Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Shear22]

I had no reasonable doubt after number one and two. These two along with the fact that she had been gone and not reported missing by her own mother for 31 days was enough for me. Didn't even need the forensic technology. There never has been a "death band" confirmed on the hair, though.

I just wanted to point out that although no "death band" was found, they did find evidence of decomposition on that hair, which for our purposes has exactly the same result: a hair from dead Caylee (or another female member of her family) was found in the trunk. Apparently a death band is not the only way that a hair can show decomposition. See the discussion in mythbusters.

 

[lin]

Amongst two choices, "reasonable" can be 51% reliability, which is far away from a conclusion that demands, at a minimum, reliability in the 99% range. That guage is the key.

I understand this is your opinion, however, I think it's been clearly and repeatedly established this is not the applicable law.

 

[lin]

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?

COD is not necessary to show premeditation. For example, the web searches that KC likely performed may show her intent; her plan. It would be a lot neater if the searches could be linked to a COD but it's not necessary. She researched murdering a child; explored cases wherein children were "missing" likely to plan a faked reaction to events. It's going to be too large of a coincidence for many that shortly thereafter her own child was murdered.

As I've already explained, the duct tape for me shows more premeditation. The time it took KC to acquire the duct tape can account for the legal standard of premeditation. The time it took KC to apply the 2nd strip of duct tape is also legally sufficient to show premeditation. The time lapse between the first strip and Caylee's death is enough time for her to reflect on her actions and that's all that's required.

Remember the Huck case, the duct tape issue has been litigated in Florida. The 5th DCA found no reasonable explanation for post mortem duct tape. So unless KC's defense can come up with a reasonable explanation, whether or not the duct tape actually killed her, it's going to be inferred as at least part of the mechanism of death. And no, fluids, open mouth, etc. are not going to be seen as reasonable, especially with the other circumstances.

 

[marspiter]

Why do you think that you wouldn't be a good juror for this case? Do you think that anyone that follows a case so closely would be disqualified?

I personally would make a bad juror for this case because I have analyzed the evidence released in the media and have formed my opinion. Granted I could maybe suspend my opinion in court (I have before), but in my case the defense for this particular case would have to convince me Casey isn't guilty. Which is against the values of our justice system. It's the prosecution that must prove their case and in my mind I would be entering the courtroom with the nagging thought they already did.

That's not to say that a person who is educated on a case would make a bad juror if that juror can suspend their opinion and listening to both sides evidence objectively and enter into court with the idea the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. There are other cases I could do that with....this one, no I can't and I'd have to admit that. Which would have me disqualified from the jury.

 

[lin]

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.)

Luckily for the prosecution, that standard is not a legal requirement in Florida.

 

[lin]

respectfully snipped...BBM

I wonder if there is enough evidence for the SA to present as to time of death? Will the time of death have any bearing on the premeditation?

I believe there is enough evidence to show a likely time range but I doubt they will be able to pinpoint it within hours. They may have a theory, using timelines, etc. but as far as I know, they won't have more than that. I don't see how the time would have an effect on premeditation. But then again, I believe KC began thinking of it, (her version of planning), months prior.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

There is no one piece of evidence that does prove it, and I fully agree with Wudge on that point. For me though it's looking at the totality of the evidence and the whole picture it paints. Taking that evidence and thinking of scenarios in which a 1 1/2 year old can die while in the care of their mother. Then taking each of those scenarios and adding the evidence of this case. As the evidence builds I check off each scenario that doesn't seem plausible to me, and I'm left with what I'm left with... murder 1.

SNIP

In this case, there is no direct evidence that supports the necessary elements for a murder one conviction; e.g., premeditation, reflection, intent etc.. Therefore, prosecutors must prove their premeditated murder charge through inferences derived from circumstantial evidence. Because you agree that no single piece of circumstantial evidence exists that reliably supports (proves) the necessary elements of murder one, then all that is left is reasonable doubt and a "not guilty" verdict (insufficient evidence).

You cannot convict on the totality of the evidence when not a single piece of inculpatory evidence is reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Please understand that if each component of a sum (total) is not sufficiently reliable to prove guilt, the sum (total) cannot be sufficiently reliable -- thinking otherwise represents fallacious logic.

(Jury instructions cover this.)

 

[marspiter]

In this case, there is no direct evidence that supports the necessary elements for a murder one conviction; e.g., premeditation, reflection, intent etc.. Therefore, prosecutors must prove their premeditated murder charge through inferences derived from circumstantial evidence. Because you agree that no single piece of circumstantial evidence exists that reliably supports (proves) the necessary elements of murder one, then all that is left is reasonable doubt and a "not guilty" verdict (insufficient evidence).

You cannot convict on the totality of the evidence when not a single piece of inculpatory evidence is reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Please understand that if each component of a sum (total) is not sufficiently reliable to prove guilt, the sum (total) cannot be sufficiently reliable -- thinking otherwise represents fallacious logic.

(Jury instructions cover this.)

People v. Scott 176 Cal. App. 2d 458

If I'm not mistaken proves otherwise.

 

[lin]

Marspiter,

Thank you for your response. One of the things I am looking forward to in trial is Dr G's testimony. I have been waiting to hear the reasoning behind the determination of homicide since the day that announcement was made. Not that I disagree with it but because I have felt Dr G's testimony would likely be more informative to me than reading the report itself. I see what you're saying about the duct tape and decomp. It's just that for me, I'm having a hard time concluding premeditation beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not saying that I'll have that difficulty after hearing the testimony that accompanies the reports we've received in doc dumps - only that I have it now.

Others have also mentioned that the computer searches will help to prove premeditation but I'm not sure I can make that leap. It would be different if the cause of death was shown to be related to chloroform or one of the other things searched but without knowing cause of death, how can I know that those searches were related to Caylee's death? Chances are if someone checked my computer they would find some of those same things searched and many others that could be considered incriminating. In my case those searches are usually because I'm searching something in a case I'm following but my point is that there can be innocent reasons for such searches. Now, I must also add that I don't have a young child and certainly not one who ends up dead a few months after those searches, but if I did, those searches would have had nothing to do with it. In otherwords, there are reasonable explanations for the searches other than any connection to the death of my hypothetical child.

Regarding actions after the fact, yes I agree that KC's actions were calloused and cold and I find no other reasonable explanation for those actions other than she was happy or at least not bothered by the fact that Caylee was out of her life. And yes, I find them important for proving murder and even murder 1 under Flordia statutes as I understand them. However, I do not find them to help me come to a conclusion of premeditation.

As for the fact that FL law does not require planning for premeditation but only to reflect (even briefly) on that action, yes, I understand that. I am just still struggling with how the state can prove that KC reflected on an action if they can't tell me what that action was.

Let me try to explain it this way. I have an ex-brother-in-law who is currently in prison (again) for drug related crimes. I am glad he has had to return for violating his parole. While he was out, I often considered trying to find a way to have him re-arrested. On my computer there are files I have created that "logged" some of his illegal activity. There are also drafts of letters to the probation officer, the county sheriff, the prosecuting attorney, and the judge. One could conclude that I "premeditated" my actions in compiling all of that. But one cannot conclude that he is back in prison because of my premeditated actions since I never actually sent any of those letters or did anything with that information. His return to prison had nothing to do with anything I did or thought or said. (I hope that made sense.) My point is that without knowing how Caylee died, I can't conclude that KC used any of the info she gathered ahead of time or the fact she seemed happy-go-lucky afterwards to illustrate premeditation of an act that may have had nothing to do with anything she searched on the computer or how she felt afterwards.

I also agree that a juror must take all the facts into consideration and not just look at (for example) a search for neckbreaking but conclude that there is no evidence that the neck was broken so the search was irrelavent. And, when looking at all the evidence together I lean toward a conviction of premeditated murder but am not quite there just yet. I do believe the testimony of Dr G and computer experts and such will help me get there but can't say that for certain until I hear that testimony.

One of the things your response included was about the victim's age and health being used to help show predetermination. Can you elaborate on that? Are you saying that, because she was only a toddler - that something like failing to feed her or leaving her out in the cold or in the heat or whatever, could be considered premeditated murder? (Not saying that's what happened - only asking for clarification as to how the age and health apply to premeditation.)

TIA

In the examples you stated, there are reasonable explanations, such as researching cases as a member of a crime oriented forum. Nor did a child in your care turn up murdered. As for your B-I-L, again, reasonable explanation is the alternate evidence showing how he really did get his parole violated. Absent that other evidence, yes, your admitted "plan" could be part of a hypothetical case against you. Other factors would be required though. These letters you drafted, are they similar to letters that were sent? Or were no letters sent at all? Did you have the means, motive and opportunity to cause the parole violation? Well, I am going to guess you have the motive because you were in a planning phase. But without knowing the circumstances, I can't say you had the means or opportunity. Was he found to possess controlled substance(s) during a routine traffic stop? Was he arrested committing another crime? See, the circumstances of how he came to be put back in jail would have a lot to do with whether or not the story as related could really put you under suspicion. A person of interest, due to the letters? Sure. Of course. But during the investigation, you'd likely be crossed off the list due to the other factors.

jmho

 

[Muzikman]

In this case, there is no direct evidence that supports the necessary elements for a murder one conviction; e.g., premeditation, reflection, intent etc.. Therefore, prosecutors must prove their premeditated murder charge through inferences derived from circumstantial evidence. Because you agree that no single piece of circumstantial evidence exists that reliably supports (proves) the necessary elements of murder one, then all that is left is reasonable doubt and a "not guilty" verdict (insufficient evidence).

You cannot convict on the totality of the evidence when not a single piece of inculpatory evidence is reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Please understand that if each component of a sum (total) is not sufficiently reliable to prove guilt, the sum (total) cannot be sufficiently reliable -- thinking otherwise represents fallacious logic.

(Jury instructions cover this.)

I disagree, Wudge. As Lin so eloquently stated above, others have stated, multiple pieces of duct tape over the nose AND mouth is the single piece of evidence that supports the premeditation charge.

 

[lin]

Also consider that, not only did they charge her with premeditated murder without a cause of death, they charged her with this even before they found her body. Makes you wonder.

Makes me confident.

 

[marspiter]

U.S. Supreme Court
Scott v. California, 364 U.S. 471 (1960)

Scott v. California

No. 241, Misc.

Decided December 5, 1960

364 U.S. 471

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

Syllabus

Appellant was convicted in a state court of murdering his wife. The evidence against him was entirely circumstantial. Proof of the corpus delicti, as well as proof of appellant's criminal agency, was to be inferred only from his wife's inexplicable disappearance coupled with appellant's unnatural behavior thereafter. He did not take the stand in his own defense, and the trial judge instructed the jury that his failure to do so could be made the basis of inferences unfavorable to him. On appeal to this Court, appellant contended that his conviction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Held: Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

 

[lin]

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.

I agree with both of you, to a point. I don't think DNA or other scientific evidences should be required in all cases. At times there is plenty of other evidence available to come to a reasoned and accurate conclusion. I think it's unfair that some jurors seem to be under the impression that the only valuable evidence is scientific because on tv, they have all these weird gizmos and super fantastic tests on every episode. Oh, and Superman can fly. But prosecutors generally don't, in my experience.

This does not mean standards should be lowered. I'm just saying they shouldn't be raised to impossible standards. Extrapolating on your point for dramatic effect, not that you suggested this, but if one is clever enough to hide a body, should one really get away with murder? Not in my opinion, provided there is sufficient evidence to prove, not suggest, but prove the murder occurred and was committed by the defendant.

 

[lin]

PS: Ever had a child tell you something along the lines of: "You can't prove I did it" ?
I have. And as prosecutor, I was able to produce enough evidence to convince myself, as the jury, of the child's guilt and then as judge, imposed sentence. All in a matter of seconds.

 

[marspiter]

Also Wudge you may find this case interesting.


363 F2d 859 Munich v. United States

Also goes along with People v. Scott the conviction in this case was also affirmed.

 

[lin]

ok, so here is a test that relates to this case.
This has nothing to do with the premeditation question, nor whether Caylee died by accident or was murdered.

The Pontiac driven by Casey

1. "smells like a dead body in the dam* car"
2. Trained cadaver dog hits on the trunk
3. Death band hair on a hair matched to Lee or the immediate female relatives of Mrs. Anthony using Mitochondrial DNA
4. chemical essay of decomposing body in the trunk (new science)

More maybe with trunk stain, paper towel in car (not sure about this yet with decomposing fluids) but we will not even bring this forward as evidence yet.

Do you have any reasonable doubt as to whether Caylee's body was in the trunk of that car? If you do, please post your doubts.

I really like where you're going and I hope everyone plays along. 1 suggestion: Maybe check with a mod about putting this in its own thread? I'd really like to see this played out with each piece of evidence all in one place without other topics mixed in.

 

[JBean]

You cannot convict on the totality of the evidence when not a single piece of inculpatory evidence is reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Please understand that if each component of a sum (total) is not sufficiently reliable to prove guilt, the sum (total) cannot be sufficiently reliable -- thinking otherwise represents fallacious logic.

(Jury instructions cover this.)

People v. Scott 176 Cal. App. 2d 458

If I'm not mistaken proves otherwise.

Thanks for all your input marspiter. I can't read the case cause I am out the door, but was wondering if the case you reference shows the jury DID convict regardless of the fact they shouldn't have under these conditions or that the jury instructions told them that they could and then they did.
Thanks.

 

[JBean]

I really like where you're going and I hope everyone plays along. 1 suggestion: Maybe check with a mod about putting this in its own thread? I'd really like to see this played out with each piece of evidence all in one place without other topics mixed in.

If you do a search we do have a thread on that already!

 

[lin]

BBM

Like the people who want to nit pick or argue over the most minute and insignificant of details? Or BC in his 1998 Grand Jury testimony when he famously stated "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."

:crazy:

Two engineers on a jury agreed the defendant was guilty of drug trafficking and other offenses charged but couldn't agree on the precise weight of the narcotics. The difference in weight would not have affected the charges.

Hung jury. State had to pay for another trial.

 

[lin]

I am reading this thread as an RN, joe public, prospective juror and KC peer fascinated and frustrated by the legal process.

I'm just imagining the increase in medical malpractice suits if 99% of medical decision making was based on scientific fact only and all the Doctors subjective gut feelings, the nurses observations and family reports were removed from the mix. Sorry no analgesia for you- the tests all say there's nothing wrong. Maybe when your blood sugar rises 99% above the normal threshold, I can diagnose and treat you with certainty. Don't even think of trying to get a diagnosis or justice until then.

I'd take me or my child to another Doctor...fast if that's the analogy we're using.

:clap::clap: