Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[RR0004]

I hope they give Casey the Cliff Notes on jury instructions 'cause something tells me she's not going to understand squat about what's going on.

 

[Searchfortruth]

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.

Just from what I have read on the subject, yes defendants do have a choice as to who hears their case, Judge vs. Jury. I think most Defense Lawyers prefer that their clients pick a jury instead of a judge. With a jury you have 12 chances to get a vote for the defense and that one vote is a mistrial...with a judge the defense is dealing with one person's view...the Judge's.

 

[Wudge]

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!

Felony negligence is another option can not be ruled out, but the evidence does not clearly support it. Most importantly, that's not the prosecution's theory. So they did not go with a felony murder charge.

 

[marspiter]

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

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:

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

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.

SNIP

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.

 

[aafromaa]

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.

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?

 

[marspiter]

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?

The short answer: Yes premeditation can be established with out cause of death.

According to jury instructions and the elements listed for murder 1 in Florida. The prosecution does not have to establish or prove a cause of death. They do however have to prove premeditation.

They can do this in a number of ways. The actions of the defendant before the crime. This can be used to establish planning and intent.

The victims body and any evidence found with the body can be used.

For example Caylee's body was found with multiple layers of tape placed tightly on her mouth covering her face. The time it takes to apply layers of tape would be evidence showing premeditation.

The coroners report states that the tape was placed before decomp. Decomp begins to take place with in minutes of death (keep in mind mutliple layers and how long it takes to apply said layers). More clarification is needed on this which is why Dr. G will be called to the stand. The coroner also ruled it a homicide and she will need to testify as to why she drew that conclusion. Which also can show premeditation.

The victims age and health is also an over looked aspect of premeditation. Do to Caylee's age she required assistant for even her most basic needs and she was in good health.

Also a defendants actions after the fact can be taken into account. Such as in this case the partying, renting movies mere moments after Caylee was deceased, ect, ect. In People v. Scott (not Scott Peterson this is a different case) it was the defendants actions after his wifes disappearance that lead to a conviction of murder and was upheld on appeal. That case was also all circumstantial evidence and no body was found.

The computer searches such as, missing children's websites, chloroform, neck breaking, shovel, and others will be used.

Since this is a circumstantial case and there is no "smoking gun" the prosecution is going to build all of this evidence to paint one picture. Granted not one piece of evidence like cadaver dogs hitting on the car is going to convict or show premeditation. Its all of this evidence combined that paint the picture of an intentional premeditated murder.

One must also keep in mind that Florida only requires one to reflect on their actions before they do it. It does not require "planning" or any defined period of time. Which means all Casey had to do is think this will kill Caylee...just moments before she did the actual deed for premeditation. Given that; how much time does it take to tear off a piece of tape and how quick can a person form a thought.

I hope that answers your question about premeditation, how it works in Florida, and how it will likely be established in this case.

 

[Wudge]

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?

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.)

 

[CrankyPants]

Also a defendants actions after the fact can be taken into account. Such as in this case the partying, renting movies mere moments after Caylee was deceased, ect, ect. In People v. Scott (not Scott Peterson this is a different case) it was the defendants actions after his wifes disappearance that lead to a conviction of murder and was upheld on appeal. That case was also all circumstantial evidence and no body was found.

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?

 

[Gaia713]

MY BOLD

The above bolded is the part that I forsee Baez & Co. working the most doubt into a jury. Here is also where I see the bus coming, and those most likely to be flung underneath of it include Cindy and George, Amy, Jesse, Ricardo and Tony L. I vacillate over Lee, but ultimately have decided that he won't become one of her sacrificial lambs. I also think this is the part of the jury instructions that are most likely to bring about a lesser conviction if that is allowed under the law (?). I personally don't feel that KC had any help; the disposal was too ineptly carried out waaay too close to her home for her to have had help. Cindy or George would've ensured either a) that little Caylee's remains were never found, or that b) they were found far away from their property but close to the home of whomever was their most likely scapegoat.

On one hand, I can't conceive of a winnable strategy that would put KC on the stand; on another, I can't imagine a jury accepting a defense in which they do not hear from her. Jury instructions aside, people are still human, and humans crave answers and explanations from those involved in cases like this. The cross-examination alone would be so brutal though that it would probably negate any reasonable explanation she could pull from her nether regions. I think this jury will ultimately be won over the the state's side by the forensics. I sincerely hope that they will find jurors intelligent enough to grasp the new scientific concepts and won't be intimidated by Baez's smokescreen of "junk science."

Here's the biggest problem the defense has to overcome. It has to be REASONABLE doubt, not "impossible" doubt. If they use the Zanny defense, they will have to show a Zanny the Nanny DID exist. If they use the "kidnap" defense, it is not reasonable to think that Casey just sat there in the park and let someone take her daughter (WITH NO WEAPON USED), and then she would have to provide the "script" that she was left with to follow. I cannot see the defense comping up with ANY REASONABLE doubt in this case. Baez is no Mark Garegos and even Mark could not come up with any REASONABLE doubt that Scott Peterson murdered Laci. Baez has an ice cube's chance in He** of proving any reasonable doubt. He's not that smart, for one thing. He's not that good an attorney, for another. LKB has proven what a great atty she is with her "stellar" performance with Spectre. As for Lyon, all she will do is get the death penalty off the table with the jury. I do not even foresee much luck with that. The jury has to be death-qualified to even appear in this cae, so they have to be willing to impose the death penalty. So, Lyon will have to try to get it tossed otu BEFORE the trial.

Keep repeating the word "reasonable" becuase the doubt that the defense has to show to the jury has to be reasonable. I don't see that happening, not with what we have seen in the discovery and we haven't seen it all.

 

[aafromaa]

The short answer: Yes premeditation can be established with out cause of death.

According to jury instructions and the elements listed for murder 1 in Florida. The prosecution does not have to establish or prove a cause of death. They do however have to prove premeditation.

They can do this in a number of ways. The actions of the defendant before the crime. This can be used to establish planning and intent.

The victims body and any evidence found with the body can be used.

For example Caylee's body was found with multiple layers of tape placed tightly on her mouth covering her face. The time it takes to apply layers of tape would be evidence showing premeditation.

The coroners report states that the tape was placed before decomp. Decomp begins to take place with in minutes of death (keep in mind mutliple layers and how long it takes to apply said layers). More clarification is needed on this which is why Dr. G will be called to the stand. The coroner also ruled it a homicide and she will need to testify as to why she drew that conclusion. Which also can show premeditation.

The victims age and health is also an over looked aspect of premeditation. Do to Caylee's age she required assistant for even her most basic needs and she was in good health.

Also a defendants actions after the fact can be taken into account. Such as in this case the partying, renting movies mere moments after Caylee was deceased, ect, ect. In People v. Scott (not Scott Peterson this is a different case) it was the defendants actions after his wifes disappearance that lead to a conviction of murder and was upheld on appeal. That case was also all circumstantial evidence and no body was found.

The computer searches such as, missing children's websites, chloroform, neck breaking, shovel, and others will be used.

Since this is a circumstantial case and there is no "smoking gun" the prosecution is going to build all of this evidence to paint one picture. Granted not one piece of evidence like cadaver dogs hitting on the car is going to convict or show premeditation. Its all of this evidence combined that paint the picture of an intentional premeditated murder.

One must also keep in mind that Florida only requires one to reflect on their actions before they do it. It does not require "planning" or any defined period of time. Which means all Casey had to do is think this will kill Caylee...just moments before she did the actual deed for premeditation. Given that; how much time does it take to tear off a piece of tape and how quick can a person form a thought.

I hope that answers your question about premeditation, how it works in Florida, and how it will likely be established in this case.

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

 

[marspiter]

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 they can establish time of death in this case still. If I'm not mistaken the results of entomology test and the botany tests have not been revealed yet (if I'm wrong can someone point me to it cause that's key and I missed it). Remember there were roots growing through the umm evidence (trying to put it nicely). They can extrapolate placement of the body based on a number of things found at the scene (such as roots) and the scene itself and then correlate that with other evidence they have to establish the time of death.

It really depends on the additional testing that has not been released yet. Such as the tests mentioned above in my post. We also to my knowledge don't have back any test result that were done to the tape. I would say there is still plenty of evidence left to be analyzed.

 

[AZlawyer]

Keep in mind when referring to Dr. G's opinion of "homicide" as the cause of death that this could include, e.g., negligent homicide (like an accident arising out of neglect) or even justifiable homicide (like self-defense). Obviously self-defense is not at issue here; I'm just trying to show that her finding of "homicide" does not imply a finding of premeditation or even unlawful behavior.

 

[Marina2]

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.

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. The only solution to the "unreasonableness" of reasonable doubt is to lower the burden of proof. I don't think that's a viable option.

The same with your second issue The only way to decrease the time it takes to gather proof enough to convince a jury of someone's guilt is to lower the burden of proof upon the state. You may not have a fear of being wrongfully convicted now but lower the burden of proof and you may quickly develop one.

 

[Marina2]

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?

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.

 

[marspiter]

Marspiter,

Thank you for your response.

TIA

Snipped for length but it was a great post. The one great thing about this forum is that it is not a court of law so we as posters are allowed to speculate. Which allows all of us to look at things from such differing angles and it helps each of us take a step back and look at our arguments.

For example that's why I value allot of what Wudge says and their knowledge even though I don't agree. For me when I look at this evidence I just don't see any other way other then Casey did it intentionally. I would not make a good juror for this case.

The brass tacks of it are yes the prosecution is going to have a very hard time proving premeditation. 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.

Take Caylee's age and health. If Caylee was sickly, had health problems and the like. It would make an accident or dying from a means other then murder more plausible in my opinion. However Caylee was very healthy. Healthy children don't die of natural causes, something has to cause it.

Caylee's age. Being two years old she is going to need to be supervised and was in her mothers care. She is not going to be tall enough or strong enough to do many things for herself or have the knowledge. So the question is what could happen to a heathly 1 1/2 year old that would cause her death and explain why Casey acted the way she did. 31 days, renting movies, hanging out with boyfriend, lying, covering tracks, ect, ect.

That underlined and above is the kicker for me. There are many ways a small child can die, but its Casey's action couple with Caylee's age (plus the fact that Casey is her mom) that is the kicker for me. It's that "and" mentioned above that ruled out accident in my mind. If we were talking about a teenager that can take care of themselves I would probably be sitting where you are. Because there are more possible explanations if it was a teenager or older individual. However the fact that Caylee relied on an adult (her own mother) and turned up the way she did (triple bagged, taped ect, ect) in my mind only leads to one conclusion. That and in my opinion there is no reasonable explanation for multiple layers of duct tape on a child's face after death.

 

[Tuffy]

Snipped for length but it was a great post. The one great thing about this forum is that it is not a court of law so we as posters are allowed to speculate. Which allows all of us to look at things from such differing angles and it helps each of us take a step back and look at our arguments.

For example that's why I value allot of what Wudge says and their knowledge even though I don't agree. For me when I look at this evidence I just don't see any other way other then Casey did it intentionally. I would not make a good juror for this case.

The brass tacks of it are yes the prosecution is going to have a very hard time proving premeditation. 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.

Take Caylee's age and health. If Caylee was sickly, had health problems and the like. It would make an accident or dying from a means other then murder more plausible in my opinion. However Caylee was very healthy. Healthy children don't die of natural causes, something has to cause it.

Caylee's age. Being two years old she is going to need to be supervised and was in her mothers care. She is not going to be tall enough or strong enough to do many things for herself or have the knowledge. So the question is what could happen to a heathly 1 1/2 year old that would cause her death and explain why Casey acted the way she did. 31 days, renting movies, hanging out with boyfriend, lying, covering tracks, ect, ect.

That underlined and above is the kicker for me. There are many ways a small child can die, but its Casey's action couple with Caylee's age (plus the fact that Casey is her mom) that is the kicker for me. It's that "and" mentioned above that ruled out accident in my mind. If we were talking about a teenager that can take care of themselves I would probably be sitting where you are. Because there are more possible explanations if it was a teenager or older individual. However the fact that Caylee relied on an adult (her own mother) and turned up the way she did (triple bagged, taped ect, ect) in my mind only leads to one conclusion. That and in my opinion there is no reasonable explanation for multiple layers of duct tape on a child's face after death.

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?

 

[ecs5298]

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.

I've wondered that too. Makes you really wonder what GA's testimony entailed?

Sorry to drift OT. Here...I'll take care of it myself :slap:

 

[Brini]

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

I DO believe in pre-med (I used to believe it was an accident).

But, I've gotta grant you.... the decision WOULD be easier if one could hear Dr. G's rationale. So, I'm with you, on this point.

 

[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.)

Never has on any jury I've been on.