Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Wudge]

(Snipped w/ respect and BBM)

This is a very interesting idea. However, what doesn't sell me on it, is that many very intelligent people who possess the brains to pass such a test w/ flying colors, do not do well in taking tests. IMO, (and I'm no expert, I just have opinions based on my experiences w/ said people) some people can apply logic and verbalize it much better than the next person, but it doesn't translate well between their brain and the page or computer screen. I think Wudge, you'd lose some people who have the intelligence to pass such a test, but they wouldn't score high enough for your professional juries due to how their own thought processes work. Conversely, some people who would pass the applied logic test on paper or on a computer screen, would not be good in the jury room speaking w/ other jurors in that setting, b/c they don't do well verbalizing their thoughts and ideas. So, IMO, it could cut both ways due to the differences in how people apply intelligence, logic, and reason.

JMO

In a case where the charge or charges were based on weak circumstantial evidence, I would happily take a jury composed of twelve people who scored 80% or better on an applied logic test. Their demonstrated ability to reason well and/or avoid fallacious conclusions is what's paramount in assessing circumstantial evidence and the reliability of conclusions drawn from it.

I will note that there's a correlation between IQ and reasoning skills, and though there are smart people who do poorly on tests, I have no reason to be believe such a flaw would not also manifest itself in a jury setting.

First and foremost, I would want those who pass the test to enter the voir dire process.

 

[lin]

More than one layer of duct tape suggests premeditation to me, as well as post-meditation, if that's what you call it. There was opportunity to undo after the initial act.
However, because this is a death penalty case, I don't at this point see enough evidence to convict on that charge. There is a possibility of some sort of post-death cover-up, and if JB offers some reasonable explanation as a defense, I'd have to consider it.

I truly believe that in a death penalty case, there must be irrefutable evidence with no reasonable explanation.

I've never called it that but I think it's an excellent way to describe it - postmeditation - the time it took for the tape to finish the... the...

Can't make myself use other than a euphemism and a suitable one isn't coming to mind at the moment. Words escape me. How often does that happen?

 

[lin]

I agree but KC has every chance to refute the premeditation assertion. More than one person has confessed after the guilty verdict to save their hide in the penalty phase. I say it is up to her. Duct tape spells premeditation and if she can't refute it, let her die (in a much more humane way than her daughter did).

So true. I watched the Reiser case on 48 hours or similar, (it was replayed recently), and I swear, from what was shown in tv program, I thought it was a wrongful conviction. But apparently those everyday, average joe jurors were a lot smarter than am I, and/or saw more evidence, because at the end of the show, like a "ps" it was noted that Hans led authorities to his wife's body in exchange for no dp. They got it right. I got it wrong.

 

[lin]

(Snipped w/ respect and BBM)

This is a very interesting idea. However, what doesn't sell me on it, is that many very intelligent people who possess the brains to pass such a test w/ flying colors, do not do well in taking tests. IMO, (and I'm no expert, I just have opinions based on my experiences w/ said people) some people can apply logic and verbalize it much better than the next person, but it doesn't translate well between their brain and the page or computer screen. I think Wudge, you'd lose some people who have the intelligence to pass such a test, but they wouldn't score high enough for your professional juries due to how their own thought processes work. Conversely, some people who would pass the applied logic test on paper or on a computer screen, would not be good in the jury room speaking w/ other jurors in that setting, b/c they don't do well verbalizing their thoughts and ideas. So, IMO, it could cut both ways due to the differences in how people apply intelligence, logic, and reason.

JMO

My understanding is the system depends on common sense, not well honed analytical skills based on some test that may or may not be set up to accurately measure anything. Smells like Jim Crow laws to me.

 

[Imbackon]

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'm not saying the burden of proof needs to be lowered per say.
What I am saying, is that the reasonable doubt part is oftentimes too unreasonable, aka CSI effect.
I can say that I am more afraid of being victimized by someone who should have been locked up, than I am being prosecuted for a crime I did not commit.

It is not just convicting someone that is an issue when it comes to evidence, but the time it takes to gather proof enough to satisfy a jury, where the perp is walking amongst us free to victimize others that is also in play here.

 

[LambChop]

As a former juror I think the system we have is by far the best. For the most part jurors take their job seriously and want to reach a fair and just verdict. It is the job of the attorney's to weed out the undesirable potential jurors and pick people they feel will consider all the evidence presented. Jurors also pay attention to the way a defendant reacts to certain materials presented at trial. But most jurors want to feel the case presented by the defense is honest, no smoke, no mirrors, just straight talk that makes sense. Anything too confusing you will lose them.

KC was ultimately responsible for her child. The longer she remains silent the harder it will be for a jury to believe someone else was involved. The child in danger excuse is no longer valid. As for Mr. Kronk, if LP and the other BH's give their testimony in court about KC pointing the finger at Jesse it will erase all reasonable doubt. Juries just hate it when defendants lie. It is not an easy task with the type of responsibility a juror holds and you want the defendant to present the truth and make your job a little easier.

One last thing. Sometimes defendants just do not have the attorney they need. We can see this with JB. Ultimately if the case is lost, it's not the jury or the state's fault.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

My understanding is the system depends on common sense, not well honed analytical skills based on some test that may or may not be set up to accurately measure anything. Smells like Jim Crow laws to me.

ITA. I also think that the testing would be flawed base on the ideas I put forth in my previous post. This would not be like a test one could cram, study, and be tutored for. It would be a one-off test that IMO, would end up "passing" some very intelligent people w/ no common sense and exclude those w/ a lot of common sense and reasoning skills. I thought I'd put that out for Wudge to consider as a weakness in this idea that we need professional jurors that need to pass some test. And BTW, who would craft and create the test and its parameters? That's another problem.

 

[lin]

What if the defense case is "accidental cause" They do have an attny who specializes in accident reconstruction. Wouldn't that change the whole equation of this discussion. I guess I am still saying. We do not know what the defense will be.

At this point, I don't think the defense knows what the defense will be. Look at what's been going on for the last year. A lot of randomness. And if that's not a word, we should submit it to the urban dictionary with a definition of 'law as practiced by JB.'

KC didn't hold up well in the original LE interviews and they were actually trying to get her to cooperate at that time. 'And coming here to an office you don't have is helping us find your daughter how?' She ended up just shutting up.

Now imagine a seasoned professional like LDB cross-examining her. She can't just shut up. She will be ordered to answer the questions. And her responses will become more and more ridiculous as her panic sets in; as she is trapped in lie after lie after lie. No doubt KC is a well practiced liar; she's just not had much experience being called on the carpet for it or being confronted with her lies.

Therefore, imo, it would be suicide by jury for her testify. Only she can tell the story and untell the story she's already told. Accident reconstruction experts have to have some basis in reality or their theories won't be admitted. She can't put an expert up there to say it's reasonable and probable that Caylee died such and such without any other corroboration, any basis. The expert can't explain "facts" not in evidence.

 

[lin]

Fortunately I've never heard such a plan suggested by any actual attorney.

Me neither.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

In a case where the charge or charges were based on weak circumstantial evidence, I would happily take a jury composed of twelve people who scored 80% or better on an applied logic test. Their demonstrated ability to reason well and/or avoid fallacious conclusions is what's paramount in assessing circumstantial evidence and the reliability of conclusions drawn from it.

I will note that there's a correlation between IQ and reasoning skills, and though there are smart people who do poorly on tests, I have no reason to be believe such a flaw would not also manifest itself in a jury setting.

First and foremost, I would want those who pass the test to enter the voir dire process.

I respectfully disagree. As for KC's case the circumstantial evidence is not weak, IMO. Isn't voir dire a test of sorts? When I served on a jury, I found the voir dire one of the most interesting parts of my experience. Many of the jurors "tested out", so to speak and were rejected and replaced by others from the pool, until the jury was in place. Would you then add this testing after voir dire? Or would it be implemented before on the entire pool who reports for service on that given day? Before or after, it sounds problematic, IMO.

 

[ecs5298]

<respectfully snipped>

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.

Bolded above by me:


Perhaps after we make attorney's pass ethics tests at 80% or better.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Bolded above by me:


Perhaps after we make attorney's pass ethics tests at 80% or better.

:clap: Fab!

 

[lin]

What defense Casey's counsel intends to use is totally unknown, which is smart -- chalk one up for the defense. The evidence that we know of does not reliably prove murder one, and there is no second-degree murder charge. Rather, prosecutors skipped murder two and moved down to a manslaughter charge. The same evidence does not reliably prove that either. On either charge, jurors would have to speculate to convict.

Insufficient evidence to prove the charges is all that is needed. A defense attorney skilled in an insufficient evidence (reasonable doubt) defense should do very well in front of the jury. Moreover, the jury could consider accident without the Casey's team using it as their defense. However, my sensibilities tell me that it would not be prudent to claim accident via Casey testifying.

Plus, Kronk is the joker in this deck (case). He could represent reasonable doubt.

If I thought they had a plan in place and we didn't know it, I'd agree but since I'm confident they don't, based on what we've seen so far, I can't give them any points. Imo, it's rank speculation to assume they have a "secret plan" based on the available evidence, most of it to the contrary.

I disagree the evidence doesn't support the charges and again think this is the disconnect I get with some of your posts. Your opinion often comes across as if cloaked as a fact. It is not a fact there is not enough evidence to support a charge unless and until a jury finds it so. And I believe Florida has lesser included offenses that you aren't acknowledging, or am I misunderstanding Florida law?

I strongly disagree that the jurors would have to speculate to convict. (speculate = to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence). I think they will do as all jurors do and make reasonable inferences, connect the dots, weigh the evidence and come to their conclusions based on the evidence. This is how it works. This case isn't all that special, imo.

I very much agree that it would not be wise to put KC on the stand. I also agree that if the defense is able to show insufficient evidence to prove the charges, that is all that's needed. However, I think there is way too much evidence to be able to overcome all of it. jmo

 

[lin]

PS: I certainly hope the defense pins their hopes on Kronk. It will make the prosecution's job ever so much easier, imo. How can the defense explain KC going along with this stranger who abducted/murdered her child? And trust me, ugly coping landed with a big thud already, as a trial balloon to explain the 31 days. When pointing to Kronk, it will land so hard it may crack the floor, imo.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Ya know, I still can't fathom how any mother could kill her own child, but as circumstantial as it is, Casey's behavior after Caylee went "missing" does not ring "accidental" to me. And unless, Casey with her own lips can explain all of this away, I can't but think this was an intentional act. As everyone has pointed out, if you realize for but a moment what's about to happen then that qualifies as premeditation. What I'm confused with still, is that I thought the neglect of a child Caylee's age that resulted in death warranted the Murder 1...not necessarily the act of premeditation. I feel like I'm chasing my tail!

 

[Imbackon]

PS: I certainly hope the defense pins their hopes on Kronk. It will make the prosecution's job ever so much easier, imo. How can the defense explain KC going along with this stranger who abducted/murdered her child? And trust me, ugly coping landed with a big thud already, as a trial balloon to explain the 31 days. When pointing to Kronk, it will land so hard it may crack the floor, imo.

I agree, the jury will relate to Kronk as another citizen who was concerned about finding Caylee. They will think, oh what if that was me who found her.
Big thud indeed.

 

[LambChop]

Here is a legal question? Do we in this country have the right as a defendant to pick between a jury or a judge to decide the verdit in a trial? If we do and we picked the judge than wouldn't he be considered a professional juror? If this is true it is clear why most defendants would feel more comfortable picking a jury of their peers rather than the judge.

 

[RR0004]

In a case where the charge or charges were based on weak circumstantial evidence, I would happily take a jury composed of twelve people who scored 80% or better on an applied logic test. Their demonstrated ability to reason well and/or avoid fallacious conclusions is what's paramount in assessing circumstantial evidence and the reliability of conclusions drawn from it.

I will note that there's a correlation between IQ and reasoning skills, and though there are smart people who do poorly on tests, I have no reason to be believe such a flaw would not also manifest itself in a jury setting.

First and foremost, I would want those who pass the test to enter the voir dire process.

Ok...so what happens if you get all these "logical thinkers" hearing Casey's case and they unanimously convict because they found the evidence to be very compelling...would you say it was an aberration?

 

[marspiter]

Actually to be a jury of ones peers you would have to subject the defendant to a logic test first and then the jurors would have to be those that scored the same as the defendant. So if your defendant scores a 50 you could only allow jurors who score a 50.

All kidding aside that's an absolute horrible idea and having professional jurors allows more opportunity for corruption as someone has stated not to mention kinda flys in the face of the ideals of our justice system.

If your going to do that just design computer software to determine someones guilt. It would be fair, non partial, and wouldn't allow emotion to sway its opinion. With advances in AI it should be possible soon. :bang:

 

[RR0004]

Even if a person is logical they may still be overly emotional and swayed by weasel tactics. Attorneys crying in court, pleading for mercy, etc. should be stopped. I guess the 'common' folk aren't up to wudge's standards? Sorry, the system wasn't set up that way and the last people that need to be dictating changes are attorneys. Such arrogance

I also wonder if all these wonderfully logical thinkers will be male?