Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[The Eunice Burns]

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.

JBean, I think you misunderstood my post. I do think it's a great topic for discussion.

And IMO, she can and will be convicted on what she is currently charged with.

 

[marspiter]

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?

Yes which is why I stated the jury instructions regarding premeditation earlier. What I was discussion with Wudge is that an actual number can not be assigned to such a concept as beyond reasonable doubt and to try and do so is an endeavor that the courts themselves refused to do. I then related that back to this case and Casey's guilt.

In terms of premeditation the jury instructions are pretty clear and once again like reasonable doubt have not been assigned a number (percentage) as to degree of certainty. They clearly say it is left to the juror to decide based on the evidence. Also given what Florida constitutes as premeditation I would say it leaves the door more wide open then other states. Such as North Carolina that states the defendant must have had sufficient time for their "blood to cool". Florida makes no such statement. It only says the defendant must have reflected upon their actions before doing so thus allowing just fractions of a moment before committing the action as no time limit is given and reflection is a broad term.

 

[MissJames]

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.

Hey Marspiter,
We can go back to the alien abduction that we joked about not long ago.
There are people who definitely believe in aliens and may even believe they've experienced something .There are others who absolutely believe it is all hocus pocus.Then there are those who don't really have much faith that there are aliens,but there COULD be,just doubtful.
So ,hypothetically ,KC's defense puts an alien abduction out there as a possible reason for the disapperance and death.They could even find "experts" and those who have been abducted before to be witnesses.Find similarities these witnesses had with Caylee's abduction.
It would explain why KC can't remember and acted for 31 days like nothing was wrong [mind control],it would explain why Caylee was found close to home [they missed],It would explain the duct tape [an experiment gone wrong].It would explain why they can't find the nanny.
It is not a reasonable defense in most peoples minds,but there could be a juror or two that do believe in the possibility of alien life forms .The way the defense lays it out with experts could,in a way,give the jurors pause.....well Maaaaybeee there was the possiblity of aliens abducting Caylee and messing with KC,even causing her to steal! But no,even though there is that slight doubt,it makes more sense that KC did it.
My point is that ,while we would then have people with NO doubt KC did it,because they don't believe in aliens,some might have some doubt,but not enough to say KC is not guilty.You might have one,that has such a belief that aliens exist that they just can't say KC is guilty.Each person so differen't.
Another topic:
If the evidence shows there was tape over Caylee's mouth AND nose,that would be enough for premeditation.That's a slow death,with time to rethink and remove the tape before the person dies.
I wonder if they tested for excess radiation from,you know,the aliens. :crazy:

 

[Wudge]

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.

SNIP

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.

I did not intend to divert anything. I see the "level of certainty" issue as central to whether prosecutors have evidence that reliably proves their premeditated murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, I think this discussion fairly falls within the province of this thread.

 

[marspiter]

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.

Basically with Florida's definition of what premeditation is all Casey had to do is think to herself what I'm about to do can kill Caylee. That's pretty much it that's all that's really required. There is nothing in Florida law that states she had to plan her actions. All she had to do the moment before her actions is think "this can kill her" that's it. So going back to reasonable doubt. I think given Florida's open definition and the evidence of this case. The only other way a healthy less then two year old who relies on others for her basic needs can die is an accident (in this case). I don't think an accident in this case is at all reasonable given the computer searches, and Casey's actions before, during, and after the crime.

Also relating back to the chloroform that's pretty much an automatic if it was administered to Caylee and she died as a result. Must states count poisoning as automatic premeditation. I will concede that poisoning has not been proven in this case though, but the high levels of chloroform are going to be on the minds of jurors.

 

[lin]

"10 guilty go free rather than yada yada"
The only problem with this is that the prosecutor has already allowed the potential 10 guilty go free, by not even bringing charges in the first place
People forget that many many cases never go to court to begin with because the prosecutor tends to bring cases she/he feels sure about winning .
I personally do not believe at all that Now Days there is a presumption of guilt in the courtroom.
I think folks have unreasonable doubt in many cases.
Uh, and there in lies the rub, cause they wouldn't be so unreasonable if it was THEIR LOVED ONE THAT WAS MURDERED OR WHATEVER.
I have a passion about the miscarriage of justice that takes place every day in and out of our courtrooms, letting the guilty go free so they can victimize others again and again.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

This may belong on the questions thread but noone probably knows the answer yet. Could it be that someone in Casey's inner circle has provided a confession of sorts (told a reliable account of what really did happen) in exchange for lenience for their part in whatever happened? I have pondered this possibility since the death penalty was restored. Something that is not obvious to us happened/changed at that point.

 

[Brini]

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.

But, we've BEEN discussing why we feel she can be convicted, and on which charge, JB. Our reasoning is on this thread.

Most of us agree on premed. Others don't. Some abstain, until they see all of the evidence. I think we generally agree that whether or not we believe in murder I, we could be convinced otherwise, given the appropriate evidence.

Now, we seem to be discussing what is and isn't wrong with the judicial system. Is that on topic?

Thanks! xoxoxoxoxo

 

[marspiter]

Hey Marspiter,
We can go back to the alien abduction that we joked about not long ago.

Well we can't prove beyond 99% certainty they don't exist, or they had any involvement. That and seems to be just as reasonable as the imaginanny IMHO. :crazy:

A bit OT but a good amount of humor to keep things fun.

 

[lin]

If by "case" and "proof', you mean required inculpatory evidence that exceeds a 99% level of certainty, I would agree. However, prosecutors would not agree, at least, the prosecutors I've met would not agree at the time they were trying a criminal case.

Moreover, prosecutors will always attempt to lower the level (degree) of certainty bar. One way of doing this is to poison the jury pool by first trying the case in the media and/or arranging for the media to demonize the defendant. Another highly effective way prosecutors lower the degree of certainty bar is through the use of wrenching emotional arguments rather than evidence. Withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense works nicely too.

(Just a few thoughts, not that any of these things apply to this case.)

Thanks for adding that none of these things apply to this case.

I am still curious where you get that "...required inculpatory evidence that exceeds a 99% level of certainty..." and am again requesting your source of same, other than your own personal opinion. Since you use the word "required" it appears you're implying that is the law and if so, I've never seen it and from reading this thread, seems like you're pretty much the only one who has. Please cite your reference source(s). TIA

 

[lin]

I just don't personally see legal procedure as being the ultimate 'right' or 'wrong' as if it's a science. It's certainly not a perfect system and if the entire jury determines that a person is guilty, I don't see why some arbitrary formula or technical aspect of procedure should prevent them from reaching a correct verdict.

I've never seen it approached that way other than on this thread and by very few on this thread. Perhaps we'll all learn something new after reading the citations.

 

[lin]

I think there is actually LESS of a tendency for the prosecution of innocents than in the past.

1) This because the DA's office tends to bargain out those cases wherein there is apparent guilt, but not quite enough evidence for a slam dunk, and,

2) The forensic technology has come a very long way, over the past decade.

Also, maybe my experience is not typical, but on juries where I have served, every member DID take his/her responsibility seriously. As in the above-cited case where all the jurors has an initial impression of guilt, but reversed it based on the circumstantial evidence.

I believe that most of us, on these threads believe KC to be guilty, based on the circumstantial evidence revealed thus far. However, I don't doubt that most of us would change our minds, if we saw evidence that overcame the circumstantial.

I think your experience is the norm rather than the exception. This is not just my opinion; even the talking heads on seem to feel as we do.

I have never served on a jury and am not a jury consultant with vast experience interviewing jurors. However, I have spoken with folks who have served and so far have never had anyone mention percentages to me. One thing I have been told is that it all came down to the law and the jury instructions made it almost easy. This applied to both wins and losses. Once the jurors weighed the evidence they were able to apply their instructions and felt constrained to go one way or the other, regardless of their personal feelings.

 

[coco puff]

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.

With these error rates, I wonder how many of the guilty went free only to re-offend.

 

[Brini]

Well we can't prove beyond 99% certainty they don't exist, or they had any involvement. That and seems to be just as reasonable as the imaginanny IMHO. :crazy:

A bit OT but a good amount of humor to keep things fun.

Maybe less. Buzz Aldrin has said he's SEEN actual UFOs. Nobody has seen the Invisinanny.

 

[RR0004]

Wudge...Where is this written or are you are just stating your opinion?

The latter is why the Court has chosen not to do so.

 

[Brini]

This may belong on the questions thread but noone probably knows the answer yet. Could it be that someone in Casey's inner circle has provided a confession of sorts (told a reliable account of what really did happen) in exchange for lenience for their part in whatever happened? I have pondered this possibility since the death penalty was restored. Something that is not obvious to us happened/changed at that point.

It could/have happen/ed.

 

[marspiter]

I've never seen it approached that way other than on this thread and by very few on this thread. Perhaps we'll all learn something new after reading the citations.

I think Wudge pretty much said it's not required by law. The Supreme Court case he/she sited made no such statements and he/she pretty much admitted that in the following discussion. The level is left ambiguous and is not assigned a percentage as it is left up to the juror themselves. I think he/she was stating their opinion but I'm not beyond 99% certain of that.

If I'm wrong and beyond 99% certainty is required by law and that is what Wudge is saying, I too would like to see the citation stating as such.

 

[Brini]

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.

FL has exonerated 23 of those-- more than any other state.

 

[Brini]

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.

Plus, with eyewitness testimony strengthened (as would be, by W's proposal) and circumstantial evidence weakened, MORE wrong convictions would likely be the result (eyewitness testimony being considered unreliable).

 

[MissJames]

Well we can't prove beyond 99% certainty they don't exist, or they had any involvement. That and seems to be just as reasonable as the imaginanny IMHO. :crazy:

A bit OT but a good amount of humor to keep things fun.

I was actually using the alien hypo as an example.What a person believes is reasonable or not,and to what extent may depend on their own experiences,not percentages ,as Wudge suggests.
Let's go with a drug mafia connection instead.Suppose the defense uses that as a possible defense.
A naive person might believe there is no way KC had a drug mafia connection.That just doesn't exist in middle America these days. They have no doubt about KC's guilt because they aren't falling for the drug mafia story.
A person who reads non fiction crime novels a lot might believe in the possibility of KC's involvement with the drug mafia.They don't see enough evidence of that,but it's a slight possibility one exists.Still,they believe all the evidence points to KC.They vote guilty.
Then there is the person who believes that if there is even a slight possibility that there was a mafia connection,they must say not guilty.They agree the evidence all points to KC ,but there is that ,albeit farfetched, possibility.
It doesn't matter if the jurors say they are 99%,90% or 50% certain of KC's guilt or innocence.It's their life experiences and how they interpret the letter of the law that they use to decide reasonable doubt or guilt.
That's why both sides use jury consultants when picking jurors.