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

[Horace Finklestein]

Four elements are required to prove premeditated "murder" one (intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought). The element absent in your reference to a premediated "killing" is malice aforethought.

Please understand that not all premediated "killings" are unlawful. A person can kill another person (or persons) having intended to, planned to and deliberation on their plan and intent, but, for a lawful "murder" conviction, malice must be proved.

Note: of the four elements, a conviction on murder two (second-degree murder) only requires that malice be proved.

HTH

Did miss the statute he quoted?
"Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a) defines First Degree Premeditated Murder. Before
you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government
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).
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose."

 

[marspiter]

Wudge,
To clarify, here is the actual Florida statute for murder one:

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 782
HOMICIDE

782.04 Murder.--
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,

is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.

The state of Florida has 3 elements for Murder 1.

The Jury instructions are: According to Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.1 (2003)

Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a) defines First Degree Premeditated Murder (stated above).
Before you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government 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).
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose.

These are the 3 elements (see above) required to be met in the State of Florida for a murder one conviction. Wudge the four elements you mention are not listed for Florida law according to this statute and jury instructions. Wudge also take note that this is for premeditated "murder" one according to Florida Statute. Florida defines "murder" as an unlawful killing that matches these elements. Yes there are other statutes that deal with unlawful and lawful killings but murder is defined as stated above in the statute. Just wanting to clarify this as you seem to be trying to argue the semantics of murder and unlawful killing. I just want to point out that Florida (as well as other states) labels murder as an "unlawful" killing so as to stop any confusion.

 

[wonders]

I would just like to say you people are amazing and I thank you very much.

 

[Balthazar]

Having read all of the evidence that was released... guilty as bloody h@77!

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?

 

[marspiter]

Just wanted to say that I have amended my post above to clarify any confusion in regards to murder and unlawful killing. I am not trying to be snide but merely trying to clarify this issue so as to head off any confusion or misinformation. As there seemed to be confusion as to what murder and unlawful killing was according to the statute I listed.

So to clarify Florida labels "murder" as an "unlawful killing" with elements according to its statutes.

 

[Brini]

Just wanted to say that I have amended my post above to clarify any confusion in regards to murder and unlawful killing. I am not trying to be snide but merely trying to clarify this issue so as to head off any confusion or misinformation. As there seemed to be confusion as to what murder and unlawful killing was according to the statute I listed.

So to clarify Florida labels "murder" as an "unlawful killing" with elements according to its statutes.

Crystal, honey!
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Wudge]

Wudge,

SNIP

Wudge also take note that this is for premeditated "murder" one according to Florida Statute. Florida defines "murder" as an unlawful killing that matches these elements. Yes there are other statutes that deal with unlawful and lawful killings but murder is defined as stated above in the statute. Just wanting to clarify this as you seem to be trying to argue the semantics of murder and unlawful killing. I just want to point out that Florida (as well as other states) labels murder as an "unlawful" killing so as to stop any confusion.

I'll let you continue to research what constitutes murder in Florida.

Still, in all fifty states, "murder" represents an unlawful "killing" (both murder one and murder two). However, in all states, malice must be proved in either a murder one charge or a murder two charge. Moreover, of the elements of intent, planning deliberation and malice, only malice must be proved for murder two -- murder two is a lesser charge of murder one whereby the elements of planning, deliberation and intent are subtracted (lesser) leaving only malice.

Malice is the common demoninator between murder one and murder two.

Perhaps a hypo will aid you in understanding what malice is and represents.

[Hypo]

Mary and Jim were married. A car accident killed Jim and turned Mary into a quadriplegic. Mary’s sister, Jane, took Mary and her two daughters, Alice, age 7, and Amanda, age 3, into her home. Jane has a daughter, Emily, age 5. Jane promises Mary that she will look after Alice and Amanda as if they were her own daughters.

A month later, Jane and the three young girls go for a walk up a steep hill. Jane’s left hand is her weakest hand, and it’s in her left hand that she has hold of her own daughter’s right hand. In her right hand, Jane has hold of Alice’s left hand, and Alice has tied her right wrist to the left wrist of little Amanda.

They follow a narrow trail up the hill, but, as they near the top, little Amanda slips and slides backward. This pulls Alice off balance and she also falls backward, which causes both Jane and Emily to fall backwards too. All four tumble down the hill and towards a cliff, and the three young girls all fall over its edge. However, just before Jane falls over the cliff too, she is able wrap her legs around a large rock. Fortunately, Jane still has hold of her daughter in her left hand and Alice in her right hand with Amanda dangling by the leather tie on Alice’s other wrist.

Jane tries to pull them up to safety, but she soon realizes that neither of her hands is strong enough to do so by itself. Soon Jane feels the fingers of both Emily and Alice beginning to slip from each of her hands. She realizes that she will not be able to save all three girls. She will need to let go of one side so as to be able to then use that hand to reach over and help pull someone in her other hand up to safety.

During the next two minutes, Jane thinks about letting her daughter die to save Mary’s two daughters or letting Mary’s two daughters fall to their death so she can save her daughter. Fingers continue to slowly slip from both of Jane’s hands, and after considering the consequences of her intention and plan, Jane acts as and opens one of her hands. She then uses her now free hand to reach over and rescue …..

Someone dropped to their death as Jane intended.

Someone dropped to their death as Jane planned.

Someone dropped to their death after Jane had deliberated on her choice and decision.

Jane admitted that she deliberated on her intent and plan to kill, and prosecutors charge Jane with murder one.

Did Jane act with malice?

Is Jane guilty of murder one?

 

[Brini]

Great information. This made me wonder about another thing. There hasn't been any exact method of death yet... as in whether medication or chloroform to knock her out prior to taping the mouth and nose. Also, if there was a possibility that she found Caylee in the pool, no attempt to revive her as 911 was not called, nothing.

Wouldn't any of these circumstances be given the weight of premeditation by how described in your post. Just thinking outloud. From what's been released thus far in document dumps I can not see a way she murdered her without it being pre-med since it appears like asphyxiation. Which in itself gives ample time for kc to have stopped.

In the case that Marspiter cited, a guy murdered his rich wife. No cause of death was established, because no body was ever found. It was thought that he incinerated the body, and a few personal items of hers were found, in or near the incenerator.

The guy was found guilty of murder one, based on the circumstantial evidence.

 

[Brini]

I'll let you continue to research what constitutes murder in Florida.

Still, in all fifty states, "murder" represents an unlawful "killing" (both murder one and murder two). However, in all states, malice must be proved in either a murder one charge or a murder two charge. Moreover, of the elements of intent, planning deliberation and malice, only malice must be proved for murder two -- murder two is a lesser charge of murder one whereby the elements of planning, deliberation and intent are subtracted (lesser) leaving only malice.

Malice is the common demoninator between murder one and murder two.

Perhaps a hypo will aid you in understanding what malice is and represents.

[Hypo]

Mary and Jim were married. A car accident killed Jim and turned Mary into a quadriplegic. Mary’s sister, Jane, took Mary and her two daughters, Alice, age 7, and Amanda, age 3, into her home. Jane has a daughter, Emily, age 5. Jane promises Mary that she will look after Alice and Amanda as if they were her own daughters.

A month later, Jane and the three young girls go for a walk up a steep hill. Jane’s left hand is her weakest hand, and it’s in her left hand that she has hold of her own daughter’s right hand. In her right hand, Jane has hold of Alice’s left hand, and Alice has tied her right wrist to the left wrist of little Amanda.

They follow a narrow trail up the hill, but, as they near the top, little Amanda slips and slides backward. This pulls Alice off balance and she also falls backward, which causes both Jane and Emily to fall backwards too. All four tumble down the hill and towards a cliff, and the three young girls all fall over its edge. However, just before Jane falls over the cliff too, she is able wrap her legs around a large rock. Fortunately, Jane still has hold of her daughter in her left hand and Alice in her right hand with Amanda dangling by the leather tie on Alice’s other wrist.

Jane tries to pull them up to safety, but she soon realizes that neither of her hands is strong enough to do so by itself. Soon Jane feels the fingers of both Emily and Alice beginning to slip from each of her hands. She realizes that she will not be able to save all three girls. She will need to let go of one side so as to be able to then use that hand to reach over and help pull someone in her other hand up to safety.

During the next two minutes, Jane thinks about letting her daughter die to save Mary’s two daughters or letting Mary’s two daughters fall to their death so she can save her daughter. Fingers continue to slowly slip from both of Jane’s hands, and after considering the consequences of her intention and plan, Jane acts as and opens one of her hands. She then uses her now free hand to reach over and rescue …..

Someone dropped to their death as Jane intended.

Someone dropped to their death as Jane planned.

Someone dropped to their death after Jane had deliberated on her choice and decision.

Jane admitted that she deliberated on her intent and plan to kill, and prosecutors charge Jane with murder one.

Did Jane act with malice?

Is Jane guilty of murder one?

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?

 

[marspiter]

Well for starters the hypothetical case has no actual barring on the case that is being discussed as the aspects of the hypothetical case and the case that this thread is for are completely and totally different.

Second given my experience I would highly doubt that the situation in your hypothetical case would even bring about charges as I can't think of a magistrate that would even begin to touch that one other then to classify it as a tragic accident let alone a DA willing to risk taking a case like that to trail and the amount of public outcry from such a case if criminal charges were brought......Its possible that the handicapped sister could bring a wrongful death suit and say that her children should have never been in that situation but that's civil and I wont even begin to delve into that.

Once again though this hypothetical has nothing really to do with the case at hand and discussing the guilt or innocence of Casey.

 

[Marina2]

Respectfully snipped for brevity:

Another key instruction the judge will give to jurors is that if the defense provides a reasonable explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence that prosecutors hold to be inculpatory evidence, jurors must accept the defense's explanation. In other words, if the defense provides a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, jurors cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict (they must "yield" to the defense). This is true even if the prosecution's explanation (view) of the evidence is deemed to be far more reasonable; e.g., 70/30 in favor of the prosecution's view or 80/ 20 or 90/10, etc..

Thanks Wudge, your posts are always thought provoking. The part I snipped out has me wondering about jury instructions regarding totality of evidence. When a juror is to decde on whether the defense argument is reasonable, is he/she allowed to consider other evidence before deciding? Is every explanation the defense gives to be considered as if nothing else were ever heard? 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. But, can a jury decide that the defense explanation is not reasonable, period, in light of all other evidence presented. Is the jury instructed regarding this?

Also, since KC is charged with two different charges relating to homicide, how are they going to argue both scenarios? If I understand correctly, the murder one and the aggravated manslaughter are two separate offenses, not degrees of murder.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'll let you continue to research what constitutes murder in Florida.

Still, in all fifty states, "murder" represents an unlawful "killing" (both murder one and murder two). However, in all states, malice must be proved in either a murder one charge or a murder two charge. Moreover, of the elements of intent, planning deliberation and malice, only malice must be proved for murder two -- murder two is a lesser charge of murder one whereby the elements of planning, deliberation and intent are subtracted (lesser) leaving only malice.

Malice is the common demoninator between murder one and murder two.

Perhaps a hypo will aid you in understanding what malice is and represents.

[Hypo]

Mary and Jim were married. A car accident killed Jim and turned Mary into a quadriplegic. Mary’s sister, Jane, took Mary and her two daughters, Alice, age 7, and Amanda, age 3, into her home. Jane has a daughter, Emily, age 5. Jane promises Mary that she will look after Alice and Amanda as if they were her own daughters.

A month later, Jane and the three young girls go for a walk up a steep hill. Jane’s left hand is her weakest hand, and it’s in her left hand that she has hold of her own daughter’s right hand. In her right hand, Jane has hold of Alice’s left hand, and Alice has tied her right wrist to the left wrist of little Amanda.

They follow a narrow trail up the hill, but, as they near the top, little Amanda slips and slides backward. This pulls Alice off balance and she also falls backward, which causes both Jane and Emily to fall backwards too. All four tumble down the hill and towards a cliff, and the three young girls all fall over its edge. However, just before Jane falls over the cliff too, she is able wrap her legs around a large rock. Fortunately, Jane still has hold of her daughter in her left hand and Alice in her right hand with Amanda dangling by the leather tie on Alice’s other wrist.

Jane tries to pull them up to safety, but she soon realizes that neither of her hands is strong enough to do so by itself. Soon Jane feels the fingers of both Emily and Alice beginning to slip from each of her hands. She realizes that she will not be able to save all three girls. She will need to let go of one side so as to be able to then use that hand to reach over and help pull someone in her other hand up to safety.

During the next two minutes, Jane thinks about letting her daughter die to save Mary’s two daughters or letting Mary’s two daughters fall to their death so she can save her daughter. Fingers continue to slowly slip from both of Jane’s hands, and after considering the consequences of her intention and plan, Jane acts as and opens one of her hands. She then uses her now free hand to reach over and rescue …..

Someone dropped to their death as Jane intended.

Someone dropped to their death as Jane planned.

Someone dropped to their death after Jane had deliberated on her choice and decision.

Jane admitted that she deliberated on her intent and plan to kill, and prosecutors charge Jane with murder one.

Did Jane act with malice?

Is Jane guilty of murder one?

Wudge, I really appreciate you putting together this hypothetical. The way I see it, in this (Jane's) case, the element of premeditated murder that would not be met is that the killing would not be the result of a "CRIMINAL ACT of the defendant," because presumably Jane's conduct would fall within a statutory exception for "excusable homicide" or something similar and therefore would not be "criminal." (I haven't looked up the Florida statute(s) regarding excusable homicide.)

However, I don't think the judge will instruct the jury on excusable homicide unless there is some scrap of evidence to justify such a finding in KC's case.

 

[Muzikman]

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?

What's that quote? oh yeah....

"If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bull****" :crazy:

heh

 

[Brini]

Respectfully snipped for brevity:


Thanks Wudge, your posts are always thought provoking. The part I snipped out has me wondering about jury instructions regarding totality of evidence. When a juror is to decde on whether the defense argument is reasonable, is he/she allowed to consider other evidence before deciding? Is every explanation the defense gives to be considered as if nothing else were ever heard? 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. But, can a jury decide that the defense explanation is not reasonable, period, in light of all other evidence presented. Is the jury instructed regarding this?

Also, since KC is charged with two different charges relating to homicide, how are they going to argue both scenarios? If I understand correctly, the murder one and the aggravated manslaughter are two separate offenses, not degrees of murder.

Yeah, I' like to hear the answer to that, too.

If that is the case, FL courts sure are different than the CA courts!

 

[Marina2]

]
Respectfully, I believe Wudge was trying to explain the meaning of "malice" as it relates to murder one/premeditation, rather than comparing this case to KC's.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

What's that quote? oh yeah....

"If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with " :crazy:

heh

Like Billy Flynn in "Chicago": "Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle,
Razzle Dazzle 'em"

 

[Brini]

What's that quote? oh yeah....

"If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with " :crazy:

heh

My Dad used to say, "If you have the evidence, pound the evidence. If you don't have the evidence, pound the table."

 

[marspiter]

Marina2,

I understand what Wudge was trying to show in his hypothetical but to be honnest it should be more in line with the aspects of this case. Also in the hypothetical no charges would have even been brought in my opinion as it wasn't a criminal act as stated by AZlawyer and I tend to agree.

In Casey's case though I would argue that there was malice and intent with premeditation. I also feel that in accordance with People v. Scott that Casey will be found guilty do to the circumstantial evidence of this case as well as her actions after the fact.

 

[Balthazar]

Respectfully, I believe Wudge was trying to explain the meaning of "malice" as it relates to murder one/premeditation, rather than comparing this case to KC's.

I agree. Wudge was trying to explain the meaning of "malice." Why are you all trying to compare the scenario in the explanation of "malice" to Casey's case?

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I really appreciate you putting together this hypothetical. The way I see it, in this (Jane's) case, the element of premeditated murder that would not be met is that the killing would not be the result of a "CRIMINAL ACT of the defendant," because presumably Jane's conduct would fall within a statutory exception for "excusable homicide" or something similar and therefore would not be "criminal." (I haven't looked up the Florida statute(s) regarding excusable homicide.)

However, I don't think the judge will instruct the jury on excusable homicide unless there is some scrap of evidence to justify such a finding in KC's case.

Thank you.

I did not intend to relate the hypo to this case.

The purpose of the hypo was but to show that malice is an essential element of murder (murder one or murder two). Despite the fact that Jane intended to kill, planned to kill and deliberated on her plan, I doubt that anyone would convict Jane of murder one. It's clear that she faced a grave and ghastly choice that did not project true malice towards any girl.

Jane's attorney's would surely use an affirmative defense.

If you ever use this hypo with law students, select which hand Jane releases. I guarantee you that will generate still more angst and discussion --though not in the legal sense.