Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Brini]

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.

There are also dumb people who do well on tests.

Some people ace tests, but do poorly in practical situations.

 

[Brini]

Bolded by me...

JBean, like you, I'm not quite sure about premeditation yet and looking forward to the CIC presentation. I still have what I would consider "reasonable doubt" when it comes to the premeditation aspect of the murder charge. I am not saying that I could not convict on murder 1 as it is my understanding that FL does not require premeditation for a 1st degree murder charge. However, until someone pointed it out to me in this thread with a quote from the GJ indictment, I didn't realize the charge against KC specifically stated premeditated. (Don't know how I missed that, but I did.)

Now, one of the reasons I'm not quite sure of premeditation just yet is that I don't know how Caylee died. Please, everyone be kind in responding to my question. I'm not an idiot but I'm not in the legal profession either - just pretend I'm a juror you're trying to convince (& keep in mind that I will likely be swayed more by kindness than ridicule :blowkiss.

My question is, can premeditation be proven if the cause of death is not proven? That is can the prosecution prove to a juror that an act was premeditated when they can't tell the juror what the act was?

SP was convicted of Murder I, with no cause of death. A number of people have been so convicted. Including a guy who burned his wife's body. I think that's one that Marspiter cites.

 

[Brini]

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.

Yes! Culturally biased. LIke a lot of psychometry. How would one guard against cultural bias?

When I was in grad school (psych), we once got a test question:

An I.Q. is:

1) A valid measurement of intelligence.
2) A valid measurement of specific kinds of intelligence,
3) A score on an IQ test.

The correct answer was #3. Most people got it right, BTW.

And, if you've ever been to a MENSA meeting or party... you'd REALLY be concerned about the idea of trying to positivelyt correlate common sense with IQ OR education.(EEK!)

 

[Brini]

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.

Exactly! KC is a prolific, but not skilled liar.

 

[Brini]

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!

I think I read somewhere that 112 mothers were on death row for murdering their children.

Unfortunately, a lot of mothers either kill their kids (for a guy), or let the latest b.f. do it.

I used to hear mother's say, "I HAVE to let him abuse the kids. If I don't, he'll leave. Then, I won't HAVE a man." :banghead::yuck:uke:

 

[Brini]

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

Spaghetti Plan!

 

[Brini]

Depending on the circumstances and the evidence, premediation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (well in excess of 99% certainty) without knowing the cause of death. But I would not say the circumstances and the evidence we know of in this case permits that level of certainty to be met. I don't think it's even close.

Moreover, It's clearly reasonable to have reasonable doubt in this case. But no matter what the case is, if you have reasonable doubt and others do not, ask them to explain precisely how and why the evidence compels them to so conclude. They should to be able to cite rock quality evidence and explain clearly how it removed all reasonable doubt.

(When such questions takes place in jury deliberations, that usually prompts shouting and fights. Most people can explain a logical and well reasoned position without shouting or fighting, but trying to explain prejudices, emotion-based sways, intuition and feelings often brings about a boxing match.)

I'm still not sure what "rock quality" or 99% reliable evidence IS?

One would THINK that it would be eyewitness evidence. Except quite a few people incarcerated for rape, robbery, and murder, on eyewitness evidence, have been exonerated since DNA tech has advanced.

 

[RR0004]

I guess that depends on if the defendant is male/female and how attractive the defendant is. :waitasec:

Actually lets just give the jurors a hypothetical scenario. The scenario details would be the exact details of the case being tried and anyone who answers not guilty on the hypothetical question should be selected. :crazy:

Well, I've always been told (yes, by lawyers...squat) that you have to take "emotion" out of the equation. "Us" women tend to be more "emotional" than men (squat again!)...so I'm betting the defense won't try to seat many women. G-d forbid us highly intelligent females could be logical as well. There are just too many variables with this theory wrapped in percentages. JMHO

 

[Brini]

:behindbar

There are also dumb people who do well on tests.

Some people ace tests, but do poorly in practical situations.

Einstein.. Did so badly in school, he was called, "Dumbkopf." AND, his wife had to ride herd on him re: practical situations, as well. Or, he'd go to lecture in his underwear and a tie.

 

[Brini]

Well, I've always been told (yes, by lawyers...squat) that you have to take "emotion" out of the equation. "Us" women tend to be more "emotional" than men (squat again!)...so I'm betting the defense won't try to seat many women. G-d forbid us highly intelligent females could be logical as well. There are just too many variables with this theory wrapped in percentages. JMHO

IMHO, it's the other way around. I think men are more "romantic," (idealistic) and women more realistic.

BTW-- Just read a neurological study.. says men are more right hemispheric (intuitive, artistic, and creative)) than women, but women have better connections BETWEEN cerebral hemispheres (better access to both).

 

[Brini]

Well, I've always been told (yes, by lawyers...squat) that you have to take "emotion" out of the equation. "Us" women tend to be more "emotional" than men (squat again!)...so I'm betting the defense won't try to seat many women. G-d forbid us highly intelligent females could be logical as well. There are just too many variables with this theory wrapped in percentages. JMHO

We've also not heard exactly HOW evidence would be qualified and quantified (%ile decided) and WHO would be doing the quantifying and qualifying.

 

[RR0004]

IMHO, it's the other way around. I think men are more "romantic," (idealistic) and women more realistic.

BTW-- Just read a neurological study.. says men are more right hemispheric (intuitive, artistic, and creative)) than women, but women have better connections BETWEEN cerebral hemispheres (better access to both).

Yikes...men more intuitive? (Sorry...just had to)

Yes, I believe you're right (romantic vs realistic) when that comes to their own personal affairs. But, IMO I'm thinking the defense won't want a whole lot of "moms" sitting on that jury. When it gets closer, I'm sure a jury "selection" thread will pop up...and it wil be buzzing!!

ETA: previous post had my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek!

 

[Imbackon]

And how does the CSI effect relate to the "unreasonableness" of reasonable doubt? Because it's theorized that the CSI effect places a higher burden of proof on prosecutors since viewers of these shows expect more from forensic evidence.
snip.

Well how did we ever convict prior to DNA? How did we ever convict prior to blood typing? How did we ever convict prior to being able to separate Human blood from Animal etc....
Or how did we convict prior webcams, video surveilence, photographs etc..

Name your evidence and it has improved over the years.

The Burden of Proof you worry about "lowering" is not static. It is ever changing .....
but ohhh, now hold everything because Mitochondrial dna isn't good enough, or worse, the blood may have been contaminated in the lab blah blah blah.


As has been said earlier and many times, it is the culmination of evidence and circumstances that must be considered. It is using our intuative reasoning that only humans have in this decision making and that no computer has thus far.

The standards of the day are the standards (OF THE DAY), so obviously the "burden of proof" has been raised along with the science.

I am saying that "reasonable" doubt, must be reasonable, but I think there are people who due to the csi effect or "name your tv forensic show" believe that they must have proof that is not reasonable in many cases.

 

[Brini]

Well how did we ever convict prior to DNA? How did we ever convict prior to blood typing? How did we ever convict prior to being able to separate Human blood from Animal etc....
Or how did we convict prior webcams, video surveilence, photographs etc..

Name your evidence and it has improved over the years.

The Burden of Proof you worry about "lowering" is not static. It is ever changing .....
but ohhh, now hold everything because Mitochondrial dna isn't good enough, or worse, the blood may have been contaminated in the lab blah blah blah.


As has been said earlier and many times, it is the culmination of evidence and circumstances that must be considered. It is using our intuative reasoning that only humans have in this decision making and that no computer has thus far.

The standards of the day are the standards (OF THE DAY), so obviously the "burden of proof" has been raised along with the science.

I am saying that "reasonable" doubt, must be reasonable, but I think there are people who due to the csi effect or "name your tv forensic show" believe that they must have proof that is not reasonable in many cases.

The last two juries that I was on offered NO lab evidence. We decided based on the letter of the law and common sense. Both were acquittals, BTW.

The last case had the eyewitness testimony of a cop who saw the aftermath of a "crime scene." That, the complainant, and the defendant's testimony were all we had.

A LOT of cases don't offer DNA, or other CSI-typical evidence. People are able to render verdicts, in any case.

 

[Brini]

Yikes...men more intuitive? (Sorry...just had to)

Yes, I believe you're right (romantic vs realistic) when that comes to their own personal affairs. But, IMO I'm thinking the defense won't want a whole lot of "moms" sitting on that jury. When it gets closer, I'm sure a jury "selection" thread will pop up...and it wil be buzzing!!

ETA: previous post had my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek!

Yes. I also think that JB, at least, will want more men on the jury. She might be more transparent to women.

 

[MissJames]

The last two juries that I was on offered NO lab evidence. We decided based on the letter of the law and common sense. Both were acquittals, BTW.

The last case had the eyewitness testimony of a cop who saw the aftermath of a "crime scene." That, the complainant, and the defendant's testimony were all we had.

A LOT of cases don't offer DNA, or other CSI-typical evidence. People are able to render verdicts, in any case.

Brini,
are you a professional juror? c'mon,tell the truth :blowkiss:

 

[Brini]

Brini,
are you a professional juror? c'mon,tell the truth :blowkiss:

No, just lucky, I guess.

Also, truthful.:-(

Once during voir dire everybody who had a family history of abuse got kicked off, except me. The judge asked me whther I could put my family history aside, and go by the evidence.

I said, "Yes."

We acquitted.

During another, everyone who had a lot of corporate work experience and/or lawyers in the family got kicked off. Except me (yes, to both). :-(

BUT, if you can get yourself elected foreperson, you can at least keep things moving.
:blowkiss:

 

[Brini]

Now, a LOT of folks on these threads would do GREAT on an IQ and/or applied logic test.

So, I guess we still need to know how evidence would be qualified and quantified. This given that nothing in life is 100%.

 

[Marina2]

Well how did we ever convict prior to DNA? How did we ever convict prior to blood typing? How did we ever convict prior to being able to separate Human blood from Animal etc....
Or how did we convict prior webcams, video surveilence, photographs etc..

Name your evidence and it has improved over the years.

The Burden of Proof you worry about "lowering" is not static. It is ever changing .....
but ohhh, now hold everything because Mitochondrial dna isn't good enough, or worse, the blood may have been contaminated in the lab blah blah blah.

As has been said earlier and many times, it is the culmination of evidence and circumstances that must be considered. It is using our intuative reasoning that only humans have in this decision making and that no computer has thus far.

The standards of the day are the standards (OF THE DAY), so obviously the "burden of proof" has been raised along with the science.

I am saying that "reasonable" doubt, must be reasonable, but I think there are people who due to the csi effect or "name your tv forensic show" believe that they must have proof that is not reasonable in many cases.

The CSI effect doesn't exist. Technology has improved, (you acknowledge that yourself) so that results in jurors placing a higher burden on the state to produce this evidence. It's reasonable for jurors to expect DNA evidence rather than mitochondrial if it's relevant to the case and available to LE. It's reasonable for jurors to expect labs to protect the integrity of the samples submitted as evidence.

As you said:
"The standards of the day are the standards (OF THE DAY), so obviously the "burden of proof" has been raised along with the science."

Exactly, so it's reasonable that jurors expect this of prosecutors.

It's not because of the "CSI effect." that expectations are higher. You interpret this as "unreasonable" reasonable doubt. You attribute the many "guilty who go free" to this. So, I ask you again...Do you think the burden of proof should be lowered so that more guilty are convicted and not set free? Should we revert back to the day before DNA, blood typing, separating animal blood from human, webcams, video surveilance, photos, etc. so that reasonable doubt won't be so "unreasonable" and more "intuitive"?


I don't worry about lowering the burden of proof. I'm saying that you can't lower it. You wish reasonable doubt weren't so "unreasonable" so that more guilty would be convicted and not set free. The only way to do this is to lower the burden of proof. Since we can't do this, you are stuck with reasonable doubt as it exists today, complete with all the higher expectations of jurors that exist because of increased technology, not the "CSI effect" or some TV show.

 

[Marina2]

The last two juries that I was on offered NO lab evidence. We decided based on the letter of the law and common sense. Both were acquittals, BTW.

The last case had the eyewitness testimony of a cop who saw the aftermath of a "crime scene." That, the complainant, and the defendant's testimony were all we had.

A LOT of cases don't offer DNA, or other CSI-typical evidence. People are able to render verdicts, in any case.

I agree with you. Many cases are tried without the need for the technology available today. It's not always necessary and I don't believe the "CSI effect" has caused reasonable doubt to become unreasonable. When technology is relevant to the case and available, I think it's reasonable for jurors to expect it, as in DNA for rape cases, ID of blood at crime scene etc. I don't think jurors are unreasonable to ask that labs don't cross contaminate samples submitted for evidence. This is all reasonable and not a result of watching some forensic TV show.