Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lin]

Yes exactly.

Ok some points. Circumstantial evidence can be used and can be the only evidence used to obtain a conviction. The totality of the circumstantial evidence is looked at and weighed. Yes defense attorneys will pick apart evidence one item at a time. That however is a defense tactic (smoke and mirrors) and not the reality of how a juror will look at it or should look it. I have no idea why some think this is not true. The state can convict with only circumstantial evidence! Plain and simple not really open for debate. If its not true then I would like to see the case evidence to prove it untrue. Show me case law that says a person can not be convicted on circumstantial evidence or the appeals case that over turns People v. Scott.

Working in some of the capacities I have I can assure you eyewitness testimony is great for that Perry Mason moment in court where the witness points to the person in the court room and says that's the person right there. However eyewitness testimony is seriously flawed. First you are relaying on someone's memory and by the time most trials start that memory is not what it was moments after the incident. Also eyewitnesses can be easily confused, flustered, and made to look like fools and the stand. I would venture to guess that most lawyers cringe when the other side does their cross against a non "expert" witness. I personally would take lots of circumstantial evidence over an eyewitness any day.

Reasonable Doubt: One does not have to have complete irrefutable proof for a conviction. Maybe in some Utopian society where the judge and jury is omnipotent and the evidence is 100 percent and you are assured the person is 100 percent guilty times infinity. That's not the real world however. Further more speaking of percentages. There is no such thing as percentages of "reasonableness". If a value was ever placed by a judge in the instructions it would undermine the entire point. The jury of ones piers is to look at and evaluate the evidence presented to them and based on that evidence one is to use their mental reasoning to establish guilt. If after weighing the evidence that person determines in their mind that the state didn't present enough evidence and they have doubt in their mind that weighs upon them in their conviction they are to render a not guilty verdict. If after they weigh the evidence and they determine in there mind that yes based on the evidence presented and their ability to use reason in examining that evidence the juror still "feels" they are guilty the juror renders a guilty verdict.

I think what tricks people up is that reasonable doubt is left up to some interpretation. There is no magic formula involving percentages or some grand mathematical computation that can be used to establish guilt. If so we would have computers doing it. Plug in evidence A into slot B, get verdict. Done plain, simple, and easy. Our courts don't work that way. It is left up to the jurors to decide. They are allowed to determine for themselves if the evidence establishes guilt. They are not required to perform calculus to do so. They are allowed to use their own reasoning to weigh the evidence, and yes they are allowed to enter a guilty verdict even if they have doubts. They must determine if that doubt out weighs their reasoning of the evidence. I guess I just don't see why that is hard to understand.

Wow.

That's it. Just Wow.

 

[lin]

In the the Supreme Court ruling in the 1994 case of Victor v. Nebraska, which was discussed earlier in this thread, the Court recognized and stated that the Constitution requires a very high level of certainty in criminal cases. However, the Court deliberately neglected to at least bracket a range for "high level of certainty".

More than a few people believe a high level of certainty exists when the certainty is 80% or upward; some other people believe that a high level of certainty exists beyond 75% (or even 70%).

...and others don't quantify it that way.

 

[lin]

Exactly because there is no way to place such a mathematical number on such a concept. So yes the court would have to say something like 99% because having a 1% error rate of innocent people for the DP would seem barbaric. On the flip side needing to have proof showing beyond 99% certainty is a bit preposterous and boarders on delusions of grandeur.

So what did all of this discussing and beating dead horses prove? Assigning a percentage to what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt is not what is done, is not what the court did, and is not something that should be done. Its possible you may think such an assignment is needed but apparently the court does not.

So what are we left with? The interpretation of the juror once they have examined the evidence and weighed it using their own reasoning skills and then determining if the evidence out weighs any doubt they may have. Which is pretty much what the general jury instructions said and what I and many others have said.

What have the vast majority of people been saying about this case based on the evidence they have seen? Casey is guilty! :behindbar

BBM

You wow a lot, huh? Great post; bolded for emphasis.

 

[lin]

This may belong on the questions thread but noone probably knows the answer yet. Could it be that someone in Casey's inner circle has provided a confession of sorts (told a reliable account of what really did happen) in exchange for lenience for their part in whatever happened? I have pondered this possibility since the death penalty was restored. Something that is not obvious to us happened/changed at that point.

Could be.

What changed, imo, to cause the dp to be reinstated was finding Caylee's body with the duct tape and other evidence.

Premeditation for me is the 2nd piece of duct tape, if not before, when acquiring the duct tape. I mean, were they playing with duct tape and it accidentally went off? I think not.

 

[lin]

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

I think you're right, Brini. I sincerely believe in our system and feel I should defend it but will try to stop beating that drum. Or dead horse.

It's a natural progression from the topic at hand to discussion of the system in general but I think we'll all be better served by discussing the instant case and the applicable law. We'll have trouble finding the good stuff later if it's mixed in with a bunch of general theoretical legal discussion of non-applicable law. (Where have I read that lately?)

Not to mention the confusion it can cause for those who mistake the theoretical for the applicable. Anyone else agree?

 

[lin]

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?

Keyword there is relevant opinions, imo. We were straying off into a lot of things that aren't going to apply in this case and may confuse folks during the trial when they thought what was discussed here will be the rule, when actually, much of it won't.

I totally agree it doesn't have to be all about KC, (much to her chagrin), and if you want to have theoretical legal discussions, I'm your girl; I can do that all day. And actually do some days. But I'm going to try to stick with the law that is going to apply to the case and stray only into other things that may help explain the current FL law, such as the CA Scott decision that marspiter posted. I'm done discussing the legal system in general, strengths or weaknesses but that is a choice I'm making for myself.

ETA: I think the Huck opinion posted by Jolynna will play a role at the trial; whether we know it or not.

 

[treeseeker]

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.

 

[chefmom]

Going on what I know at this time, I would have no problem going with pre-meditation. All evidence I have seen so far points to no one else but KC, and I know that at some point during the act that took Caylee's life, KC knew that what she was doing would kill Caylee and yet she continued to do it. When that thought entered her brain, she should have stopped but she didn't. She continued until the life left that tiny little body. Couple that with the duct tape, computer searches, decomp in trunk, Blockbuster visit with TonE, partying it up like mad, the tattoo, and all of the lies, lies, lies......premeditated murder......no doubts here.

 

[MissJames]

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

I see your point,Wudge,but IMO the probability of corruption in a system with professional jurors would be a problem.
We have checks and balances in our system where professionals run the show and provide opportunities for appeals.
Take the case of the au pair in Massachusetts.The jury convicted her of child abuse,but the judge set aside that conviction since he felt the jury had reached the wrong conclusion.It went against public opinion and was a courageous act.
And of course,amongst judges,the professionals,you have cases of corruption or gross incompetence.It's hardly a perfect system,either.
Lawyers are professionals,yet there is often a public perception of ambulance chasers,money grubbing,will do anything to get their guilty client off.No offense to anyone,but we've all heard the jokes and snears.
So even amongst the professionals in the system,you are still dealing with people,flaws and all.

 

[coco puff]

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 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).

 

[Tuffy]

I see your point,Wudge,but IMO the probability of corruption in a system with professional jurors would be a problem.
We have checks and balances in our system where professionals run the show and provide opportunities for appeals.
Take the case of the au pair in Massachusetts.The jury convicted her of child abuse,but the judge set aside that conviction since he felt the jury had reached the wrong conclusion.It went against public opinion and was a courageous act.
And of course,amongst judges,the professionals,you have cases of corruption or gross incompetence.It's hardly a perfect system,either.
Lawyers are professionals,yet there is often a public perception of ambulance chasers,money grubbing,will do anything to get their guilty client off.No offense to anyone,but we've all heard the jokes and snears.
So even amongst the professionals in the system,you are still dealing with people,flaws and all.

BBM

Hi MissJames! Actually the jury in the famous Massachusetts au pair case found her to be guilty of second-degree murder. I think the case actually makes a good case against the courts using professional jurors.

 

[MissJames]

BBM

Hi MissJames! Actually the jury in the famous Massachusetts au pair case found her to be guilty of second-degree murder. I think the case actually makes a good case against the courts using professional jurors.

That's right,shaken baby,IIRC. As a foster parent I've had several shaken babies with horrible brain damage and torn retinas.Here ,charges are not usually brought unless the child dies :furious: As a matter of fact,many return home.
Sorry OT again
Now here's an example of the professionals having their own biases. Family court.You frequently hear how one judge always sides with moms ,or another never allows children to return home,because he prefers adoption.There are websites by fathers who have encountered the biases of judges.Some complaints are probably not legit,but where there's smoke........

 

[The Eunice Burns]

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.

(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

 

[Horace Finklestein]

(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

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

 

[Manny]

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.

 

[MissJames]

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.

Can they do that without putting KC on the stand? Up until Caylee's body was found the defense was claiming kidnapping and looking for a live Caylee.
This undermines an accidental death claim IMO.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

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.

They do have TM on board, who specializes in accidental death. IMO, though, that's going to be a very, very tough sell. I often wonder if JB loaded up his defense table w/ *some of this, some of that*, to hedge his bets for a variable defense strategy. Perhaps when he brought TM on board, that was the direction he was/is going to go, an accident. Now that AL is on board, he can have the DP covered, among other issues. Kind of a hodgepodge, if you will. I am very curious to see what they will go with in the end. At the end of the day though, it benefits this mix and all the face time they have and will continue to get.

 

[Tuffy]

Can they do that without putting KC on the stand? Up until Caylee's body was found the defense was claiming kidnapping and looking for a live Caylee.
This undermines an accidental death claim IMO.

Even if the defense puts Casey on the stand to testify that the death was accidental, unless they have witnesses or evidence to back that up, we are left with only her words. All prior statements given by her to the authorities have her claiming "kidnapping."

I don't think there is any reason to believe accidental death is going to be claimed by anyone in this case.

 

[AZlawyer]

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

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

 

[Wudge]

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.

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.