KC defense team.What now?

[NJ Lawyer]

Forensics are important, because prosecutors need clear and unyielding evidence that proves their charge of Caylee dying from a planned and deliberated murder. They can't do that with post-act behavior and nothing else that has been reported is dispositive of premeditation.

Hi. Prosecutors do not need for the forensics to show a planned and deliberate murder. Also, the requisite "premeditation" can be proven by circumstantial evidence in Florida, though other "reasonable inferences" arising from the circumstantial evidence will be important. There are lots of case addressing the standard of proof in Florida regarding premeditation. Here are some:

Wilson v. State , 493 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1986)

Hoefert v. State , 617 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1993)

Cochran v. State , 547 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1989)

Coolen v. State , 696 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1997)

Cummings v. State, 715 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1998)

Randall v. State, 25 Fla.L.Weekly S317 (Fla. April 20, 2000)

 

[Wudge]

Hi. Prosecutors do not need for the forensics to show a planned and deliberate murder. Also, the requisite "premeditation" can be proven by circumstantial evidence in Florida, though other "reasonable inferences" arising from the circumstantial evidence will be important. There are lots of case addressing the standard of proof in Florida regarding premeditation. Here are some:

Wilson v. State , 493 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1986)

Hoefert v. State , 617 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1993)

Cochran v. State , 547 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1989)

Coolen v. State , 696 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1997)

Cummings v. State, 715 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1998)

Randall v. State, 25 Fla.L.Weekly S317 (Fla. April 20, 2000)

To prove premeditation, prosecutors need clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence. In and of itself, corroborative evidence is not sufficient, which, as best we know, is largely what exists in this case.

If you know of evidence from which you can establish valid and true premises that would force a finding of premeditation, cite those premises and the evidence we know of that supports those valid and true premises.

(applied logic: law school edition)

 

[21merc7]

Well I don't think we have a clear answer on what specifically Baden is doing in this case. She has said she'll be advising Baez and Casey Anthony on forensic issues but seems to suggest the advice will be to assist regarding the analysis of the forensic results of tests relating to botany, anthropology, toxicology, etc. She admits to not even meeting Casey Anthony and vaguely points to the "media circus" as the reason she didn't go to the jail to meet her. (Huh?) As for an Alford Plea, it's still a guilty plea and I'm not sure how that would really benefit Casey. Would it help much with sentencing? I'm not in Florida...don't know.

Ah, I did not know that Baden is there just for advice. Alford Plea in Florida, I don't know. I have seen them for 20 to 30, not life,( I am not in Florida so...),but what difference does that really make if you think about it. It depends on the evidence I know as to it being an option or not, and we don't know that yet. Just a hypothetical, thanks for answering.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

To prove premeditation, prosecutors need clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence. In and of itself, corroborative evidence is not sufficient, which, as best we know, is largely what exists in this case.

If you know of evidence from which you can establish valid and true premises that would force a finding of premeditation, cite those premises and the evidence we know of that supports those valid and true premises.

(applied logic: law school edition)

I'm not sure how I can discuss the issue further with you b/c quite frankly I'm not clear what your sources are. I think the required standard of proof (in the context of prosecuting a Murder One case in the State of Florida) is as set forth in the cases I cited. Each state has their own requirements and standards. Also, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard would apply and I do not see any reference in Florida law to "clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence." Is there something in the cases I cited (the case law is part of the relevant Florida law, in addition to statutes) that makes you believe these additional items should be read into the law?

 

[DesSands]

If the "experts" that Baez has called in remain with this case, especially Mrs. B, it's worthwhile to look at her track record and how she works. Opening statements will be a revelation in some ways but at trial she is noted for smoke and mirrors and attempting to "confuse" the jury pool - after all, she only has to get to ONE, JMHO. Go back and revisit the Phil Specter case. This trial will be a circus and inflame people. I really pray that he judge trying this case will maintain a tight hold on the courtroom and NOT let another OJ courtroom experience occur.

She is the one that I hate to see on the case. We have an attorney right here that is notorious for doing that. He has had a hung jury 3x for a case where the wife talked a security guard into helping her kill her husband and he has now walked.

Back to the OJ case, I think they wore the jurors down and when they threw in the race card, that did it. People on the jury felt it was justice for some of the things they may have gone through.
Now again we have a TON of forensics and most people are lost or bored when it comes to Science. You can't understand Dr. H. Lee so it's easier to say ah, well he's an expert and renowned so we'll go with his opinion.
I know how much people understand from my own illness. My family is lost in understanding it. They are very kind and considerate but have wondered how one person could have so much wrong.
I have what is referred to as systemic Vasculitis. It has ravaged my entire body and I was told in the beginning that if the disease didn't kill me the meds probably would. I had doctors who I came upon seeing me for the first time and didn't know all the details and say,"Who gave you this stuff?" Well it was my persistence and insistence with a doctor who believed that if nothing else was working what was the harm.
I insisted on high doses of prednisone and lived through all the side effects that comes with that and chemo. Now I suffer the after effects but I think I was able to achieve a slowed process or possible short remission.
My own doctor told me, he was squirming when I asked for such high doses, but He admits I was right and it did help.

But again, I have and still have to fight many who can't comprehend the Science behind all of this.
I fully expect LK Baden, H Lee and Spitz to confuse the jurors to the best of their ability.
JB doesn't have a clue how to do that, so I'm wishing he will be first chair. He most likely will slip up.
Hopefully the State will not complicate matters of forensics with the jurors.
I'm in no way saying people are stupid, what I'm saying it they get bored and do have little understanding of intricate details. :waitasec:

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

The prosecution needs to be extremely disciplined in their presentation of the facts.

The defense will try to bring in alot of information to overwhelm and confuse the jurors..much of which may be irrelevant..

If they stick to their gameplan, they will convict her. If they get sidetracked chasing and putting out fires proving defense theories that aren't realistic, they will have trouble.

They need to come out strong in their opening statement. I am thinking they should have it delivered by a woman atty in the SAO..preferably one with children or grandchildren to capture the jury.

I think the jury selection process is going to be tedious. I'll be interested in seeing the makeup. I'm sure the sides are doing mock juries now, and probably checking in here at WS to see where public sentiment is going.

 

[Wudge]

I'm not sure how I can discuss the issue further with you b/c quite frankly I'm not clear what your sources are. I think the required standard of proof (in the context of prosecuting a Murder One case in the State of Florida) is as set forth in the cases I cited. Each state has their own requirements and standards. Also, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard would apply and I do not see any reference in Florida law to "clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence." Is there something in the cases I cited (the case law is part of the relevant Florida law, in addition to statutes) that makes you believe these additional items should be read into the law?

You brought up "reasonable inferences". The integrity and reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot be stonger than the premises upon which it is based. So I asked for valid and true premises, which is standard fare in applied logic.

Moreover, as best I know, the evidence that we know of does not support developing premises that would reliably force a conclusion of a "premeditated murder". Further, that includes what we so far know of the forensic evidence, which could not even yield a cause of death.

Without a cause of death, the pre-act evidence we know of (such as chloroform searches) cannot be connected to Caylee's death with a high degree of certainty.

Post-act evidence cannot establish a pre-act state of mind. Some examples of post-act evidence that we have heard of in this case are: dog evidence (bowser's nose), consciousness of guilt (some people don't like Casey's behavior) and false or misleading statements. In instructing the jury (jury instructions), trial judges cite what the limits of certain evidence are, and, in and of itself, corroborative evidence is not sufficient to prove premeditation, deliberation, intent or malice aforethought.

HTH


ETA: "Clear" evidence is self-explanatory. If evidence is not clear, it certainly cannot be reliable.

"Unyielding" refers to the fact that if the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, the jury cannot use that item of evidence to support a "guilty" verdict (it yields to the defense). Obviously, this is why it is wise to wait until both sides have addressed the evidence.

 

[yolorado]

Such evidence does not exist. Prosecutors can't state or argue that.

Oh you bet they can, and they will. They will show over and over how this woman acted guilty. They can clearly show that her state of mind was not one of an innocent person...and then, big surprize, her baby ended up in a bag in the woods. Bammo. Innocent mothers whose babies have accidents call the paramedics and co-operate with authorities. We still have common law the last time I checked. Jury can apply common sense and community standards. They can take the defendent's actions, inactions and their statements into account and apply common sense in their inferrences. KC will have to convince them of an accidente ahora and come up with a darn good explanation of why she double-bagged that baby and threw her in the woods.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

You brought up "reasonable inferences". The integrity and reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot be stonger than the premises upon which it is based. So I asked for valid and true premises, which is standard fare in applied logic.

Sounds good. I like valid and true premises, reliable conclusions, integrity and reliability, etc. That said, the law in Florida, as developed by the legislature and judiciary via specific cases, has established specific standards of proof and related requirements and they will apply to this case regardless of whether they fit exactly into what is considered "standard fare" by persons studying applied logic. I believe that under these standards, a dead body coupled with the actions/inactions and statements of the defendant (and other witnesses) would support a "guilty" verdict if the jury so chooses to convict. Again, if you have seen something under the applicable Florida case law (cited above) that would nullify such a verdict, then I'd be interested to know which case and what aspect of it you believe would do that. Obviously, the judge would not be allowed to even send the case to the jury if there was no proper basis upon which the jury could even return a guilty verdict.

 

[Wudge]

Sounds good. I like valid and true premises, reliable conclusions, integrity and reliability, etc. That said, the law in Florida, as developed by the legislature and judiciary via specific cases, has established specific standards of proof and related requirements and they will apply to this case regardless of whether they fit exactly into what is considered "standard fare" by persons studying applied logic. I believe that under these standards, a dead body coupled with the actions/inactions and statements of the defendant (and other witnesses) would support a "guilty" verdict if the jury so chooses to convict. Again, if you have seen something under the applicable Florida case law (cited above) that would nullify such a verdict, then I'd be interested to know which case and what aspect of it you believe would do that. Obviously, the judge would not be allowed to even send the case to the jury if there was no proper basis upon which the jury could even return a guilty verdict.

Counselor, in criminal trials, the evidentiary standard in every state is the same; i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in every state, verdicts are reversed based on insufficient evidence to support the charges, which attaches prejudice. This includes the assessment of inferred conclusions (there's a reason that 2/3 of the LSAT is logic related).

In your assessment that a guilty verdict on the charge of premeditated murder is supportable, I ask again for the valid and true premises you are relying on and the evidence that supports these premises.

 

[Wudge]

Oh you bet they can, and they will. They will show over and over how this woman acted guilty. They can clearly show that her state of mind was not one of an innocent person...and then, big surprize, her baby ended up in a bag in the woods. Bammo. Innocent mothers whose babies have accidents call the paramedics and co-operate with authorities. We still have common law the last time I checked. Jury can apply common sense and community standards. They can take the defendent's actions, inactions and their statements into account and apply common sense in their inferrences. KC will have to convince them of an accidente ahora and come up with a darn good explanation of why she double-bagged that baby and threw her in the woods.

Cite any person who has ever testified as an expert on: how Mothers who kill their children act.

If there is no evidence, then in their opening statement, a prosecutor cannot say: the evidence will show. Nor can they argue evidence that has not been presented during trial in closing arguments.

HTH

 

[concentric]

LOL Gibby. We call that the fecal matter hitting the air circulator! Even though I posted my reply, I agree with you about not working for the defense.

Could be the people pizzzed and hitting the fan, too.

 

[Devon]

"Unyielding" refers to the fact that if the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, the jury cannot use that item of evidence to support a "guilty" verdict (it yields to the defense). Obviously, this is why it is wise to wait until both sides have addressed the evidence.

But isn't it the case that what is 'reasonable' in terms of alternative explanations is for the jury to decide and so they may include or exclude such explanations accordingly?

 

[kageykaren]

All of you posting have made this thread the most interesting topic today. It is great reading all of your interpretations of the law. Keep up the healthy dialog for all of us who don't understand all the ends and outs of court proceedings. Thanks again!

 

[Wudge]

But isn't it the case that was is 'reasonable' in terms of alternative explanations is for the jury to decide and so they may include or exclude such explanations accordingly?

The jury and the trial Judge (13th juror) must assess whether the defense's explanation for an item of evidence is reasonable. If it is, they must set that evidence aside. They cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict.

When the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, it is not a case of alternative explanations. Prosecutors could have a far more reasonable explanation, yet as long as the defense's explanation is reasonable, the jury cannot use the evidence to support a conviction.

(Appellate Jurists also review the evidence this way .)

 

[Devon]

The jury and the trial Judge (13th juror) must assess whether the defense's explanation for an item of evidence is reasonable. If it is, they must set that evidence aside. They cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict.

When the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, it is not a case of alternative explanations. Prosecutors could have a far more reasonable explanation, yet as long as the defense's explanation is reasonable, the jury cannot use the evidence to support a conviction.

(Appellate Jurists also review the evidence this way .)

Right, so I take it that this question of reasonableness is addressed at the point that the relevant explanation is presented, and not left for consideration by the jury after they have retired.

P.S. Thank you so much for your very interesting and informative posts. I am very interested in the processes of law but but actually know very little. Your various posts have me scurrying off in search of more info. on line so it's a great learning curve!

 

[Wudge]

Right, so I take it that this question of reasonableness is addressed at the point that the relevant explanation is presented, and not left for consideration by the jury after they have retired.

P.S. Thank you so much for your very interesting and informative posts. I am very interested in the processes of law but but actually know very little. Your various posts have me scurrying off in search of more info. on line so it's a great learning curve!

After the defense has addressed an item of evidence, a juror might say to themselves that the defense's explanation is reasonable. However, at the jury level that is left for deliberations.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

Counselor, in criminal trials, the evidentiary standard in every state is the same; i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in every state, verdicts are reversed based on insufficient evidence to support the charges, which attaches prejudice. This includes the assessment of inferred conclusions (there's a reason that 2/3 of the LSAT is logic related).

In your assessment that a guilty verdict on the charge of premeditated murder is supportable, I ask again for the valid and true premises you are relying on and the evidence that supports these premises.

The jury will see the evidence (or at least the portion of it deemed "admissible") at trial. I have not said the evidence factually supports one verdict or another. My comments pertained to the legalities of a verdict on Murder One that is based on "solely" a dead body and "circumstantial" evidence including conduct and statements of the defendant. PS - Maybe it's me but I noticed you seemed to be getting annoyed (addressing me as "counselor" and explaining "logic" to us). Are you a lawyer? Do you disagree with the standards set forth in the cases governing proof of "premeditation" under Florida law?

 

[Devon]

After the defense has addressed an item of evidence, a juror might say to themselves that the defense's explanation is reasonable. However, at the jury level that is left for deliberations.

So when and how does the the judge's opinion (as the 13th juror) as to the reasonableness of the explanation have effect?

 

[JBean]

You brought up "reasonable inferences". The integrity and reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot be stonger than the premises upon which it is based. So I asked for valid and true premises, which is standard fare in applied logic.

Moreover, as best I know, the evidence that we know of does not support developing premises that would reliably force a conclusion of a "premeditated murder". Further, that includes what we so far know of the forensic evidence, which could not even yield a cause of death.

Without a cause of death, the pre-act evidence we know of (such as chloroform searches) cannot be connected to Caylee's death with a high degree of certainty.

Post-act evidence cannot establish a pre-act state of mind. Some examples of post-act evidence that we have heard of in this case are: dog evidence (bowser's nose), consciousness of guilt (some people don't like Casey's behavior) and false or misleading statements. In instructing the jury (jury instructions), trial judges cite what the limits of certain evidence are, and, in and of itself, corroborative evidence is not sufficient to prove premeditation, deliberation, intent or malice aforethought.

HTH


ETA: "Clear" evidence is self-explanatory. If evidence is not clear, it certainly cannot be reliable.

"Unyielding" refers to the fact that if the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, the jury cannot use that item of evidence to support a "guilty" verdict (it yields to the defense). Obviously, this is why it is wise to wait until both sides have addressed the evidence.

This is the heart of the matter and how I read it at this point. I am now wondering if any of the additional items taken in this search warrant over the weekend will lead to any clarity.