Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Imbackon]

"10 guilty go free rather than yada yada"
The only problem with this is that the prosecutor has already allowed the potential 10 guilty go free, by not even bringing charges in the first place
People forget that many many cases never go to court to begin with because the prosecutor tends to bring cases she/he feels sure about winning .
I personally do not believe at all that Now Days there is a presumption of guilt in the courtroom.
I think folks have unreasonable doubt in many cases.
Uh, and there in lies the rub, cause they wouldn't be so unreasonable if it was THEIR LOVED ONE THAT WAS MURDERED OR WHATEVER.
I have a passion about the miscarriage of justice that takes place every day in and out of our courtrooms, letting the guilty go free so they can victimize others again and again.

 

[Just Jayla]

"10 guilty go free rather than yada yada"
The only problem with this is that the prosecutor has already allowed the potential 10 guilty go free, by not even bringing charges in the first place
People forget that many many cases never go to court to begin with because the prosecutor tends to bring cases she/he feels sure about winning .
I personally do not believe at all that Now Days there is a presumption of guilt in the courtroom.
I think folks have unreasonable doubt in many cases.
Uh, and there in lies the rub, cause they wouldn't be so unreasonable if it was THEIR LOVED ONE THAT WAS MURDERED OR WHATEVER.
I have a passion about the miscarriage of justice that takes place every day in and out of our courtrooms, letting the guilty go free so they can victimize others again and again.

BBM, nor do I. I think the jurors that are ultimately seated are more typically going to take the responsibility seriously and are well aware that they should go into the case with presumption of innocence. There are alternates in the event a juror outs themselves either way-And the other jurors do tend to blow the whistle on them.

Now in the internet/fast media age, people have access to all sorts of wrongful conviction stories (they are better ratings grabbers than correct convictions), and I am certain they go into this with that awareness.
But, we are complex thinkers, and if the facts are laid out coherently, that presumption will erode.

ETA: I do not mean to ignore your point regarding unreasonable doubt-While that does exist due in part to what I wrote above regarding the hype surrounding wrongful convictions, in earnest, or in the media, I also think that for this case in particular, Floridians may feel compelled to send a signal to all of the pedophiles and child murderers there-They have had their share in the past decades, and these jurors might well be fed up with it happening in their backyard.

 

[JBean]

"10 guilty go free rather than yada yada"
The only problem with this is that the prosecutor has already allowed the potential 10 guilty go free, by not even bringing charges in the first place
People forget that many many cases never go to court to begin with because the prosecutor tends to bring cases she/he feels sure about winning .
I personally do not believe at all that Now Days there is a presumption of guilt in the courtroom.
I think folks have unreasonable doubt in many cases.
Uh, and there in lies the rub, cause they wouldn't be so unreasonable if it was THEIR LOVED ONE THAT WAS MURDERED OR WHATEVER.
I have a passion about the miscarriage of justice that takes place every day in and out of our courtrooms, letting the guilty go free so they can victimize others again and again.

If a prosecutor does not feel they can win, they have no business filing a case. The prosecutor has the entire burden of proof and if they don't have the proof they don't have a case.

 

[RR0004]

If a prosecutor does not feel they can win, they have no business filing a case. The prosecutor has the entire burden of proof and if they don't have the proof they don't have a case.

...except in a system that is so over burdened many cases don't get the "look" that they should. JMO

 

[Wudge]

If a prosecutor does not feel they can win, they have no business filing a case. The prosecutor has the entire burden of proof and if they don't have the proof they don't have a case.

If by "case" and "proof', you mean required inculpatory evidence that exceeds a 99% level of certainty, I would agree. However, prosecutors would not agree, at least, the prosecutors I've met would not agree at the time they were trying a criminal case.

Moreover, prosecutors will always attempt to lower the level (degree) of certainty bar. One way of doing this is to poison the jury pool by first trying the case in the media and/or arranging for the media to demonize the defendant. Another highly effective way prosecutors lower the degree of certainty bar is through the use of wrenching emotional arguments rather than evidence. Withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense works nicely too.

(Just a few thoughts, not that any of these things apply to this case.)

 

[Horace Finklestein]

When a jury bases their verdict on the wrong reasons, we have got problems.

I remember when I was learning to make change while working at a retail store when I was a teen. The boss said, at the end of the night the drawer should balance and not be under or over. I said well I won't worry if it is over because at least I know you got your receipts. But he was not happy with my answer and said, it is equally as bad if the drawer is short or if the drawer is over because either which way it means you are doing it wrong.

I just don't personally see legal procedure as being the ultimate 'right' or 'wrong' as if it's a science. It's certainly not a perfect system and if the entire jury determines that a person is guilty, I don't see why some arbitrary formula or technical aspect of procedure should prevent them from reaching a correct verdict.

 

[Brini]

I think there is actually LESS of a tendency for the prosecution of innocents than in the past.

1) This because the DA's office tends to bargain out those cases wherein there is apparent guilt, but not quite enough evidence for a slam dunk, and,

2) The forensic technology has come a very long way, over the past decade.

Also, maybe my experience is not typical, but on juries where I have served, every member DID take his/her responsibility seriously. As in the above-cited case where all the jurors has an initial impression of guilt, but reversed it based on the circumstantial evidence.

I believe that most of us, on these threads believe KC to be guilty, based on the circumstantial evidence revealed thus far. However, I don't doubt that most of us would change our minds, if we saw evidence that overcame the circumstantial.

 

[Wudge]

I just don't personally see legal procedure as being the ultimate 'right' or 'wrong' as if it's a science. It's certainly not a perfect system and if the entire jury determines that a person is guilty, I don't see why some arbitrary formula or technical aspect of procedure should prevent them from reaching a correct verdict.

Evidence that provides or leaves a tiny feather of reasonable uncertainty is not a technicality. Even in a case that has numerous and very weighty items of inculpatory evidence but a small feather of reasonable doubt tips the scale of justice to "not guilty".

 

[cecybeans]

If by "case" and "proof', you mean required inculpatory evidence that exceeds a 99% level of certainty, I would agree. However, prosecutors would not agree, at least, the prosecutors I've met would not agree at the time they were trying a criminal case.

Moreover, prosecutors will always attempt to lower the level (degree) of certainty bar. One way of doing this is to poison the jury pool by first trying the case in the media and/or arranging for the media to demonize the defendant. Another highly effective way prosecutors lower the degree of certainty bar is through the use of wrenching emotional arguments rather than evidence. Withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense works nicely too.

(Just a few thoughts, not that any of these things apply to this case.)

Neutralizing strategies for both prosecution and defense aside, I find it amazing that ANY case would include inculpatory evidence that even met much less exceeded 99% certainty in toto. Even evidence not-considered circumstantial, like eyewitnesses or perhaps very clear surveillance films are always subject to some sort of question (whether it's ultimately that reasonable or not).

I still also find it highly improbable to see how a small sample of people can look at the same piece of evidence and agree on the exact same percentage of certainty it represents. I'm sure many of our friends in the psychological, sociological or neurological sciences (not to mention various semanticians, linguists or certain marketing analytics types) would find that possibility not only astonishing but unrealistic as well and I would love to hear how some of these professionals view the general feasibility of entire subject or argument.

 

[JBean]

I just don't personally see legal procedure as being the ultimate 'right' or 'wrong' as if it's a science. It's certainly not a perfect system and if the entire jury determines that a person is guilty, I don't see why some arbitrary formula or technical aspect of procedure should prevent them from reaching a correct verdict.

I was only responding to your question and your word choices:
>>
Why should it matter if they reach the right verdict for the wrong reasons? .<<

Moreover, I am not sure how you are defining technical aspect as though it is perhaps unimportant? Not sure.

 

[flyonsweetangel]

IMO the jury will be given instructions by the judge and that is what will be followed. Its ridiculous to hash over something you have no control over and its obvious opinions here are starting to wear on people. Furthermore, it would be a slim chance in ____ that anyone of us would serve on this jury.....

 

[Brini]

Neutralizing strategies for both prosecution and defense aside, I find it amazing that ANY case would include inculpatory evidence that even met much less exceeded 99% certainty in toto. Even evidence not-considered circumstantial, like eyewitnesses or perhaps very clear surveillance films are always subject to some sort of question (whether it's ultimately that reasonable or not).

I still also find it highly improbable to see how a small sample of people can look at the same piece of evidence and agree on the exact same percentage of certainty it represents. I'm sure many of our friends in the psychological, sociological or neurological sciences (not to mention various semanticians, linguists or certain marketing analytics types) would find that possibility not only astonishing but unrealistic as well and I would love to hear how some of these professionals view the general feasibility of entire subject or argument.

My lawyer father once told me a story about eyewitness testimony.

A certain insurance company assembled a small stadium full of their investigators, to witness a staged auto accident.

These were professional observers, with nothing to distract them from the scene.

The received reports showed an enormous variance of perception, down to the color of both cars.

Then, there are, or course individual perceptions to take into account. A teal-colored car; some would describe it as teal, some would see it as green, others as blue.

So, I agree. Not only would it be impossible to quantify 99% certainty (as beans put it, a 6 for one could be a 10 for others). But, impossible, because to different perceptions.

Which is also why eyewitness evidence is considered to be the least reliable.

So, I think we'll have to bumble along with our current way of doing things. Which is evidence coupled with reason (common sense).

That being said, if KC has an explanation for not knowing to whom she gave the baby, plus the 31 days, plus the decomp in the car, the lying, and the celebratory behavior post-killing, I will be happy to hear it. I may even change my mind.

But, don't insult my intelligence with the invisinanny arguement.

And, if she is found guilty, and feels that her sentence is unfair, she has access to the appellate courts, just like everybody else.

 

[Brini]

If by "case" and "proof', you mean required inculpatory evidence that exceeds a 99% level of certainty, I would agree. However, prosecutors would not agree, at least, the prosecutors I've met would not agree at the time they were trying a criminal case.

Moreover, prosecutors will always attempt to lower the level (degree) of certainty bar. One way of doing this is to poison the jury pool by first trying the case in the media and/or arranging for the media to demonize the defendant. Another highly effective way prosecutors lower the degree of certainty bar is through the use of wrenching emotional arguments rather than evidence. Withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense works nicely too.

(Just a few thoughts, not that any of these things apply to this case.)

..as also do defense lawyers.

Heads up! Those techniques are not specific to JUST the prosecution.

 

[Brini]

Evidence that provides or leaves a tiny feather of reasonable uncertainty is not a technicality. Even in a case that has numerous and very weighty items of inculpatory evidence but a small feather of reasonable doubt tips the scale of justice to "not guilty".

No. "Beyond a reasonable doubt," is the standard for the scale tip to "not guilty." Not, "a small feather of reasonable doubt."

There is always going to be a "sliver" of doubt. Nothing in life, or in perception is certain. That's why the law stipulates "reasonable doubt."

 

[chefmom]

Evidence that provides or leaves a tiny feather of reasonable uncertainty is not a technicality. Even in a case that has numerous and very weighty items of inculpatory evidence but a small feather of reasonable doubt tips the scale of justice to "not guilty".

I have pulled jury duty several times. Twice I was in a 6 month pool and another time for a 4 month pool. I had to be at the courthouse once a week and many times I was seated on a jury. Each time I sat, I went into the trial assuming the defendant was innocent, as we were instructed to do. I listened carefully to what the Pros had to say, and equally as carefully to the defense. I only voted guilty if I felt certain of the defendants guilt. If not, I voted not guilty. I believe that most people do the same when they are asked to make a decision that affects a persons life so drastically. At least, I pray that they do.

 

[chefmom]

My lawyer father once told me a story about eyewitness testimony.

A certain insurance company assembled a small stadium full of their investigators, to witness a staged auto accident.

These were professional observers, with nothing to distract them from the scene.

The received reports showed an enormous variance of perception, down to the color of both cars.

Then, there are, or course individual perceptions to take into account. A teal-colored car; some would describe it as teal, some would see it as green, others as blue.

So, I agree. Not only would it be impossible to quantify 99% certainty (as beans put it, a 6 for one could be a 10 for others). But, impossible, because to different perceptions.

Which is also why eyewitness evidence is considered to be the least reliable.

So, I think we'll have to bumble along with our current way of doing things. Which is evidence coupled with reason (common sense).

That being said, if KC has an explanation for not knowing to whom she gave the baby, plus the 31 days, plus the decomp in the car, the lying, and the celebratory behavior post-killing, I will be happy to hear it. I may even change my mind.

But, don't insult my intelligence with the invisinanny arguement.

And, if she is found guilty, and feels that her sentence is unfair, she has access to the appellate courts, just like everybody else.

BBM

Ya know, Brini, I think this is going to be the most difficult hurdle for the defense to get across. Assuming they seat a jury of 12 normal minded people, many of whom will be parents, the defense will argue against every piece of evidense that the pros puts out there. Even if they could argue away her lies, the smell of death, the partying, the tattoo, the stealing, they will have a very hard time arguing away the 31 days. I cannot imagine the circumstance in which they convince 12 people that this was reasonable. JMO.

 

[doogiesgirl]

I have to admit that I would not drop my child off somewhere if the level of certainty I had of his or her safety were the same as the level of certainty I have that KC commited premeditated murder of Caylee. Using this standard, I would acquit her of this charge with the evidence I know of now. I would, however, drop my child off somewhere with the certainty of safety being the same as I have of KC's involvement somehow in Caylee's death.

I think the level of certainty with respect to the safety of one's child probably does match the legal hurdle necessary to convict. Certainly, many guilty as charged can go free using this standard but that's how our system of justice is set up. Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent be convicted and all that. That's how justice in America is supposed to work. Right or wrong, it is what it is. I think in our modern world we are moving away from that and the opposite is true. The presumption of innocence is an endangered species, so to speak. More and more, defendants are entering the courtroom with the presumption of guilt, especially in the last ten years. The internet and news happening in real time, along with publishing power of virtually anyone with access, contribute to this. We know, or think we know, so much more about defendants than in the past.

KC will enter the courtroom with the presumption of guilt. She will be convicted by a jury of her peers whether any evidence other than we've seen is added and in spite of any defense she puts forth. Do I think the jury will correctly judge KC? Yes, I believe that she's guilty of some form of murder with only the evidence I've seen thus far. If I were a jury member, I wouldn't be using a standard equal to the certainty of my child's safety and neither will they. I'll be grateful if she spends all of the rest of her days behind bars. But, I will acknowledge that it can and may happen without the jury et al, following all the rules within our system. I think that is what the "devil's advocates" are really arguing. Not KC's guilt or innocence but that she may be convicted in spite of the rules in place meant to assure that "ten guilty men go free rather than one innocent be convicted". As I said earlier, right or wrong, that's how it's meant to be. It's just so hard, no matter how much we believe and take pride in our freedoms, to let a guilty man walk in the interest of this principal.

I agree the presumption of innocence is fading and corporations have ownership over our jails and prison systems. That makes it a business and a business has to have a bottom line. This many inmates will keep us in the green, this many will put us under. So I don't know how they are filling the prisons, whether it is by passing new laws or what but IMO lots of the wrong types are in prisons. Prisons should be reserved for the physically and emotionally dangerous, and those who rob/steal. Why are drug addicts in prison instead of the child molesters etc. Drug addicts are sick and should be in a rehab setting not housed with criminals. I'm not talking about the drug addict who kills, any killer goes to prison.

See your opening sentence, I do have a high certainty that with the facts I know to be true at this time, (I cannot say I am positive because I think positive should be reserved for just that.. proof positive, reliable eye witness within a few feet, dna , etc etc), but with all I am, I can say that knowing all we know right now, for me it is not reasonable to think anyone other than KC committed the crime of Caylee's death. For me when I put everything together, I can't get anywhere but KC. I think introducing percentages to a jury would be so confusing. I don't see how that could work, but maybe it's over my head.

But I agree with a lot of what you said. I really think changes need to be made. One is regarding the media and our court systems. So often an article is subjective and opinionated and incorrect, that is just not fair. I do not know how Florida got to passing the "Sunshine Law" but in a perfect world I would say if residents want that info, then let it be available but only directly, not through the newspapers until after a trial. IMO that Sunshine Law is cookoo. And it affects the potential jury pool.

:cow:

 

[Brini]

I have pulled jury duty several times. Twice I was in a 6 month pool and another time for a 4 month pool. I had to be at the courthouse once a week and many times I was seated on a jury. Each time I sat, I went into the trial assuming the defendant was innocent, as we were instructed to do. I listened carefully to what the Pros had to say, and equally as carefully to the defense. I only voted guilty if I felt certain of the defendants guilt. If not, I voted not guilty. I believe that most people do the same when they are asked to make a decision that affects a persons life so drastically. At least, I pray that they do.

That's been my experience, too.

I'm afraid that if the juries were limited to conviction with infallible evidence (99%-- whatever that is), and not a "feather" of reasonable doubt, no one would be convicted of anything, ever.

That would certainly eliminate wrongful convictions. But also ensure that lawbreakers ran the streets.

 

[Brini]

BBM

Ya know, Brini, I think this is going to be the most difficult hurdle for the defense to get across. Assuming they seat a jury of 12 normal minded people, many of whom will be parents, the defense will argue against every piece of evidense that the pros puts out there. Even if they could argue away her lies, the smell of death, the partying, the tattoo, the stealing, they will have a very hard time arguing away the 31 days. I cannot imagine the circumstance in which they convince 12 people that this was reasonable. JMO.

That's just it!

PLEASE give me a believable reason! Not invisinannys. Not 30 and 55 day "scripts." Not, "I was looking for my two-year old in night clubs."

 

[Wudge]

Neutralizing strategies for both prosecution and defense aside, I find it amazing that ANY case would include inculpatory evidence that even met much less exceeded 99% certainty in toto. Even evidence not-considered circumstantial, like eyewitnesses or perhaps very clear surveillance films are always subject to some sort of question (whether it's ultimately that reasonable or not).

I still also find it highly improbable to see how a small sample of people can look at the same piece of evidence and agree on the exact same percentage of certainty it represents. I'm sure many of our friends in the psychological, sociological or neurological sciences (not to mention various semanticians, linguists or certain marketing analytics types) would find that possibility not only astonishing but unrealistic as well and I would love to hear how some of these professionals view the general feasibility of entire subject or argument.

I've talked to more than a few people who equate proof beyond a reasonable doubt to be as low as 51% -- reasonable in their mind equates to more likely than not. More than a few other people equate it to be far above 99%, with which I agree. To open a such discussion, I believe the standard for Ivory soap represents a decent starting point.

Unless they discussed it during deliberations, I would never expect a jury of twelve lay people to closely agree on a percentage (much less an exact percentage) of certainty for what "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" represents. That's the core problem. Significant to huge variations will almost certainly exist across twelve lay jurors who blindly go forth to render a verdict without first benchmarking the degree of certainty.

A process and standard that allows for humongously wide interpretation and options is no standard at all.