Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Brini]

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?

I think we are about to see! No judge has ever given specifics down to percentages to any jury I have ever been on.

Honey, you keep telling us this stuff, some of which has not agreed with the FL criminal codes, some of which is your interpretation, and some of which are incorrect pronouncements re: jury restrictions.

If all of your posts were on the mark, quite a few death row killers would still be out on the streets, as I write. And, few circumstantial cases would ever be prosecuted.

I think we are going to observe that QUITE a few pieces of evidence are seen as additive, BTW. That's what circumstantial evidence is.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

No judge has ever given specifics down to percentages to any jury I have ever been on.

SNIP

Quote where I've said otherwise.

 

[lin]

Folks will be able to climb Everest wearing jogging shorts and carrying only a candy bar before that mountain of evidence will be climbed, imo. We are somewhat inured to the evidence, having had it presented piecemeal.

When the jury is hit with fact after fact after fact; the reasonable inferences made therefrom; (make no mistake, infer they will and infer they must); will no doubt point to the guilt of one person and only one person. The jury instructions will make their responsibilities and the decision process clear. I don't think there will be a long debate, either. We're looking at 3 days, at most, imo.

How on earth to explain away 31 days? There have been a couple of attempts already that landed with a resounding thud.

Remember? The script, ugly coping... I'm confident there will be more "explanations" and they will be just as incredible.

Jolynna made an excellent find in Huck. The 5th circuit was pretty clear and while I agree with those who have opined that it is unlikely it will be included in jury instructions, I don't think it's unlikely it may be used to admit disputed similar evidence. For instance, if a state expert opines there is no reason to use duct tape after death and the defense objects, Huck may be the deciding factor regarding admissibility.

I'm hoping the prosecution is able somehow to introduce this case before the jury. Don't know much about criminal law but sometimes, where there's a will, a way will be found. If so, it won't need to be in the jury instructions; it will be in their minds already.

 

[Wudge]

Folks will be able to climb Everest wearing jogging shorts and carrying only a candy bar before that mountain of evidence will be climbed, imo. We are somewhat inured to the evidence, having had it presented piecemeal.

When the jury is hit with fact after fact after fact; the reasonable inferences made therefrom; (make no mistake, infer they will and infer they must); will no doubt point to the guilt of one person and only one person. The jury instructions will make their responsibilities and the decision process clear. I don't think there will be a long debate, either. We're looking at 3 days, at most, imo.

How on earth to explain away 31 days? There have been a couple of attempts already that landed with a resounding thud.

Remember? The script, ugly coping... I'm confident there will be more "explanations" and they will be just as incredible.

Jolynna made an excellent find in Huck. The 5th circuit was pretty clear and while I agree with those who have opined that it is unlikely it will be included in jury instructions, I don't think it's unlikely it may be used to admit disputed similar evidence. For instance, if a state expert opines there is no reason to use duct tape after death and the defense objects, Huck may be the deciding factor regarding admissibility.

I'm hoping the prosecution is able somehow to introduce this case before the jury. Don't know much about criminal law but sometimes, where there's a will, a way will be found. If so, it won't need to be in the jury instructions; it will be in their minds already.

My key question was and remains: "What reasonable degree of certainty should exist before a defendant is convicted of premeditated murder and given the death penalty?


(doubt = uncertainty = degree of certainty less than 100%)

 

[lin]

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

2. 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.

3.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.

4.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.)

Numbers added in red to facilitate reply.

Once again, please cite your reference(s) so that we may all see the context. Otherwise, I cannot agree with the inferences you drew therefrom.

1. If one adds 'beyond' as in, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' equates reasonable certainty, you'd be correct. Perhaps it was a typo but I felt it should be clarified.

2. Again, I disagree. I think the standard jury instructions are pretty clear and there will no doubt be amendments to make it even more clear. Marspiter was kind enough to post portions of standard jury instructions for all of us here in several posts but here is the link to the full chapter from the Florida Supreme Court. One may download the entire thing in pdf or Word for future reference. Hope this helps explain. For example, as has been previously posted, you'll notice in section 3.7 the following passage:

"A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty."

(emphasis added)

I find those instructions perfectly clear and apparently so has the panel that wrote and approved them. That they continue to be used speaks to the clarity and effectiveness so I must disagree with your personal opinion of these instructions. In court it is the legal opinion that matters.

3. Please cite your source for these statements because they seem counterintuitive to what I know of criminal law. Although admittedly no expert and having little interest in criminal law, due to the circumstances I'd be interested to see what treatise, paper, statute, opinion or other writing supports your opinion because if read in context, we may all be able to adopt the same opinion. However, as posted, out of context, it seems to contradict what has been approved and adopted by the Florida Supreme Court and other references cited throughout this thread.

4. What I bolded indicated there must be a single "smoking gun" and I disagree with this logic as it flies in the face of any circumstantial case. For example, even DNA is not a convincing single piece of evidence without other evidence to support it, much, if not all, of the time. DNA in the case of a suspected rape may be the result of consensual sex and should be assumed to be the cause if there is not other evidence which renders this unlikely or impossible, such as the defendant's admission they had never met the victim and had never had any contact with the victim. Bye bye consensual.

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the point you are trying to make. Are you really suggesting there must be one (1) single piece of inculpatory evidence? For your convenience, here is an excerpt from your original post:

By Wudge: "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.)"

Surely you can see how I could have misunderstood. I'll bet others may have also. Perhaps if you rephrase, we can come to an understanding that makes sense to all of us. It is not my intent to argue this, I'm trying to understand your position(s). TIA

 

[lin]

My key question was and remains: "What reasonable degree of certainty should exist before a defendant is convicted of premeditated murder and given the death penalty?


(doubt = uncertainty = degree of certainty less than 100%)

And your question has been repeatedly answered throughout this thread and by the Florida Supreme Court.

I totally understand and empathize with those who are against the death penalty, as are many who post here. However, imo, this isn't the place to argue that topic. We're discussing a specific case and we have a specific framework of law adopted by the state of Florida. Our personal opinions regarding the death penalty do not enter into this equation.

Put another way: If the case were in a state that does not use the death penalty, it would be just as inappropriate for proponents of same to argue that the death penalty should be included as a sanction. We'd have to work within the laws of that particular state and can't expect them to change their laws based on a single case or some opinions of their law as applied to a single case.

ETA: I am unaware of any legal requirement of 100%; please cite same. TIA

 

[Wudge]

And your question has been repeatedly answered throughout this thread and by the Florida Supreme Court.

I totally understand and empathize with those who are against the death penalty, as are many who post here. However, imo, this isn't the place to argue that topic. We're discussing a specific case and we have a specific framework of law adopted by the state of Florida. Our personal opinions regarding the death penalty do not enter into this equation.

Put another way: If the case were in a state that does not use the death penalty, it would be just as inappropriate for proponents of same to argue that the death penalty should be included as a sanction. We'd have to work within the laws of that particular state and can't expect them to change their laws based on a single case or some opinions of their law as applied to a single case.

ETA: I am unaware of any legal requirement of 100%; please cite same. TIA

Please copy and quote the "degree of certainty" that you allege has been "repeatedly answered" throughout this thread and by Florida's Supreme Court.

Please recognize that I have asked a question regarding the degree of certainly that should exist before a defendant is convicted of first-degree murder and given the death penalty.

Moreover, for clarification, I have never said that I'm against the death penalty. Just because my question relates to the certainty (reliability) of evidence, does not imply that I do not support the death penalty. I do.

(doubt = uncertainty = degree of certainty less than 100%)

 

[lin]

Please copy and quote the "degree of certainty" that you allege has been "repeatedly answered" throughout this thread and by Florida's Supreme Court.

Please recognize that I have asked a question as regards the degree of certainly that should exist before a defendant is convicted of first-degree murder and given the death penalty.

Moreover, for clarification, I have never said that I'm against the death penalty. Just because my question relates to the certainty (reliability) of evidence, does not imply that I do not support the death penalty. I do.

(doubt = uncertainty = degree of certainty less than 100%)

Once again you failed to cite your source, as was requested and then inexplicably demand I cite mine. tsk tsk

I could say, "please quote where I said that you are opposed to the death penalty" but I am not really interested in playing semantics. Instead, I apologize if you inferred this from my post and concede it would be easy to do. In explanation, I did not mean to suggest as fact that you are opposed to the death penalty although one could reasonably infer so from your posts, imo.

The standards and explanations of legal degree of certainty, which are all that are really relevant in a criminal trial, are included in the jury instructions referenced throughout this thread. If these instructions do not meet your personal standard, and even if they do, it may be a good idea to draft a paper or brief outlining your positions. Do you blog? This is a rhetorical question that is not intended to solicit an answer so much as to suggest a venue for publication of your thoughts on the subject which many may find illuminating.

In addition, many posters have given their opinions on the subject including in the thread 'G v NG.'

Once again, perhaps I and others are misunderstanding your question, since we feel it has been answered. Perhaps if you rephrase, perhaps using really little words*...

* so that I can understand; not meant to imply that the average WS has any difficulty with multisyllabic expression.

 

[Wudge]

[Repost]

"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]

[Repost]

"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.)

Aha!! Eureka!! and all that jazz... I think I finally understand. The key word in your question is "should" and that's why you're not accepting the legal definition.

Bonus points to me!

As for what "should" be the legal degree of certainty, I'm satisfied with the legal standard. That is, for me, it does not need to be a standard of 100% certainty because I don't think that's possible. Think about it: even a videotape can be faked; 'Hollywood'* does a great job at creating believable special effects.

Others, please feel free to chime in.

Had you merely emphasized the word "should" I'd have caught on a lot sooner.

As for the "single piece of inculpatory evidence" the answer is, imo, no, there is a not a single piece of evidence proving guilt 100%. As previously stated, I believe 100% certainty is impossible. As I've also previously stated, without supporting evidence, DNA may not prove anything to any degree of certainty, much less 100%. That is why this is not a legal requirement, else, as Brini pointed out, there could be few or no convictions without a confession.

If you have any source to support a legal requirement of 100% certainty, please cite same. Otherwise, the law as I know it, is as I wrote above.

*Hollywood is meant to encompass all areas and people participating in similar activities; making movies, special effects, etc.

 

[lin]

New question:

Can anyone think of any case that relied on a single piece of inculpatory evidence for conviction?

Seems to me all evidence requires supporting evidence, as outlined above using DNA as an example. Ballistics alone only proves a match, it doesn't put the weapon in the suspect's possession, etc.

 

[Wudge]

[Reposting With Special Note Added]

"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.)


Special note added to this repost ... Nowhere do I mention or otherwise claim that the evidence level should be 100%.

 

[Manny]

Since no one knows what "evidence" will be admitted before a jury, isn't this discussion a little early. I would love to see the actual evidence discussed with we all see what it will be and what the defense response will be if any.
It think this will be a very interesting trial..hope I am still alive when it actually takes place.

"MORAL CERTAINTY -- certainty beyond a reasonable doubt; a conviction based on persuasive reasons and excluding doubts that a contrary conclusion can exit. A juror is said to be morally certain of a fact when he or she would act in reliance upon its truth in matters of greatest importance to himself or herself."

 

[Brini]

Quote where I've said otherwise.

Please cite current FL criminal law to back up your assertions.

 

[Wudge]

Since no one knows what "evidence" will be admitted before a jury, isn't this discussion a little early. I would love to see the actual evidence discussed with we all see what it will be and what the defense response will be if any.
It think this will be a very interesting trial..hope I am still alive when it actually takes place.

"MORAL CERTAINTY -- certainty beyond a reasonable doubt; a conviction based on persuasive reasons and excluding doubts that a contrary conclusion can exit. A juror is said to be morally certain of a fact when he or she would act in reliance upon its truth in matters of greatest importance to himself or herself."

Manny, in the early 90's, the Supreme Court reviewed the use of "moral certainty". Justice Sandra O'Connor said: "the meaning of the phrase had changed over time and today a jury might understand the phrase to mean something less than the very high level of probability required by the Constitution in criminal cases." As a result of the Justices' finding, each state reviewed and rewrote its definition of reasonable doubt.

The base question I have asked is: what is the high level of probability (Justice O'Connor's word) that should exist before a jury finds a defendant guilty of first-degree murder and supports the death penalty. In other words, does that high probability represent 75% or 80% or 86% or 89%, etc.?

 

[RR0004]

"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.)

Unfortunately, we're not privy to "everything" so we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[lin]

Manny, in the early 90's, the Supreme Court reviewed the use of "moral certainty". Justice Sandra O'Connor said: "the meaning of the phrase had changed over time and today a jury might understand the phrase to mean something less than the very high level of probability required by the Constitution in criminal cases." As a result of the Justices' finding, each state reviewed and rewrote its definition of reasonable doubt.

The base question I have asked is: what is the high level of probability (Justice O'Connor's word) that should exist before a jury finds a defendant guilty of first-degree murder and supports the death penalty. In other words, does that high probability represent 75% or 80% or 86% or 89%, etc.?

Please cite your source so that we can better respond to your question. Justice O'Connor's opinion may affect ours when read in full context. With only a few selected possibly paraphrased references to a possible opinion authored or stated by Justice O'Connor do not give the reader enough context to understand her meaning.

 

[lin]

Please copy and quote the "degree of certainty" that you allege has been "repeatedly answered" throughout this thread and by Florida's Supreme Court.

Please recognize that I have asked a question regarding the degree of certainly that should exist before a defendant is convicted of first-degree murder and given the death penalty.

Moreover, for clarification, I have never said that I'm against the death penalty. Just because my question relates to the certainty (reliability) of evidence, does not imply that I do not support the death penalty. I do.

(doubt = uncertainty = degree of certainty less than 100%)

BBM

[Reposting With Special Note Added]

"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.)


Special note added to this repost ... Nowhere do I mention or otherwise claim that the evidence level should be 100%.

Perhaps I am once again misunderstanding but the implication of the BBM seems to be just that.

 

[lin]

Since no one knows what "evidence" will be admitted before a jury, isn't this discussion a little early. I would love to see the actual evidence discussed with we all see what it will be and what the defense response will be if any.
It think this will be a very interesting trial..hope I am still alive when it actually takes place.

"MORAL CERTAINTY -- certainty beyond a reasonable doubt; a conviction based on persuasive reasons and excluding doubts that a contrary conclusion can exit. A juror is said to be morally certain of a fact when he or she would act in reliance upon its truth in matters of greatest importance to himself or herself."

I agree that discussing the admitted evidence will be more interesting. The current discussion, imo, not only fills some of the void prior, but hopefully will give us a bit of framework for understanding how the admitted evidence is applied. The definition you posted will likely be quoted often during trial. Good job, thanks!

 

[lin]

Manny, in the early 90's, the Supreme Court reviewed the use of "moral certainty". Justice Sandra O'Connor said: "the meaning of the phrase had changed over time and today a jury might understand the phrase to mean something less than the very high level of probability required by the Constitution in criminal cases." As a result of the Justices' finding, each state reviewed and rewrote its definition of reasonable doubt.

The base question I have asked is: what is the high level of probability (Justice O'Connor's word) that should exist before a jury finds a defendant guilty of first-degree murder and supports the death penalty. In other words, does that high probability represent 75% or 80% or 86% or 89%, etc.?

Are you seeking personal opinions of a required percentage? I'm certain there is no such thing in the law and therefore can better understand why the standard jury instructions have failed to satisfy, if this is your question. Thanks for rephrasing.

My personal opinion is that a specific numerical percentage cannot apply. I adopt the definition of 'moral certainty' posted by Manny and again, am satisfied with the definitions adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in such matters.