there is no reasonable explanation for the tape being placed over Caylee's mouth and face after she was dead, you will never hear that instruction.

Actually I'm just happy to have the FL Supreme Court agree with me.There is no reasonable explanation for placing duct tape over a dead persons mouth.
Not to stem decomp,not to fake a kidnapping.It's to shut them up or cause them to sufficate.
It can't be ignored that Caylee was only 2 and small.Her hands could have been held away from the tape.It's what we parents often do while trying to keep our kids from touching something dangerous.KC is a different sort of mom.:furious:
I can't play a lawyer and I never took debate.I'm just a mom,but I do have common sense.I believe the same common sense the jury will use while deciding what is reasonable.

 

[Wudge]

Respectfully,would you please address the entire quote? It was pretty short.No need to snip and it it was all important to the issue you raised.
And tied together.

I have. Case facts and the law key Appellate Court findings. There's no statute that covers duct tape on the face. Hence, that statement was based on the facts in "Huck", which are much different than this case.

 

[Wudge]

Seems to me that "Huck" is pretty clear about the duct tape.

SNIP

If Caylee were older I could see Wudges point about the hands and feet but given Caylee's age I would have to disagree with his assessment.

Do you expect the trial judge to instruct the jury based on "Huck"?

 

[marspiter]

For me and this case its like this.

If I was JB I would have pushed for my client to enact her right for a speedy trial at the beginning. Yes the media circus has died down now but I think in the beginning it would have helped the defense. Early on there was a good number of people who still believed Caylee could be alive, accident theories, and all different types of theories for the defense to choose from and cast reasonable doubt.

I would also say that early on in this case the prosecution did not have the evidence needed to prosecute for murder. Maybe at most they could have gone for negligent homicide but I have my doubts that even then it would lead to a conviction.

Once the body was found though that completely changed the game. I think given the general jury instructions and how Florida defines premeditation this case is pretty much going to be a no brainer for the jury. I very seriously think the defense missed the not guilty train on this one.

With AL heading the case I think the state is still looking at getting its murder 1 conviction based on the evidence at hand however I think were going to see LWOP and not the DP during the sentencing phase..

 

[marspiter]

Wudge

I think there are a few cases that are going to be looked at for reference. I think a case detailing circumstantial evidence such as my pet case People v. Scott will be used. I haven't researched "Huck" in detail but it seems that it could be a good way of explaining the duck tape and premeditation. Granted Huck isn't exactly like this case but I think there are going to be parallels drawn from it.

For premeditation I think Dr. G's testimony is going to be key. Once her testimony is given I think all the other pieces are going to fall into place. I'm not saying her testimony is going to be an absolute necessity given Florida's definition of premeditation (which is more broad then it is in NC), but it will certainly be the major key to unlock this case.

 

[Jolynna]

That's your gross assumption.

Using your hands to remove a breathing blockage is a natural reaction.

If you can figure out that duct tape stops breathing and/or screaming, you know enough to keep a two-year-old's hands off of her face for 4 minutes.

And you'd probably be highly motivated to do so.

 

[Jolynna]

Do you expect the trial judge to instruct the jury based on "Huck"?

No.

I would expect the court to refer to it after KC files her appeal after her conviction.

I found the Huck case through a Scott Peterson forum. The two cases were being compared because neither had an known cause of death and both were entirely circumstantial cases.

My reason for posting a link to the Huck case here is that I think the same logic that caused Florida's Supreme Court Judges to find duct tape after death to be unreasonable in Hucks case will hold true for jurors hearing KC's case. (And be used when they are in the jury room discussing reasonable doubt or not.)

I also see Dr. G examining Caylee in the same predicament that the Huck's case's medical examiner was in . Neither could say with certainty why the victim died. But, in both cases the means was homicide.

I don't see benign duct taping after death as a common rite of passage for toddlers. There is not one case I know of where it has happened. Lots of kids have been killed that way. But, I don't know of any killer ever using the "I was stopping fluid leakage" excuse. If it was a possibility don't you think it would have been done already?

 

[Brini]

I reviewed the relevant facts in "Huck" elsewhere. Against the existance of duct tape over the victim's mouth and eyes, the victim's hands and feet were also bound (fact). How do these facts compare to the facts in this case?

Again, a two-year old is far easier to restrian than an adult woman.

Again, the duct tape was used to suffocate. The child could not have pulled off three layers. However, the child could also easily have been restrained by holding or sitting. We are talking 30# baby v. 100# adult.

The Buck decision did not mention the bindings on the hands and feet as related to the duct tape. It just said that there is no reasonable function of the duct tape except to suffocate, or prevent screaming.

It did NOT say: :In cases where the victim is bound hand and foot..."

Other bindings notwithstanding, the function of the duct tape remains the same.

 

[Patty G]

We need to get off of the Huck case and back to "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt."

 

[Wudge]

We need to get off of the Huck case and back to "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt."

"Reasonable doubt" = "reasonable degree of certainty". What reasonable degree of certainty should exist before a defendant is convicted of premeditated murder and given the death penalty?

In Casey's case, is there any single piece of inculpatory evidence that meets or exceeds this "reasonable degree of certainty"?

(The reliability of an inferred conclusion of "guilty" cannot exceed the reliability of the most inculpatory item of evidence.)

 

[lin]

"Reasonable doubt" = "reasonable degree of certainty". What reasonable degree of certainty should exist before a defendant is convicted of premeditated murder and given the death penalty?

In Casey's case, is there any single piece of inculpatory evidence that meets or exceeds this "reasonable degree of certainty"?

(The reliability of an inferred conclusion of "guilty" cannot exceed the reliability of the most inculpatory item of evidence.)

BBM

A reasonable doubt does not equal a reasonable degree of certainty in a legal setting. If one has a reasonable doubt then one cannot reach the level of legal certainty in a criminal case and must acquit. As for what degree of certainty should exist on a personal level, that is up to the individual. For what degree should exist in a legal proceeding, that is spelled out in the law and jury instructions, previously posted verbatim.

In Casey's case, I don't know of anyone who has opined that there is a single piece of inculpatory evidence that meets or exceeds the legal definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. A circustantial case would not have a "smoking gun" by definition, but instead, relies on accumulation of various evidence.

The reason I am responding to your questions that have been most ably answered by other posters throughout this thread is to seek clarification of your last instruction, bolded by me. I think we'd all be better able to understand if the instruction is read in context. From my reading, the bolded instruction is put forth as fact, then I assume it is fact and I'd appreciate it if you'd cite the applicable Florida or applicable Federal Law supporting it.

If it is, on the other hand, your personal restriction or test, it would be helpful to note same for the benefit of the reader. At first blush, it would seem to negate the viability of any circumstantial evidence case, which is your personal right to believe but could leave a false impression as to the legal requirements/threshold for a circumstantial case. TIA

 

[Brini]

"Reasonable doubt" = "reasonable degree of certainty". What reasonable degree of certainty should exist before a defendant is convicted of premeditated murder and given the death penalty?

In Casey's case, is there any single piece of inculpatory evidence that meets or exceeds this "reasonable degree of certainty"?

(The reliability of an inferred conclusion of "guilty" cannot exceed the reliability of the most inculpatory item of evidence.)

Again, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence-- MUCH more than the SP and a number of other cases, wherin M1 was found.

I don't think the jury has to point to a single "smoking gun." At least, we have not been required to do in any case for which I have been a juror.

And, again, I have never seen a case wherin the jury had to divide the evidence on inculpatory v. exculpatory, and then calculate percentages, before rendering a verdict.

 

[Wudge]

BBM

A reasonable doubt does not equal a reasonable degree of certainty in a legal setting. If one has a reasonable doubt then one cannot reach the level of legal certainty in a criminal case and must acquit. As for what degree of certainty should exist on a personal level, that is up to the individual. For what degree should exist in a legal proceeding, that is spelled out in the law and jury instructions, previously posted verbatim.

In Casey's case, I don't know of anyone who has opined that there is a single piece of inculpatory evidence that meets or exceeds the legal definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. A circustantial case would not have a "smoking gun" by definition, but instead, relies on accumulation of various evidence.

The reason I am responding to your questions that have been most ably answered by other posters throughout this thread is to seek clarification of your last instruction, bolded by me. I think we'd all be better able to understand if the instruction is read in context. From my reading, the bolded instruction is put forth as fact, then I assume it is fact and I'd appreciate it if you'd cite the applicable Florida or applicable Federal Law supporting it.

If it is, on the other hand, your personal restriction or test, it would be helpful to note same for the benefit of the reader. At first blush, it would seem to negate the viability of any circumstantial evidence case, which is your personal right to believe but could leave a false impression as to the legal requirements/threshold for a circumstantial case. TIA

Incorrect. "Reasonable doubt" and "reasonable degree of certainty" mean the same. A "reasonable degree of certainty" simply substitutes "degree of certainty" for "doubt".

You're correct in saying that the degree of certainty is up to the individual. However, you are incorrect in your belief that in a criminal trial this degree of certainty is spelled out in jury instructions or elsewhere stated.

Regarding "accumulating" circumstantial evidence, independent items of circumstance evidence that have a reliability factor of less than 100% are not additive. For example, if one item of circumstantial evidence is deemed to be 90% reliable (9 times out of 10) as regards evidence supporting proof of guilt and a second item of circumstantial evidence is deemed to be 70% reliable (7 times out of 10) as regards evidence supporting of proof of guilt, a juror can't add the 90% and the 70% and then use the sum of 160% to say that because 160% is beyond a 100%, the sum proves the defendant is absolutely guilty.

As for what I said that you bolded, that's basic applied logic -- the reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot exceed the reliability of its premises. Statutes are not written to address such basics.

(The reliability of the conclusion cannot exceed the reliability of the best evidence.)

 

[Wudge]

There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence-- MUCH more than the SP and a number of other cases, wherin M1 was found.

I don't think the jury has to point to a single "smoking gun." At least, we have not been required to do in any case for which I have been a juror.

And, again, I have never seen a case wherin the jury had to divide the evidence on inculpatory v. exculpatory, and then calculate percentages, before rendering a verdict.

You said: "And, again, I have never seen a case wherin [sic] the jury had to divide the evidence on inculpatory v. exculpatory, and then calculate percentages, before rendering a verdict." For the record, I certainly never said this. (Please quote me.)


What reasonable degree of certainty should exist before a defendant is convicted of premeditated murder and given the death penalty?