Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[MissJames]

As in "twelve lay jurors who blindly go forth to render a verdict without first benchmarking the degree of certainty."

Then my response applies.Unless they just weren't listening ,jurors don't go forth blindly.They have evidence and arguments from both sides and jury instructions.If there is any question about the instructions,including a benchmark for what is reasonable doubt,they can ask the judge.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

I think what tricks people up is that reasonable doubt is left up to some interpretation.

SNIP

"Some interpretation" ranges from 51% to 99.99%. Obviously, that's an extreme chasm. Our laws and jury instructions should foreclose on such a gap.

Still, while "reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" remain open to wide interpretation, proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not considered to be a Constitutional requirement (due process) prior to a 1970 Supreme Court ruling. Yet, the court could have done far better to reduce the much discussed vagueness and massive ambiguity.

 

[Intermezzo]

Yep! The 31 days and the decomp in the car.

Others have been convicted on far less evidence.

My guess is that if JB had what he says he has-- an exonerating explanation, he'd already have had KC out. As has happened with other wrongly incarcerated people.

BBM
I agree. If he had proof she is innocent then this case should not have gotten as far as the Grand Jury. IMO of course.

 

[marspiter]

"Some interpretation" ranges from 51% to 99.99%. Obviously, that's an extreme chasm. Our laws and jury instructions should foreclose on such a gap.

Still, while "reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" remain open to wide interpretation, proof beyond a reasonable was not considerd to be a Constitutional right (due process) prior to a 1970 Supreme Court ruling. Yet, the court could have done far better to reduce the much discussed vagueness and massive ambiguity.

They could have and didn't. That speaks volumes for the court allowing the juror to use his own reasoning skills to weigh the evidence and render a verdict.

 

[MissJames]

"Some interpretation" ranges from 51% to 99.99%. Obviously, that's an extreme chasm. Our laws and jury instructions should foreclose on such a gap.

Still, while "reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" remain open to wide interpretation, proof beyond a reasonable was not considerd to be a Constitutional right (due process) prior to a 1970 Supreme Court ruling. Yet, the court could have done far better to reduce the much discussed vagueness and massive ambiguity.

I really don't see how that's possible.For example in the hospital or an ER they have a pain scale.They ask you"on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain you've ever had ,how would you rate this pain?"
That will be subjective and depend on each persons life experience with pain,their own pain tolerance or threshhold and then a sort of guess as to where they think it is.
What each person believes is beyond a reasonable doubt will depend on thier own life experiences,education and threshhold of what is reasonable.Mine is obviously different from yours,so how can you quantify it?
You brought up education as a factor in another post.I agree ,from my own families experience,the two who went to Harvard [one is a lawyer for a watchdog group and one is VP of a computer company]tend to be more analytical in discussions.They analyze each "thing",but don't see the big picture the rest of us [lowly undergrads]see.They can't see the forest for the trees ,so to speak.They are also more socially inept.They would be more likely on a jury to get stuck on a phrase or a word used.
Even DNA is not 100 percent ,but is frequently used incourt as proof of a crime,or as proof of parentage.

 

[LambChop]

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. 31 days, lies to LE, decomp. smell in car, partying, trying to blame a person who does not exist....duct tape w/heart sticker. Way beyond doubt that anyone else did it for me. Is it reasonable to believe that someone else could have a reason to want Caylee out of their life? Not. Did not see CA, GA or LA out partying. This is what the jury will be thinking about and some of the evidence they will never get out of their head. She should have taken the plea when it was offered.

 

[Wudge]

I really don't see how that's possible.For example in the hospital or an ER they have a pain scale.They ask you"on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain you've ever had ,how would you rate this pain?"
That will be subjective and depend on each persons life experience with pain,their own pain tolerance or threshhold and then a sort of guess as to where they think it is.
What each person believes is beyond a reasonable doubt will depend on thier own life experiences,education and threshhold of what is reasonable.Mine is obviously different from yours,so how can you quantify it?
You brought up education as a factor in another post.I agree ,from my own families experience,the two who went to Harvard [one is a lawyer for a watchdog group and one is VP of a computer company]tend to be more analytical in discussions.They analyze each "thing",but don't see the big picture the rest of us [lowly undergrads]see.They can't see the forest for the trees ,so to speak.They are also more socially inept.They would be more likely on a jury to get stuck on a phrase or a word used.
Even DNA is not 100 percent ,but is frequently used incourt as proof of a crime,or as proof of parentage.

In the the Supreme Court ruling in the 1994 case of Victor v. Nebraska, which was discussed earlier in this thread, the Court recognized and stated that the Constitution requires a very high level of certainty in criminal cases. However, the Court deliberately neglected to at least bracket a range for "high level of certainty".

More than a few people believe a high level of certainty exists when the certainty is 80% or upward; some other people believe that a high level of certainty exists beyond 75% (or even 70%).

 

[Wudge]

They could have and didn't. That speaks volumes for the court allowing the juror to use his own reasoning skills to weigh the evidence and render a verdict.

I agree, especially since the Court could have corrected any "oversight" in its ruling in Victor v. Nebaska, which was handed down almost a quarter of a century later. The Court knows that if it defines "a high probability of certainty", it would have to be above 99%. Because there is simply no way that the Court could complicity condone a death penalty error rate of 1% or more.

Such a ruling would lessen both wrongful convictions and overall convictions. The latter is why the Court has chosen not to do so.

 

[Brini]

Hah! I went to DC last week to speak to Congressmen/woman and the health staffers about a bill for efficient programs for children who are medically complex. You are right ,Brini. If you want something changed go to the source.I'm as ordinary a citizen as you can get,but they listened! It was just me and the manager of the program we had here. What a learning experience.I still have the blisters on my feet.Lot's of walking on the Hill.

Yep! I submitted a bill re: an animal cruelty law. It passed.

 

[Brini]

"Some interpretation" ranges from 51% to 99.99%. Obviously, that's an extreme chasm. Our laws and jury instructions should foreclose on such a gap.

Still, while "reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" remain open to wide interpretation, proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not considered to be a Constitutional requirement (due process) prior to a 1970 Supreme Court ruling. Yet, the court could have done far better to reduce the much discussed vagueness and massive ambiguity.

We also do not have your methodology for said study.

Methodology is the reason why experiments (scientific and social) are submitted to refereed journals.

 

[marspiter]

In the the Supreme Court ruling in the 1994 case of Victor v. Nebraska, which was discussed earlier in this thread, the Court recognized and stated that the Constitution requires a very high level of certainty in criminal cases. However, the Court deliberately neglected to at least bracket a range for "high level of certainty".

More than a few people believe a high level of certainty exists when the certainty is 80% or upward; some other people believe that a high level of certainty exists beyond 75% (or even 70%).

The court left it open for a reason. I suspect that reason is so that each individual juror can interpret for themselves the level of doubt that they will except. You can not place a value on that. What one feels is 80% certainty is not what others would deem 80% certainty and vice verse. Some people just have to have "absolute" proof and others can read between the lines so to speak. Take this case for example.

You seem to have a 90 plus percent (maybe 100 and nothing is 100%) certainty that Casey is innocent. The vast majority here seem to feel otherwise. Yet everyone has had access to the same evidence. However in this case I don't see a 12 Angry Men moment here.

 

[marspiter]

I agree, especially since the Court could have corrected any "oversight" in its ruling in Victor v. Nebaska, which was handed down almost a quarter of a century later. The Court knows that if it defines "a high probability of certainty", it would have to be above 99%. Because there is simply no way that the Court could complicity condone a death penalty error rate of 1% or more.

Such a ruling would lessen both wrongful convictions and overall convictions. The latter is why the Court has chosen not to do so.

Exactly because there is no way to place such a mathematical number on such a concept. So yes the court would have to say something like 99% because having a 1% error rate of innocent people for the DP would seem barbaric. On the flip side needing to have proof showing beyond 99% certainty is a bit preposterous and boarders on delusions of grandeur.

So what did all of this discussing and beating dead horses prove? Assigning a percentage to what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt is not what is done, is not what the court did, and is not something that should be done. Its possible you may think such an assignment is needed but apparently the court does not.

So what are we left with? The interpretation of the juror once they have examined the evidence and weighed it using their own reasoning skills and then determining if the evidence out weighs any doubt they may have. Which is pretty much what the general jury instructions said and what I and many others have said.

What have the vast majority of people been saying about this case based on the evidence they have seen? Casey is guilty! :behindbar

 

[Wudge]

The court left it open for a reason. I suspect that reason is so that each individual juror can interpret for themselves the level of doubt that they will except. You can not place a value on that. What one feels is 80% certainty is not what others would deem 80% certainty and vice verse. Some people just have to have "absolute" proof and others can read between the lines so to speak. Take this case for example.

You seem to have a 90 plus percent (maybe 100 and nothing is 100%) certainty that Casey is innocent. The vast majority here seem to feel otherwise. Yet everyone has had access to the same evidence. However in this case I don't see a 12 Angry Men moment here.

For proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I've said my degree of certainty is greater than 99%, which corresponds to an error rate of less than 1% -- consider that an error rate of 1% would mean that for every 1000 executions we should expect 10 innocent people to be executed, and a 2% error rate would align with 20 wrongful executions, a 3% .... and so forth.

I give Casey the prejudice afforded her by the Constitution (presumed innocent). Moreover, I have yet to hear of evidence that I consider to be reliably sufficient to support a guilty verdict on the premeditated murder charge.

 

[JBean]

The court left it open for a reason. I suspect that reason is so that each individual juror can interpret for themselves the level of doubt that they will except. You can not place a value on that. What one feels is 80% certainty is not what others would deem 80% certainty and vice verse. Some people just have to have "absolute" proof and others can read between the lines so to speak. Take this case for example.

You seem to have a 90 plus percent (maybe 100 and nothing is 100%) certainty that Casey is innocent. The vast majority here seem to feel otherwise. Yet everyone has had access to the same evidence. However in this case I don't see a 12 Angry Men moment here.

Just want to clarify that the primary debate is whether the charge of premeditation can be proven with a high degree of certainty.

The fact is she is charged with premeditated murder and so oversimpifying the discussion down to innocent or guilty does not really address the issue. Does that help?

IOW, will she be convicted of what she is actually charged with? is there enough evidence to support THAT charge of premeditation with a high degree of certainty?

 

[Wudge]

Exactly because there is no way to place such a mathematical number on such a concept. So yes the court would have to say something like 99% because having a 1% error rate of innocent people for the DP would seem barbaric. On the flip side needing to have proof showing beyond 99% certainty is a bit preposterous and boarders on delusions of grandeur.

So what did all of this discussing and beating dead horses prove? Assigning a percentage to what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt is not what is done, is not what the court did, and is not something that should be done. Its possible you may think such an assignment is needed but apparently the court does not.

So what are we left with? The interpretation of the juror once they have examined the evidence and weighed it using their own reasoning skills and then determining if the evidence out weighs any doubt they may have. Which is pretty much what the general jury instructions said and what I and many others have said.

What have the vast majority of people been saying about this case based on the evidence they have seen? Casey is guilty! :behindbar

My recall is that around 125 death row inmates have been exonerated over the last 35 years or so. No matter how you might wish to look at it, that error rate far exceeds 1%.

You said that having an error rate of 1% for the death penalty would seem barbaric. I agree. Nevertheless, we do.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Does anyone else get the feeling at times that the "waters are being tested" here? Just sayin.....

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Yep! I submitted a bill re: an animal cruelty law. It passed.

:blowkiss:

 

[marspiter]

My recall is that around 125 death row inmates have been exonerated over the last 35 years or so. No matter how you might wish to look at it, that error rate far exceeds 1%.

You said that having an error rate of 1% for the death penalty would seem barbaric. I agree. Nevertheless, we do.

Yes we do have greater then 1% I would say. Now we are discussing how flawed the justice system is and not really discussing this case.

Based on the law, jury instructions, and all the above discussion. The jury is going to be able to weigh the evidence in this case. Based on each jurors assessment of said evidence they are going to pass on a conviction. The jurors are allowed to have doubt in their minds just not enough that it out weighs their reasoning for the conviction. There is no requirement in the law for 99% certainty and I would say anything beyond 99% certainty is preposterous and only exists in some fantasy land where the juror is omnipotent or a confession is obtained (even that isn't beyond 99%). I believe based on the law and jury instructions as it is currently written and stated Casey will be found guilty. Which was pretty much stated long ago.

The little discussion asking about "should's" and mathematical computations was pretty much nothing more then a diversion that basically brought as right back to the start of this discussion. The jury instructions are such and based on those instructions the majority feel Casey will be convicted.

 

[JBean]

Does anyone else get the feeling at times that the "waters are being tested" here? Just sayin.....

Why?

I personally do not see enough to convict on premeditated charges yet. I can see her being convicted on other murder charges but I don't think premeditation is being clearly evidenced at this juncture.

Why is that not an important topic for discussion? This is not about innocence or guilt as much as it is can she be convicted on what she is currently charged with.

 

[Wudge]

Does anyone else get the feeling at times that the "waters are being tested" here? Just sayin.....

You might think this is what's behind my posts, for this is another death penalty case in Florida, and many people hold Florida to be the worst state for wrongful death penalty convictions. I would not disagree with them.

http://truthinjustice.org/fla-deathrow.htm

Still, the truth is that jury error in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence has long been my number one hot button. Accordingly, I've long advocated the need for professional jurors -- most certainly in death penalty cases. And my long-term "interest" (read: disgust) is what's behind my posts, nothing more.