KC defense team.What now?

[debs]

I'm off to the dreaded dentist, so I won't have time to look for this until later, but it seems to me that it was one of Tony's roommates that said they didn't think their apartment was a good environment for a small child. I don't know if by that statement, it became a theory that Tony said that KC could come, but not Caylee. I looked and I did not see where Tony specificaly said this in his interview with LE. Anyone else know?

I thought it was the roommate on NG. It was early on in the case, to narrow it down.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

It could come in through Yuri testimony. Unless defense can offer proof that interview was forced, Casey offered the info as in a case of a missing/kidnapped child. I don't see how they can keep it out. Casey had the opportunity to shut up and didn't. Dumb.

By the time this trial goes to court, it is possible the civil suit filed by the real ZG could be over. Testimony there could be presented as possible evidence, too...couldn't it?

 

[Wudge]

IMO, she's guilty of felony murder. Merely speculation on my part though.

I appreciate your honesty as regards the basis upon which you've concluded that Casey is guilty. However, it's not reasonable to conclude guilt based on speculation. That's why jurors are forbidden to speculate.

The answer to your question on whether reasonable doubt equals absolute certainty is: No.

Still, the proof beyond a reasonable doubt (burden of proof requirement) hurdle is extremely high, something less than a one percent error rate -- courts will never say this and prosecutors cring when they hear it said.

 

[daisy7]

Has anyone seen the movie, 12 Angry Men? It's about a jury and their deliberations in a murder case. I won't tell you how it ended, but if you get a chance check it out.

 

[Marina2]

I appreciate your honesty as regards the basis upon which you've concluded that Casey is guilty. However, it's not reasonable to conclude guilt based on speculation. That's why jurors are forbidden to speculate.

The answer to your question on whether reasonable doubt equals absolute certainty is: No.

Still, the proof beyond a reasonable doubt (burden of proof requirement) hurdle is extremely high, something less than a one percent error rate -- courts will never say this and prosecutors cring when they hear it said.

As an outsider looking in I speculate as to her guilt. If I were a juror I will need to hear the prosecution's evidence to support my speculation before I'd vote guilty. What I've seen so far is a person lying, not reporting her daughter missing, evidence that her daughter was dead in her trunk, lack of remorse, etc. This leads me to reasonably believe she didn't want her daughter's body examined immediately after death. The only reasonable explanation to me would be that she committed a felony that resulted in her daughters death and didn't want this revealed. I would look for evidence that links her to the child's remains (prints on duct tape, carpet fibers from the trunk on the covering that was allegedly found with the body, for example). Testimony that she's has drugged her child in the past would be particularly damning to me. I may be wrong but I think it's reasonable to believe that she acted the way she did because she was responsible, in some way, for her daughter's death. I can't ignore her actions (consciousness of guilt?) after her daughter disappeared.

Is it really less than 1 percent error rate that defines reasonable doubt? How can this be quantified? Why doesn't the judge instruct the jury on this error rate ("courts will never say this") if it's the standard to be met? I've never heard of this before but it seems to me that would be the same as beyond a shadow of a doubt which is said to be an impossible standard.

 

[Kat]

At this point in time, I think we are privy through the document dumps to a lot of information that may or may not be seen by jurors.

We don't know yet what will be allowed as evidence.

The jurors will have to weigh the evidence that is presented to them. Wudge has been so patient to explain to me that the defense can argue that the trunk gases, hair banding could be seen as junk science and excluded.

Our own wonderful poster here JWG has determined some very interesting findings about the computer searches.

We don't know if they have hard evidence against KC, because it has either not been released or they didn't find it until they found KC's body.

 

[chesterp]

Has anyone seen the movie, 12 Angry Men? It's about a jury and their deliberations in a murder case. I won't tell you how it ended, but if you get a chance check it out.

The original with Henry Fonda is the best.... Not the one made a few years ago with Tony Danza.

On a lighter side... Andy Griffith when Aunt Bee is called for Jury Duty. Now that had some angry men!

 

[Whisperer]

As an outsider looking in I speculate as to her guilt. If I were a juror I will need to hear the prosecution's evidence to support my speculation before I'd vote guilty. What I've seen so far is a person lying, not reporting her daughter missing, evidence that her daughter was dead in her trunk, lack of remorse, etc. This leads me to reasonably believe she didn't want her daughter's body examined immediately after death. The only reasonable explanation to me would be that she committed a felony that resulted in her daughters death and didn't want this revealed. I would look for evidence that links her to the child's remains (prints on duct tape, carpet fibers from the trunk on the covering that was allegedly found with the body, for example). Testimony that she's has drugged her child in the past would be particularly damning to me. I may be wrong but I think it's reasonable to believe that she acted the way she did because she was responsible, in some way, for her daughter's death. I can't ignore her actions (consciousness of guilt?) after her daughter disappeared.

Is it really less than 1 percent error rate that defines reasonable doubt? How can this be quantified? Why doesn't the judge instruct the jury on this error rate ("courts will never say this") if it's the standard to be met? I've never heard of this before but it seems to me that would be the same as beyond a shadow of a doubt which is said to be an impossible standard.

_____________________

You are reasonable; and the small doubts you have would be dismissed if you remain reasonable. Shadow of a doubt is way too high and there would be no convictions and should not be considered. Most crimes aren't videotaped. Even if they were, some jurors would doubt them also, ala....beyond the shadow of a doubt is born.

If there are people still considering, "Shadow of doubt", than one must conclude that many jurors are not capable of understanding the meaning of the term, "Reasonable Doubt".

Many people are NOT convicted because of a juror's misunderstanding. They think if they speculate their guilt than they have to vote "not guilty"....wrong. Their speculation has to be "REASONABLE" not some fantasy of thought such as "I wsh or I would like to see more"...they should consider the preponderance of the evidence they have.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Is it really less than 1 percent error rate that defines reasonable doubt? How can this be quantified? Why doesn't the judge instruct the jury on this error rate ("courts will never say this") if it's the standard to be met? I've never heard of this before but it seems to me that would be the same as beyond a shadow of a doubt which is said to be an impossible standard.

In reviewing a case that challenged a definition of reasonable doubt that one State used, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of "to a moral certainly" was deemed to be ambiguous, arbitrary and confusing. The Court’s ruling resulted in all states reviewing and, as necessary, revamping their definition of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". The template that most, if not all, states used to create their new model for reasonable doubt was:

"The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."

While no state ended up with the above as their new model definition for reasonable doubt, states did extract from it. But, basically, across our fifty states, there are now over forty different definitions of reasonable doubt.

Still, if you look at the above template definition, it comes across very clear. So ask yourself this question: within the most important of your own affairs, what would constitute such a convincing character that you would be willing to act upon it without hesitation?

For example, would you drop your child off in a situation where you thought there was 1 in a 100 chance that they could suffer serious harm?

Without hesitation, I know that I would not drop off my dog if I thought there was one in a hundred chance (1% error rate) of him being injured or otherwise suffering harm. Moreover, I would not even drop off a goldfish.

 

[daisy7]

The original with Henry Fonda is the best.... Not the one made a few years ago with Tony Danza.

Yep, it's the original one I'm talking about... Didn't even know they made a new one with Tony Danza. Hope he didn't play Henry Fonda's character!

 

[Rumpole]

In reviewing a case that challenged a definition of reasonable doubt that one State used, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of "to a moral certainly" was deemed to be ambiguous, arbitrary and confusing. The Court’s ruling resulted in all states reviewing and, as necessary, revamping their definition of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". The template that most, if not all, states used to create their new model for reasonable doubt was:

"The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."

While no state ended up with the above as their new model definition for reasonable doubt, some states did extract from it. But, basically, across our fifty states, there are now over forty different definitions of reasonable doubt.

Still, if you look at the above template definition, it comes across very clearly. So ask yourself this question: within the most important of your own affairs, what would constitute such a convincing character that you would be willing to act upon it without hesitation?

For example, would you drop your child off in a situation where you thought there was 1 in a 100 chance that they could suffer serious harm?

Without hesitation, I know that I would not drop off my dog if I thought there was one in a hundred chance (1% error rate) of him being injured or otherwise suffering harm. Moreover, I would not even drop off a goldfish.

I'd risk the goldfish, the rest I like. Clear and simple enough for a layman like me.
Thanks

 

[trac]

It can be excluded ONLY if there is no precedence in using it - it's a new technology - for the prosecution to use it they might have to have someone from the body farm to testify as to it's valdity and exactness - the judge will rule off of that

Anyone do research on precedence for using the trunk gases? Unless someone does and can present them even those that say the are professionals have to curb on the 'knowing everything'

At this point in time, I think we are privy through the document dumps to a lot of information that may or may not be seen by jurors.

We don't know yet what will be allowed as evidence.

The jurors will have to weigh the evidence that is presented to them. Wudge has been so patient to explain to me that the defense can argue that the trunk gases, hair banding could be seen as junk science and excluded.

Our own wonderful poster here JWG has determined some very interesting findings about the computer searches.

We don't know if they have hard evidence against KC, because it has either not been released or they didn't find it until they found KC's body.

 

[Marina2]

snipped;

Still, if you look at the above template definition, it comes across very clearly. So ask yourself this question: within the most important of your own affairs, what would constitute such a convincing character that you would be willing to act upon it without hesitation? Without hesitation? Only an absolute certainty would cause me to act without hesitation. Most decisions, even the most important of affairs, have a degree of uncertainty attached. May be the reason most states did not adopt this template.

For example, would you drop your child off in a situation where you thought there was 1 in a 100 chance that they could suffer serious harm?
Certainly not.
Without hesitation, I know that I would not drop off my dog if I thought there was one in a hundred chance (1% error rate) of him being injured or otherwise suffering harm. Moreover, I would not even drop off a goldfish.
Nor would I. However, if evidence pointed to a defendant's guilt with a 99% certainty and a 1% doubt (1% error rate), I would vote guilty, without hesitation.

My comments in blue.

Thank you Wudge. I appreciate your in depth explanation of this "reasonable doubt". To me, the definition is purposefully ambiguous. Best left to the eye of the beholder. I don't believe we should go on the less than 1% margin of error when deciding if reasonable doubt exists. The template does suggest this but, at the same time, it is suggesting absolute certainty (without hesitation), an impossible standard. Nobody would be convicted if this standard were adhered to.

I tried hard to compare my decision of KC's guilt to that of my own child's life/safety and I just can't do it. It's too emotional and not a fair analogy. Again, if we had to make this comparison when deciding guilt, nobody would be convicted.

 

[Wudge]

snipped;

My comments in blue.

Thank you Wudge. I appreciate your in depth explanation of this "reasonable doubt". To me, the definition is purposefully ambiguous. Best left to the eye of the beholder. I don't believe we should go on the less than 1% margin of error when deciding if reasonable doubt exists. The template does suggest this but, at the same time, it is suggesting absolute certainty (without hesitation), an impossible standard. Nobody would be convicted if this standard were adhered to.

I tried hard to compare my decision of KC's guilt to that of my own child's life/safety and I just can't do it. It's too emotional and not a fair analogy. Again, if we had to make this comparison when deciding guilt, nobody would be convicted.

A 1% error rate may sound low. It is not.

Just so you understand, a 1% error rate against our annual population of three million imprisoned people means that, at any point in time, there are 30,000 people who should not be imprisoned.

Wrongful convictions destroy lives. And wrongful convictions have a multiplier effect, because, at a minimum, the lives of Mothers, Fathers, spouses, sons, daughters, brothers, Grandmothers and Grandfathers will be greatly damaged, if not destroyed, as well.

 

[daisy7]

A 1% error rate may sound low. It is not.

Just so you understand, a 1% error rate against our annual population of three million imprisoned people means that, at any point in time, there are 30,000 people who should not be imprisoned.

Wrongful convictions destroy lives. And wrongful convictions have a multiplier effect, because, at a minimum, the lives of Mothers, Fathers, spouses, sons, daughters, brothers, Grandmothers and Grandfathers will be greatly damaged, if not destroyed, as well.

Bolded by me. There are too many convictions that have been proven to be wrong. How many more are out there?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

 

[ecs5298]

Bolded by me. There are too many convictions that have been proven to be wrong. How many more are out there?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

If you go to the prisons and ask around I'm sure the error rate would be closer to 99.976%. After all, I've never met a prisoner who said he was guilty of the crime he was incarcerated for. (except for the one guy when asked why he killed everyone in the house, he responded....well... they was home!) They're all innocent. Just ask 'em. Their stories usually start with "I was walking down the street, minding my own business, when the cops busted me on a whim" Then they planted the victims wallet on me and then they planted the murder weapon on me and then they took some of my blood and spread it over the crime scene and took the victims bloood and spread it over my white Bronco and then brainwashed 3 separate witnesses into testifying that they witnessed me killing that man and woman (whatta mean how did I know it was a man and a woman). If the charges don't fit, you must acquit!

 

[daisy7]

If you go to the prisons and ask around I'm sure the error rate would be closer to 99.976%. After all, I've never met a prisoner who said he was guilty of the crime he was incarcerated for. (except for the one guy when asked why he killed everyone in the house, he responded....well... they was home!) They're all innocent. Just ask 'em. Their stories usually start with "I was walking down the street, minding my own business, when the cops busted me on a whim" Then they planted the victims wallet on me and then they planted the murder weapon on me and then they took some of my blood and spread it over the crime scene and took the victims bloood and spread it over my white Bronco and then brainwashed 3 separate witnesses into testifying that they witnessed me killing that man and woman (whatta mean how did I know it was a man and a woman). If the charges don't fit, you must acquit!

Sure, many (maybe most) guilty ones claims they're innocent. But, check out the link I gave and you'll see quite a few people whom were wrongly convicted and only cleared via DNA evidence.

I'm definitely not saying this is the case with KC. Just that our justice system is not perfect. But it's the best system we have.

 

[Wudge]

Bolded by me. There are too many convictions that have been proven to be wrong. How many more are out there?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

It's certain to vary by State.

North Carolina tops my list. Putting innocent people in prison has long been a sport there. After NC, I would look to: Texas, California, Arizona and Illinois.

 

[ecs5298]

Just that our justice system is not perfect. But it's the best system we have.

I totally agree. It's not a perfect system. I would really like to see a study done on the amount of false convictions vs. the amount of guilty offenders that get off due to a technicality.

Unfortunately, there are some cases where the guilty walk free even in the face of overwhelming DNA evidence (hence the Orenthal James reference above) due to the defense team turning the trial into a circus to float that balloon of reasonable doubt. IMO that's what JB is trying to do here. He's already assembling the defense team to do it. Trying to muddy the crystal clear waters.

I can just imagine JB's closing statement. "So ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Unless you are sure that the body found on Suburban Dr wasn't Caylee's identical twin sister that was adopted at birth by Zeniada's evil twin sister Zenelda, killed and planted in the trunk of my client's car in order to frame her for murder because she failed to pay Zenelda for $15,000 of s#x toys she ordered at Zenelda's s#x toy pajama party. Then you must find my client a real hottie and not guilty."

*****Disclaimer***** The above scenario is a ficticious rendering of a trial that hasn't started yet. The idea for the statement came totally from my mind....and now, probably the defense teams playbook.

 

[daisy7]

It's certain to vary by State.

North Carolina tops my list. Putting innocent people in prison has long been a sport there. After NC, I would look to: Texas, California, Arizona and Illinois.

I do find it interesting that the news blurb on the home page of The Innocence Project is the below:

Florida Exoneration Sparks Calls for Investigation

The same discredited dog-handler has contributed to two wrongful convictions later overturned through DNA testing – and William Dillon's (left) exoneration is sparking calls for Florida’s governor to launch an investigation.

The full story on their site is at http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1767.php