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

[Marina2]

Wudge, one more question then I'll stop...I think.

Is second degree murder an option for the jury? Do you think the evidence supports a convicton of second degree murder? Malice, without planning, deliberation, or intent? Sorry, two questions.

 

[Wudge]

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.

(Great big gold star)

 

[Brini]

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.

Well, there is also something called, "choice of evils," that could apply, in Jane's case. It does not figure into KCs.

The circumstance forced Jane into a choice of evils. She chose what she percieved to be the lesser one. There was no third option, if I understand it correctly. Jane had no malice toward anyone, and I doubt that she would be convicted.

In the case we are discussing, we are considering premeditation w/o choice of evil, or any other coercive circumstance. AEB computer searches, tape, et al.

I DID rather like the parable, however.

 

[RR0004]

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?

I'd be more than happy for the press to request JB's depos. Can they do that?

 

[Marina2]

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.

Regarding the text I bolded: I suspected that was why you skillfully omitted that part of the story.

 

[RR0004]

Can I please ask why this same discussion pops up from time to time? I kinda get where people stand. Perhaps we should have a thread for arguing statutes or something. Personally, I believe the State will be able to prove its case...she will be found guilty.

 

[Brini]

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?

Because that's the forum topic.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, one more question then I'll stop...I think.

Is second degree murder an option for the jury? Do you think the evidence supports a convicton of second degree murder? Malice, without planning, deliberation, or intent? Sorry, two questions.

I can't say that I absolutely understand the strategy behind prosecutors charging Casey with murder one and manslaughter but not murder two. However, I believe that prosecutors likely skipped murder two, because they fear the jury would likely compromise on it.

As for my call on whether the evidence that we know of would cause me to vote guilty on murder two, the answer is: no.

I say this because based on my assessment of the evidence, I see accident or negligence-based manslaughter to be a distinct possibility.

(I would not at all be surprised if prosecutors end-up asking the judge to also instruct the jury on murder two.)

 

[RR0004]

I dunno, Eunice. Maybe we just haven't got to the part where Jane throws the body in the trunk, tapes it up and puts a decorative sticker on it, then toddles of to the clubs.

OMG! This was LOL funny!


ETA: in a sad way

 

[The Eunice Burns]

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.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree. I understand what Wudge was trying to demonstrate, but as you said, it isn't in line w/ the aspects of this case. An argument could be made that Jane, although she had to deliberate before letting go of one hand or the other, is a victim herself--of an accident which brings about an event (the death of either her daughter or her nieces) for which she is the instrument. So, I struggle w/ this hypo lending itself to this discussion. However, being an "everyday lay person" who would have "trouble assessing the reliability of the evidence", I guess it would baffle me.

 

[Brini]

I can't say that I absolutely understand the strategy behind prosecutors charging Casey with murder one and manslaughter but not murder two. However, I believe that prosecutors likely skipped murder two, because they fear the jury would likely compromise on it.

As for my call on whether the evidence that we know of would cause me to vote guilty on murder two, the answer is: no.

I say this because based on my assessment of the evidence, I see accident or negligence-based manslaughter to be a distinct possibility.

(I would not at all be surprised if prosecutors end-up asking the judge to also instruct the jury on murder two.)

I thought there was a special provision for death of a child due to negilgence, that bumped it to felony murder?

 

[Marina2]

Can I please ask why this same discussion pops up from time to time? I kinda get where people stand. Perhaps we should have a thread for arguing statutes or something. Personally, I believe the State will be able to prove its case...she will be found guilty.

I think that would be a very good thread. Personally, I think KC is guilty and voted as such but, I'm trying to understand the charges, their elements, how they relate to one another, how the jury will be instructed, etc. I also think the jury will convict KC but I want to understand if they will be going against instructions, if the prosecution really does have the evidence to legally convict her and such. Don't get me wrong, I think KC is guilty and should spend her life in prison but I'm trying to understand how the judicial system works. (esp. in regards to this case and the evidence that will be presented). I have no doubt that the jury will convct KC.

 

[RR0004]

I thought there was a special provision for death of a child due to negilgence, that bumped it to felony murder?

Yes, yes, yes....

 

[Wudge]

Respectfully snipped for brevity:


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?

If the defense offers an explanation for a particular piece of evidence, jurors are to evaluate that explanation for reasonableness without alteration. For if they were to alter it, they would not evaluating the explanation put forth by the defense. However, the jury can decide if defense's explanation contains fallacious logic.

Regarding whether judges instruct juries on the absolute need to yield to a reasonable explanation from the defense, the answer is: yes.

 

[RR0004]

I think that would be a very good thread. Personally, I think KC is guilty and voted as such but, I'm trying to understand the charges, their elements, how they relate to one another, how the jury will be instructed, etc. I also think the jury will convict KC but I want to understand if they will be going against instructions, if the prosecution really does have the evidence to legally convict her and such. Don't get me wrong, I think KC is guilty and should spend her life in prison but I'm trying to understand how the judicial system works. (esp. in regards to this case and the evidence that will be presented). I have no doubt that the jury will convct KC.

No I get that...but we always seem to go around and around on this very issue...which may belong in a thread of its own. Wouldn't it be great to have a legal resident(s) to answer these questions?!

 

[MAMABEAR]

Well, there is also something called, "choice of evils," that could apply, in Jane's case. It does not figure into KCs.

The circumstance forced Jane into a choice of evils. She chose what she percieved to be the lesser one. There was no third option, if I understand it correctly. Jane had no malice toward anyone, and I doubt that she would be convicted.

In the case we are discussing, we are considering premeditation w/o choice of evil, or any other coercive circumstance. AEB computer searches, tape, et al.

I DID rather like the parable, however.

Well, maybe Jane let loose of the heavier child. Were we there? I think she let go of the heavier one---it would be harder to hold the heavy one.

 

[Marina2]

No I get that...but we always seem to go around and around on this very issue...which may belong in a thread of its own. Wouldn't it be great to have a legal resident(s) to answer these questions?!

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.

 

[Marina2]

I thought there was a special provision for death of a child due to negilgence, that bumped it to felony murder?

That's another question I have regarding the indictment. They've charged her with aggravated child abuse but not felony murder. If they have evidence of abuse that leads to death then I would think this would support a felony murder charge, So, I wonder if they're going to present evidence of child abuse (aggravated, no less) that didn't lead to her death. Their strategy has me baffled but then again, I'm a nurse...not a lawyer.

 

[Brini]

That's another question I have regarding the indictment. They've charged her with aggravated child abuse but not felony murder. If they have evidence of abuse that leads to death then I would think this would support a felony murder charge, So, I wonder if they're going to present evidence of child abuse (aggravated, no less) that didn't lead to her death. Their strategy has me baffled but then again, I'm a nurse...not a lawyer.

Yeah, so am I. Doesn't help much, does it.

My family are lawyers, but not FL lawyers.

I would not be surprised if there are some changes in the charges, though.

 

[Brini]

Well, maybe Jane let loose of the heavier child. Were we there? I think she let go of the heavier one---it would be harder to hold the heavy one.

Well, it's like the "Lady or the Tiger," "My Cousin Rachel," Or, "In the Lake of the Woods."

Any solution leads to humongus logical and ethical debate and strife. Any is both defensibel and indefensible.

Could do a whole thread just on THAT!

BTW-- Except I DO know the solution to "My Cousin Rachel."