Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Wudge]

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

Your snippet of my post removes context. My post was conditional; i.e., in whole it reads, "If by "case" and "proof', you mean required inculpatory evidence that exceeds a 99% level of certainty, I would agree."

I recommend you read the preceding posts so as to fully appreciate the total context of my post.

As regards "99%", I first posted that degree of certainty number with proper context and clarity. Moreover, I've used 99% more than once, but I haven't represented it, in any way, as statute or case law.

HTH

 

[Brini]

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.

And, that's why each side may disqualify potential jurors during voir dire.

 

[RR0004]

And, that's why each side may disqualify potential jurors during voir dire.

Yes, IMO, they're given plenty of opportunity to level the playing field.

 

[marspiter]

Maybe less. Buzz Aldrin has said he's seen actual UFOs.

Well ok I stand corrected. Many people including credible witnesses have seen UFO's and alien's. I don't think anyone has seen the imaginanny. So I guess aliens are the more reasonable choice.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

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.

Thank you for your post. Having served on a jury, I had the same experience as Brini. In no way did percentages come up during our deliberations.
We weighed the evidence carefully, applied the instructions carefully, and found the defendant NG. The prosecution did not prove their case. But, it needs to be pointed out that our esteemed poster has no faith in the jury system and feels that they are just "everyday lay people" who would "not be able to reliably assess the evidence". I respect the experience and education, but that is an extreme view that IMO, has steered the tenor and tone of some of this thread. Many juries find defendants NG: In cases where it seems like a flagrant miscarriage of justice, is there any outcry about that? JMO

 

[Brini]

Well ok I stand corrected. Many people including credible witnesses have seen UFO's and alien's. I don't think anyone has seen the imaginanny. So I guess aliens are the more reasonable choice.

Yeah, but extradition is a b----! ;-)

 

[JBean]

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.

I totally understand the concept of premeditation and did not make a single mention of KC planning her actions? so I am not sure to what you are referring.
I am not yet convinced of premeditation but as I have posted, I suspect that the SA has a strong CIC that will put the whole story together. I fully expect to see strong evidence that is eloquently pulled together to paint a picture of premeditation that will change my mind. I am just not there yet.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Yeah, but extradition is a b----! ;-)

:floorlaugh:

 

[JBean]

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

What?
If you have said what you want to say, then don't go around and around.

I think we are totally on topic and I cannot understand what the hullabaloo is about.

 

[Marina2]

I was under the impression that this thread was created because we began to get way off topic when discussing jury instructions and reasonable doubt in general on the "Is KC guilty or not" thread. This thread topic is "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt"

Some have come and asked "why are we discussing this...rehashing over and over, KC is guilty, etc. Well, it's the topic and I enjoy reading all the different viewpoints on reasonable doubt and how juries are instructed, relevent court opinions, etc. It doesn't have to be about KC, does it?

 

[marspiter]

Thank you for your post. Having served on a jury, I had the same experience as Brini. In no way did percentages come up during our deliberations.
We weighed the evidence carefully, applied the instructions carefully, and found the defendant NG. The prosecution did not prove their case. But, it needs to be pointed out that our esteemed poster has no faith in the jury system and feels that they are just "everyday lay people" who would "not be able to reliably assess the evidence". I respect the experience and education, but that is an extreme view that IMO, has steered the tenor and tone of some of this thread. Many juries find defendants NG: In cases where it seems like a flagrant miscarriage of justice, is there any outcry about that? JMO

There is what the law is and there is what the should be (You'll get varied opinions on what it should be). In this case we are looking at what the law is in regards to this case. Such as Florida statutes and jury instructions.

Which in getting back to this case. I personally think its a pretty safe bet that based on Florida's definitions of premeditation and what is considered to be proof beyond reasonable doubt it is very likely that a jury of Casey's peer's will find her guilty based on the evidence at hand currently. Once again as I have stated many times Florida does not require any thing but reflection before the actual action for premeditation to occur. Based on the computer searches, the condition of Caylee's body (tape and other evidence found with body), Casey's actions (31 days ect, ect), and the shear amount of circumstantial evidence in this case I think it's pretty clear this was a premeditated murder as outlined in Florida (3 elements and definition of premeditation as stated in the Florida jury instructions) and the jury will see it the same way. So far all arguments I've seen against this are should be statements, but if's, and plenty of other conjecture. I just don't see another reasonable explanation and since this is not a court of law I'm allowed that opinion. If I was a juror my opinion would be different as the defense would not have to offer an explanation. However after weighing the evidence myself I would personally have to hand down a guilty verdict as I see nothing that sways my reasoning from such thought or find a lack of evidence for such.

 

[Dells]

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.

I very much agree w/your post. I think the prosecution will be able to show that this crime was premeditated by the placement of the duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose and also by Casey's actions and demeanor after Caylee went "missing". I think Casey showed no sorrow or remorse to what happened to Caylee and she certainly didn't have a normal reaction if somehow Caylee was accidentally killed. I also think Casey entered an almost celebratory type of lifestyle after Caylee went missing in terms of partying more which further shows she was glad to be rid of Caylee.

I am not yet sure how the prosecution is going to present this case, but I have faith that they will show the jury that this was a premeditated crime and I truly believe that Casey will be convicted.

 

[MissJames]

I was under the impression that this thread was created because we began to get way off topic when discussing jury instructions and reasonable doubt in general on the "Is KC guilty or not" thread. This thread topic is "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt"

Some have come and asked "why are we discussing this...rehashing over and over, KC is guilty, etc. Well, it's the topic and I enjoy reading all the different viewpoints on reasonable doubt and how juries are instructed, relevent court opinions, etc. It doesn't have to be about KC, does it?

and we need to talk about somthing while we wait for the next doc dump!

 

[marspiter]

I totally understand the concept of premeditation and did not make a single mention of KC planning her actions? so I am not sure to what you are referring.
I am not yet convinced of premeditation but as I have posted, I suspect that the SA has a strong CIC that will put the whole story together. I fully expect to see strong evidence that is eloquently pulled together to paint a picture of premeditation that will change my mind. I am just not there yet.

Some seem to be confused about what Florida requires for premeditation. Was not directed at you specifically was just a statement. You did not say it requires planning...others have. You said you didn't understand why I over simplified in your other post. I was basically saying yes I was talking to Wudge in regards to reasonable doubt and then went on to discuss premeditation as you were talking about premeditation.

I am merely giving my thoughts as to this thread topic.

edit: You also stated you did not see any evidence of premeditation in your post I quoted and I was explaining why I felt there was enough evidence based on Florida's relaxed jury instructions. Sorry had to go back and look at the post and this is why I stated that..

 

[RR0004]

I was under the impression that this thread was created because we began to get way off topic when discussing jury instructions and reasonable doubt in general on the "Is KC guilty or not" thread. This thread topic is "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt"

Some have come and asked "why are we discussing this...rehashing over and over, KC is guilty, etc. Well, it's the topic and I enjoy reading all the different viewpoints on reasonable doubt and how juries are instructed, relevent court opinions, etc. It doesn't have to be about KC, does it?

Actually, I'm not 100% sure...does it have to connect to the case if we're in the Caylee Anthony forum? I mean that sincerely...I dunno. (BTW, I had to scroll up just to make sure I was where I thought I was...LOL)

 

[Marina2]

Actually, I'm not 100% sure...does it have to connect to the case if we're in the Caylee Anthony forum? I mean that sincerely...I dunno. (BTW, I had to scroll up just to make sure I was where I thought I was...LOL)

I'm confused, too. When we discussed the thread topic in general terms on the guilty or not thread we were warned to get back on topic. The topic got interesting, discussion continued whether it related to KC's guilt or not and then a thread was created "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt". My guess is here we can discuss these elements freely whether we relate them to KC's case or not.

 

[marspiter]

I will agree on one thing. There is not proof beyond 99% certainty that there is premeditation. There is not a note from Casey where said she planned out the crime or a myspace statement where she says I thinking I'm going to kill Caylee on June 15 and this is how I will do it.

However looking at the evidence at hand. Computer searches, actions before during and after, lies, evidence found with Caylee, evidence found in car, and all the evidence piled together to me seems to paint a pretty clear picture. That coupled with Florida's jury instructions. Nothing else seems reasonable then premeditated murder 1. Now if Florida had a clause in its definition of premeditation like the defendant must have enough time for their blood to cool as NC does well then yeah I think I would have to say the requirement hasn't been met by the evidence.

Personally I think Casey had thought to herself what if Caylee wasn't around how different my life would be. Maybe she thought in a moment how much Caylee hindered her "beautiful life" and wouldn't it be great not to have the burden of being a mommy any more. (Time passes) Then after a fight with Cindy she decided she would show her how spiteful she really can be and this would be her chance at freedom again. She did the actual action during a fit of rage with her mom, but knew full well what she was doing (reflection). Florida murder 1, NC murder 2 as I see it, but I could be wrong.

 

[marspiter]

I'm confused, too. When we discussed the thread topic in general terms on the guilty or not thread we were warned to get back on topic. The topic got interesting, discussion continued whether it related to KC's guilt or not and then a thread was created "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt". My guess is here we can discuss these elements freely whether we relate them to KC's case or not.

I assume since we are in the main topic of Caylee the discussion in the thread would in some way have to relate to the main topic. However I could be completely wrong on that.

I do agree though that there has been some very good discussion here on general case law, jury instructions, and other legal concepts that may or may not relate directly to this case and helps give each of us a better understanding of these general topics so we can relate them in further discussion later on in this case.

 

[Brini]

What?
If you have said what you want to say, then don't go around and around.

I think we are totally on topic and I cannot understand what the hullabaloo is about.

The below is the question that you asked, of me. That was my answer, that yes, we had been discussing whether she can be convicted on the current charges.

"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."

 

[Brini]

I assume since we are in the main topic of Caylee the discussion in the thread would in some way have to relate to the main topic. However I could be completely wrong on that.

I do agree though that there has been some very good discussion here on general case law, jury instructions, and other legal concepts that may or may not relate directly to this case and helps give each of us a better understanding of these general topics so we can relate them in further discussion later on in this case.

It's pretty interesting.