"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand?

[Themis]

Well, we have the legal questions and answers thread but I don't think discussion is allowed. <snipped>

Discussion is allowed on the legal issues and procedures thread.

 

[AZlawyer]

Discussion is allowed on the legal issues and procedures thread.

I sure hope so, or we've been in flagrant violation of the "no discussion" rule.

 

[ClockWatcher]

Discussion is allowed on the legal issues and procedures thread.

I left a question for ya.

 

[Themis]

Respectfully snipped for brevity:


<snipped> When a juror is to decide on whether the defense argument is reasonable, is he/she allowed to consider other evidence before deciding?

Yes.

Is every explanation the defense gives to be considered as if nothing else were ever heard?

No.

I get that the jury has to go with the defense explanation even if the percentage of reasonableness (is that a word?) is not in their favor.

Mr. Wudge believes this is the law. I won't comment. :shutup:

But, can a jury decide that the defense explanation is not reasonable, period, in light of all other evidence presented.

Yes.

Is the jury instructed regarding this?

The states have standardized instructions on the concept of reasonable doubt. Attorneys can draft and request specific instructions. The court will then have a hearing on the proposed instructions. Each side researches the case law and writes briefs on the issues and proposed instructions. If a state has not yet had a binding appellate opinion on the issue, the briefs also address the majority view and minority view among other states and the federal courts. Ultimately, the trial judge decides what instructions will be given to the jury. The adequacy of the jury instructions is a proper subject for appeal. I have not ever seen an instruction that basically tells the jury that if some explanation of evidence by the defense "could've happened" that the jury is bound by that and must take it as true. I have often seen instructions that tell the jury to weigh all of the evidence and decide what is credible and what is not.

Also, since KC is charged with two different charges relating to homicide, how are they going to argue both scenarios?

Carefully. :crazy: No, seriously, the SA will lay out the elements of each offense and show how the evidence that has been admitted supports each element of each of the charged offenses.

If I understand correctly, the murder one and the aggravated manslaughter are two separate offenses, not degrees of murder.

Manslaughter is commonly called 3rd degree murder. States use different names. Each of these have separate elements, but if all of the elements overlap but are missing only a few, then it may be called a "lesser included offense" of the greater charge.

An example I often use to explain "lesser included offenses" is as follows:

You are baking a chocolate cake. You need certain ingredients (elements). You need flour, water, eggs, salt, sugar and baking powder and chocolate. There are seven ingredients. Suppose you put them all together and don't have any chocolate. Well, you still have a cake, but it is not chocolate cake. So, if first degree murder has seven elements, but aggravated manslaughter only has six of the same ingredients, then it is a lesser included offense. But, if aggravated manslaughter calls for lemon flavoring, then you have a lemon cake, not a chocolate cake and it is a completely separate and not a lesser included offense.

Responses in blue above.

 

[Themis]

I left a question for ya.

Okay. :run:

 

[ClockWatcher]

Okay. :run:

:applause: :blowkiss:

 

[trixi491]

Well, I would hope so, because all the evidence that has been released is the prosecution's evidence. If the prosecution's evidence made Casey look innocent, the prosecutors wouldn't be doing their job, would they?

The evidence being released isn't biased in favor of the prosecution. They get the results from almost everything (FBI, etc) and have to release everything to the defense, whether it makes their case look strong or weak. Remember that one doc dump that showed none of KC's shoes had soil from the crime scene on it? In fact if they finally got FBI reports back that put someone else's DNA on the duct tape, that would be released from the prosecution and make KC look innocent (even though I highly doubt that is going to happen!

 

[wonders]

JMO: I do believe that Casey planned to murder Caylee even back when she was doing the searches. I think the fight with Cindy cemented the deal and here we are. I hope I make since here.

 

[yolorado]

So.. KC killed Caylee unintentionally, and in an effort to save other people? She simply had no choice but to kill Caylee, for the greater good?

:doh:Yeah, see it was KC or Caylee. Caylee was sucking the life out of KC. KC couldn't 'live' with Caylee around. She tried to save Caylee. She really did. She did her best, but, in the end, it was KC or Caylee. KC acted in self-defense. She's actually a hero in a way. She saved her life and now she can, you know, hum, do important stuff to help, you know, missing kids or something. It's better this way.
:cat:

 

[Bittiness39]

The evidence being released isn't biased in favor of the prosecution. They get the results from almost everything (FBI, etc) and have to release everything to the defense, whether it makes their case look strong or weak. Remember that one doc dump that showed none of KC's shoes had soil from the crime scene on it? In fact if they finally got FBI reports back that put someone else's DNA on the duct tape, that would be released from the prosecution and make KC look innocent (even though I highly doubt that is going to happen!

Kind of knocks the sails out of the defense does it not? No loving mother (as we are expectedly to believe she was) puts duct tape on her child's mouth. Period. End of sentence. This was no accident. This was no kidnapping. This was just plain and old ugly murder. Her tattoo says as much. No mom with a kid missing that she cares about goes and gets a beautiful life tattoo while her child that she is so scared to report missing for a month. No one. Ugly coping my fanny. Other than a really cold blooded killer. JMO

 

[yolorado]

In this case, when it comes to proving premeditation, Casey's pretty much already done that...from Day 1 to Day 31 and beyond. Baby's dead, thrown away in a swamp like trash. How'd that happen if KC didn't premeditate it? There is no other story out there to explain anything else. Never has been and now it's too darn late.

 

[RR0004]

Well, we have the legal questions and answers thread but I don't think discussion is allowed. As far as legal residents go, you and I both know there are great legal minds amongst us.

I wish one of 'em would set up a booth like Lucy! I'd pay 'em a nickel.

 

[Wudge]

Responses in blue above.

[Themis one of your replies shown in blue said]

I get that the jury has to go with the defense explanation even if the percentage of reasonableness (is that a word?) is not in their favor.

Mr. Wudge believes this is the law. I won't comment. :shutup:

Themis, I might be wrong, however, in your reply to the question asked, I sense you might doubt this is true. That would not surprise me, because long experience has taught me that more than a few people find this to be counter-intuitive. As an aid to understanding why it is true, I will post an explanation here that have I have used elsewhere to explain why jurors are instructed that they MUST accept a "reasonable" explanation from the defense.

Assume a hypothetical case exists that rests entirely on three separate pieces of circumstantial evidence. And for each piece of circumstantial evidence, the defense puts forth a reasonable explanation and the prosecution puts forth a reasonable explanation.

However, strictly for the sake of argument, let's assume that for the first piece of evidence a juror thinks to them self: both explanations are "reasonable", but I believe the prosecution's argument is more likely to be the truth, and I feel the likelihood is 67% for the prosecution's explanation, but only 33% for the defense's explanation.

And for the second piece of circumstantial evidence, let's assume that same juror thinks to them self: both explanations are "reasonable", but I believe the prosecution's argument is much more likely to be the truth, and I feel the likelihood is 75% for the prosecution's explanation, but only 25% for the defense's explanation.

Finally, for the third piece of circumstantial evidence, let's assume that same juror thinks to them self: both explanations are "reasonable", but I believe the prosecution's argument is far more likely to be the truth, and I feel the likelihood is 85% for the prosecution's explanation, but only 15% for the defense's explanation.

Next, the juror looks at their three choices based on weighting and votes to convict.

What the juror will have done is to have used weighting to knowingly vote to convict a person even though they assessed the defense's explanation for each piece of circumstantial evidence to be "reasonable". However, now bring into focus that our legal standard is: proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

Of logical necessity, a juror cannot say that the defense offered a REASONABLE explanation for each piece of evidence, yet that they were able to find the defendant guilty based on our standard of proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

That equation simply cannot ever close. And that is why jurors are instructed that they MUST accept a REASONABLE explanation put forth by the defense.

HTH

 

[Themis]

Here's the Florida instruction for premeditated murder.

7.2 MURDER&#8212;FIRST DEGREE​

§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
​

When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony murder, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.
To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.
An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
Transferred intent. Give if applicable.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

Lesser Included Offenses​

FIRST DEGREE (PREMEDITATED) MURDER &#8212; 782.04(1)(a)​

​

​

CATEGORY ONE
CATEGORY TWO
FLA. STAT.
INS. NO.
Second degree (depraved mind) murder
782.04(2)
7.4
Manslaughter
782.07
7.7
Second degree (felony) murder
782.04(3)
7.5
Third degree (felony) murder
782.04(4)
7.6
Vehicular homicide
782.071
7.9
Aggravated assault
784.021
8.2
Aggravated battery
784.045
8.4
Assault
784.011
8.1
Battery
784.03
8.3
Felony battery
784.041
8.5
Culpable negligence
784.05(2)
8.9
Culpable negligence
784.05(1)
8.9
Attempted second degree murder
782.04(2) & 777.04
6.4
Attempted voluntary manslaughter
782.07 & 777.04
6.6

Comment​

​

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in October 1981, and July 1997, and 2008.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

 

[Themis]

Here's the Florida final instruction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt.

3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT;
AND BURDEN OF PROOF
​

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996).
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.

Comment
​

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1997.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

 

[Themis]

Highlighting "reasonable doubt" as per the Florida Supreme Court instructions.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

<snipped>

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.

IMHO, the percentage method described is an exercise in "mere possible doubt" which appears to be prohibited under Florida law.

If there are any Florida appellate opinions, Federal Circuit Court opinions or US Supreme Court opinions that differ from this jury instruction or interpret "reasonable doubt" instruction language, I would like to see them.

The Florida instructions command (use of the word "must") the juror to compare and weigh all of the evidence. It does not tell jurors to assign percentages of probability to arguments and pie in the sky interpretations that are not supported by facts admitted into evidence at the trial.

An attorney's argument is not evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is just as valid as direct evidence and a conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence alone.

JMHO, of course.
This topic is like ther_beatingA_Dead

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

IMHO, the percentage method described is an exercise in "mere possible doubt" which appears to be prohibited under Florida law.

SNIP

No.

The purpose of my hypo in post #554 was to explain why jurors are instructed that they must exclude "evidence" when the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence -- jurors cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict.

In other words, the instruction mandates jurors to "exclude" such evidence from deliberation when they measure whether the State's remaining evidence meets the burden of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

HTH

 

[Manny]

I didn't vote. I am waiting for the trial to see what makes it into evidence before I decide.
We have been so overloaded with what might be and what is real that I just have to wait and see.

 

[Themis]

No.

The purpose of my hypo in post #554 was to explain why jurors are instructed that they must exclude "evidence" when the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence -- jurors cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict.

In other words, the instruction mandates jurors to "exclude" such evidence from deliberation when they measure whether the State's remaining evidence meets the burden of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

HTH

I'm sorry. We will have to agree to disagree. There is no such instruction as you are describing unless the defense makes a motion for one and it is briefed with legal citations and argued. The judge would decide. I invited you to provide appellate case law that would provide a legal basis for such an instruction. None was forthcoming. Therefore, the legal instructions, word for word, as I quoted above from the Florida Supreme Court's standard jury instructions, which does not contain any instruction that mandates the jurors to exclude such evidence from deliberation, will probably be the instruction given. That standard instruction includes all the evidence without exclusion. Any argument made by defense counsel to the jury without judicial approval is just that -- an argument.
Arguments of counsel are neither evidence nor jury instructions. I will acknowledge our disagreement, but in my opinion, you are wrong on this one.

 

[Wudge]

I'm sorry. We will have to agree to disagree. There is no such instruction as you are describing unless the defense makes a motion for one and it is briefed with legal citations and argued. The judge would decide. I invited you to provide appellate case law that would provide a legal basis for such an instruction. None was forthcoming. Therefore, the legal instructions, word for word, as I quoted above from the Florida Supreme Court's standard jury instructions, which does not contain any instruction that mandates the jurors to exclude such evidence from deliberation, will probably be the instruction given. That standard instruction includes all the evidence without exclusion. Any argument made by defense counsel to the jury without judicial approval is just that -- an argument.
Arguments of counsel are neither evidence nor jury instructions. I will acknowledge our disagreement, but in my opinion, you are wrong on this one.

By definition, trial judges approve the instuctions they deliver to the jury. Moreover, the "reasonal explanation instruction" does exist and is most certainty used across the nation.

Prior to Judge Delucchi delivering jury instructions in Scott Peterson's trial, I recall going through this exact debate with other disbelievers, naysayers and/or doubters. However, when Judge Delucchi finally instructed the jury, the "reasonable explanation instruction" was included. Specifically, it was covered in instruction #39, which read: "If the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt."