Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[The Eunice Burns]

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."

I feel I need to apologize to eveyone. I threw a wrench into the discussion w/ my "testing the waters" post. I did not mean to derail the discussion. JBean's quote above, in your post, Brini--I think that was a reply to my post. And for the record, I was not trying to say that this thread was/is not an important topic for discussion. I was saying something else entirely. Something I should not have said, now that I have reflected on it.

:doh: Sorry.

 

[Brini]

I feel I need to apologize to eveyone. I threw a wrench into the discussion w/ my "testing the waters" post. I did not mean to derail the discussion. JBean's quote above, in your post, Brini--I think that was a reply to my post. And for the record, I was not trying to say that this thread was/is not an important topic for discussion. I was saying something else entirely. Something I should not have said, now that I have reflected on it.

:doh: Sorry.

No matter. No problem.

It appeared to me that I was being asked a question. I answered as well as I could.

If I wasn't, I apologize for my own confusion.

Thanks! xoxoxoxoxo

 

[doogiesgirl]

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 you are right. I feel comfortable with guilty with the facts I've learned so far to the murder charge but premeditation? That is still debatable in my mind. Hoping the SA's have the evidence to prove this. JMO

 

[The Eunice Burns]

No matter. No problem.

It appeared to me that I was being asked a question. I answered as well as I could.
Thanks!xoxoxoxoxo

BBM You did great! Especially considering the confusion I caused.

 

[chefmom]

I feel I need to apologize to eveyone. I threw a wrench into the discussion w/ my "testing the waters" post. I did not mean to derail the discussion. JBean's quote above, in your post, Brini--I think that was a reply to my post. And for the record, I was not trying to say that this thread was/is not an important topic for discussion. I was saying something else entirely. Something I should not have said, now that I have reflected on it.

:doh: Sorry.

:blowkiss:

 

[doogiesgirl]

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.

Please forgive my obtuseness but what is a professional juror?

 

[JBean]

Eunice! You are so sweet but you are totally fine! No worries at all.

To everyone:

Let's get back to discussing reasonable doubt and jury instructions.Will they be able to convict with the charges at hand? Will premeditation be a no brainer for the jurors or is it coming up short in your opinion?
Referring to other cases is totally fine.


I freely admitted in another post that I have not been through all the evidence nor have I analyzed all that I have seen to the extent that a juror might. But with that said, I don't see the premeditation yet. But we have a whole CIC to listen to and then this will be an even more interesting topic that it currently is.

Great discussion, thank you.

 

[JBean]

Please forgive my obtuseness but what is a professional juror?

Just what is sounds like and it is highly controversial.

Some think we should have trained,professional jurors and some think everyday folks are a better option.

Both have pros and cons and just when i think I have decided I change my mind LOL.

 

[MissJames]

BBM You did great! Especially considering the confusion I caused.

I don't think you caused any confusion TEB!
We've been discussing reasonable doubt ,as well as premeditation ,which veered us into a discussion of quantifying reasonable doubt or guilt.
I have no education in the law [unless you count the credit hours I've spent in front of Court TV ],and it's very interesting to learn more on the subject.

 

[Marina2]

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.

With respect to the definition of reasonable doubt given earlier in this thread, I think we can all agree that the most important of our affairs is the safety of our children. So, with that in mind, with the same level of certainty of KC's guilt of premeditated murder that you have, would you be comfortable making a decision regarding your child's safety? If the answer is yes, then you have no reasonable doubt as to her guilt in premeditated murder.

For me, the level of certainty I have that KC is guilty of premeditated murder is not a level I would be comfortable with in making a decision regarding the safety of my child. IOW, if I had the same level of certainty that my child would be safe in a particular daycare situation that I have of KC's guilt in premeditated murder, I would not drop her off there. I would not be comfortable with this. So, I have a reasonable doubt as to her guilt in premeditated murder. This could change during the trial.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Eunice! You are so sweet but you are totally fine! No worries at all.

To everyone:

Let's get back to discussing reasonable doubt and jury instructions.Will they be able to convict with the charges at hand? Will premeditation be a no brainer for the jurors or is it coming up short in your opinion?
Referring to other cases is totally fine.


I freely admitted in another post that I have not been through all the evidence nor have I analyzed all that I have seen to the extent that a juror might. But with that said, I don't see the premeditation yet. But we have a whole CIC to listen to and then this will be an even more interesting topic that it currently is.
Great discussion, thank you.

BBM Good grief. If I think the board is hard to keep up w/ now.....

IMO, at this point, I think a jury could handle the premed. In my mind, it's the tape and how it was applied. When the jury gets to see the photos of the skull and how the tape was applied......we've just read about it. They will have to see it. That's a whole other ballgame. That will really impact the jury. That will seal the premed deal. As to jury instructions, I think the jury will be able to apply the instructions w/out any problems in this case. It won't be difficult. And, Judge S, I'm sure will me extremely thorough and careful when he instructs the jury.

MOO

 

[doogiesgirl]

Just what is sounds like and it is highly controversial.

Some think we should have trained,professional jurors and some think everyday folks are a better option.

Both have pros and cons and just when i think I have decided I change my mind LOL.

Thank You JBean.

IMO, big mistake. I've met highly educated people that I wouldn't trust my cat with and many many who have gone through the school of life only.. that are intelligent, reasonable, and sensible. I'd trust my fate to the common man any day. :cow:

 

[Wudge]

Please forgive my obtuseness but what is a professional juror?

None exist, but I've advocated their need for many a decade.

I first perceived the need after talking with a person who had been a member of the jury in the first murder trial of Dr. Sheppard -- convicted by stealth jurors and/or jurors who had prejudged his guilt. Many years later, the bountiful and totally asinine convictions that were taking place as a result of the hysteria surrounding the many sexual-abuse, child-care trials in the 80's and early 90's solidified the need in my mind.

At the very least, I would seat them in murder one trials and high-profile trials.

In circumstantial evidence cases, there is an absolute necessity for jurors to be able to derive -- a high percentage of the time -- conclusions developed from inferences that are both valid and true. This should be a judicial imperative.

However, when given an applied logic test that provides a set of five multiple choice answers, test results (late 70's, 80's early 90's) consistently revealed that the average person did not possess the level of reasoning skill to score better than 35% (on average). Obviously, this represents a massive deficiency in the most needed skill.

Objectivity is another key juror need, especially in high-profile, circumstantial evidence cases. For if you look at a piece of evidence from the prosecution's perspective, you may find that it points to guilt, but if you look at the same piece of evidence through the prism of reasonable doubt, it can be entirely exculpatory.

I still believe that we need professional jurors. However, as an alternative, I would accept a process whereby potential jurors must first pass an applied logic test -- 80% correct at a minimum -- before they can go through voir dire.

Net, I think it's absurd that we have a professional behind the bench and a professional representing the prosecution and a professional representing the defendant, but we do not require jurors to even demonstrate that they can validly reason a healthy percentage of the time.

FWIW

 

[Brini]

None exist, but I've advocated their need for many a decade.

I first perceived the need after talking with a person who had been a member of the jury in the first murder trial of Dr. Sheppard -- convicted by stealth jurors and/or jurors who had prejudged his guilt. Many years later, the bountiful and totally asinine convictions that were taking place as a result of the hysteria surrounding the many sexual-abuse, child-care trials in the 80's and early 90's solidified the need in my mind.

At the very least, I would seat them in murder one trials and high-profile trials.

In circumstantial evidence cases, there is an absolute necessity for jurors to be able to derive -- a high percentage of the time -- conclusions developed from inferences that are both valid and true. This should be a judicial imperative.

However, when given an applied logic test that provides a set of five multiple choice answers, test results (late 70's, 80's early 90's) consistently revealed that the average person did not possess the level of reasoning skill to score better than 35% (on average). Obviously, this represents a massive deficiency in the most needed skill.

Objectivity is another key juror need, especially in high-profile, circumstantial evidence cases. For if you look at a piece of evidence from the prosecution's perspective, you may find that it points to guilt, but if you look at the same piece of evidence through the prism of reasonable doubt, it can be entirely exculpatory.

I still believe that we need professional jurors. However, as an alternative, I would accept a process whereby potential jurors must first pass an applied logic test -- 80% correct at a minimum -- before they can go through voir dire.

Net, I think it's absurd that we have a professional behind the bench and a professional representing the prosecution and a professional representing the defendant, but we do not require jurors to even demonstrate that they can validly reason a healthy percentage of the time.

FWIW

The McMartin case. Talk about your witch hunts!

The whole 80s were about Salem redux.

You can submit a bill to legislature. But, many people would be afraid of a Star Chamber system.

 

[Brini]

BBM Good grief. If I think the board is hard to keep up w/ now.....

IMO, at this point, I think a jury could handle the premed. In my mind, it's the tape and how it was applied. When the jury gets to see the photos of the skull and how the tape was applied......we've just read about it. They will have to see it. That's a whole other ballgame. That will really impact the jury. That will seal the premed deal. As to jury instructions, I think the jury will be able to apply the instructions w/out any problems in this case. It won't be difficult. And, Judge S, I'm sure will me extremely thorough and careful when he instructs the jury.

MOO

That's just it. Judge S. is well regarded, in his area. He will do a fine job of instructing the jurors.

 

[Brini]

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

Dang, woman! We're like a bunch of junkies! All Jonesing for a big, fat, 400 page doc dump!

 

[lin]

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

Actually, it didn't help, but thanks for trying. I concede it's probably just me being thick but I don't see how the former affects the latter at all. If by "cats" and "dogs" you mean the required licensing...

It's that "required" part that seems to imply, imho, that something is required, as in a legal necessity.

This confused me because I thought it had previously been determined that I misunderstood your other posts and that there really is no legal requirement for inculpatory evidence exceeding 99% level of certainty.

Thanks for clearing up again that you don't intend to represent the 99% as law. But I do hope you understand how that "required" bit could cause a reasonable person (or me) to read it differently than was intended. Maybe it's your personal firm conviction that comes through in your writing and reads to me as if you mean to imply it as applicable law. I often add "imo" or some such to statements I make to give notice it's not fact/law; make it clear that the information contained is only as reliable as whichever of my still working brain cells didn't call off that day.

I'm mostly writing because I missed the context and clarity of your first post on the matter and would greatly appreciate you giving me a clue where I might find it. I do like to know what I'm talking about, as a rule, many late night posts notwithstanding.

 

[lin]

No. "Beyond a reasonable doubt," is the standard for the scale tip to "not guilty." Not, "a small feather of reasonable doubt."

There is always going to be a "sliver" of doubt. Nothing in life, or in perception is certain. That's why the law stipulates "reasonable doubt."

ITA

I think it's a yes or no question; there is either a reasonable doubt or there's not. I do not think it's a weight thing -- a drop of reasonable doubt v. a ton of reasonable doubt. And you're absolutely correct in the key word is "reasonable" and that there is no way anyone can be 100% sure that the boogeyman didn't get 'em.

 

[lin]

I've talked to more than a few people who equate proof beyond a reasonable doubt to be as low as 51% -- reasonable in their mind equates to more likely than not. More than a few other people equate it to be far above 99%, with which I agree. To open a such discussion, I believe the standard for Ivory soap represents a decent starting point.

Unless they discussed it during deliberations, I would never expect a jury of twelve lay people to closely agree on a percentage (much less an exact percentage) of certainty for what "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" represents. That's the core problem. Significant to huge variations will almost certainly exist across twelve lay jurors who blindly go forth to render a verdict without first benchmarking the degree of certainty.

A process and standard that allows for humongously wide interpretation and options is no standard at all.

I disagree that there is not a standard. Some who have served on juries, that have actually been charged with the task have posted on this thread that they understood their duties, responsibilities, the 'standard.' That they don't define it with numbers doesn't mean they don't understand it or that the process allows for "humongously" wide interpretations and options. Folks that have studied the law a lot longer and have a lot more experience in its application than have I have seen fit to make very few changes over the last few hundred years.

Our system is touted to be the best in the world. I believe in it. I'm sorry it appears that you do not, at least when it comes to trusting a "lay" jury to render a true verdict.

 

[lin]

In regards to the text I bolded in your post:
By the same token, what if you or a family member are wrongly accused and the evidence points to your guilt? How would you feel then about reasonable doubt, high burden of proof, etc? Do you feel the presumption of innocence in that courtroom when all fingers are pointing at you or a family member?

I get from your post that you have a problem with the ten guilty men thing. Like it or not, this premise is the basis of what presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt is built upon. It's because of the "ten guilty go free rather than yada yada" that prosecutors are held to such a high burden of proof and that defendants are presumed innocent when cases are brought to trial. I'm not indifferent to the fact that guilty people sometimes go free. It frustrates and scares me when the likes of OJ are acquitted but what is the solution? Do you think we should lower the burden of proof, change the rules of evidence, and do away with unanimous verdicts? That's the only solution I see that will result in more guilty being convicted. Are you ok with more innocents being convicted along with them?

I don't think there's a need to lower the standards for conviction but I don't think the standard needs to be raised to 99% or 100% certainty or a juror must acquit. I think our improving technology and techniques will cut both ways and result in less innocents charged/convicted and more guilty convicted.

Ten guilty go free rather than one innocent convicted... Yes, I believe in that. But setting up a system that would ensure any conviction would be rare is not something I could endorse. Even if I witnessed the event, I don't think I could always be 100% certain exactly what happened. The jurors have not personally witnessed the event.