Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[MissJames]

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 can see Imbackon's point,Marina
It's not that we should lower expectations,exactly. There is not always going to be dna,or enough dna to make the case.There may not be fingerprints or any other hard evidence to go with.Sometimes all the prosecution has is a circumstantial case or a "he said - she said" case. Supposedly ,the CSI effect is that some juries today feel if there is no hard ,scientific proof,they can't convict.They see the lack of hard evidence as reasonable doubt,despite a strong circumstantial case.I'm not sure that's really happening,but I wouldn't be surprised.
Yet,not all that long ago we didn't have all the wonderful scientific tools and juries were able to find guilty based on ......what? Logical,but mostly circumstantial ,evidence. Or eyewitness testimony that today,we know, can be faulty as well.

 

[Marina2]

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%.

Quantifying reasonable doubt has been attempted. Don't ask me what the end result is though. :crazy: :waitasec:

http://www.valpo.edu/mcs/pdf/ReasonableDoubtFinal.pdf

 

[countzero]

Just wanted to add my :twocents: on the CSI shows effect.

These shows have been around for so many years that people don't even bring them into their conscious anymore regarding the actual forensic testing. I don't think any juror will believe the "junk" science explanations the defense will throw in the air to see what sticks. None of it will to any intelligent person who can see a magic trick for what it is.

The forensic testing for Michael Jackson is a great example of what I am trying to say. The media was told results would be released in two weeks, and now another two weeks or more. The science used is tired and tested on many legal levels. As Dr. G has stated many times on her programs; the science speaks for the deceased. Caylee has much to say to us.

 

[Tuba]

If I have a child of 34 mos. in my custody and then the child is found, killed, whereas I have littered my contacts w. incriminating messages, including some macabre rhymes, bought a one-way ticket to San Diego flying alone, and cleaned the bedrooms at home, boxing up the child's clothes for the Salvation Army, cashing in three bonds reserved for the child's education that were in a cardboard file folder, this goes to premeditation even though no cause of death is ascertained due to the condition of the remains.

But so would it if I cooly emerged from a house where the child and I were alone and she is now dead and taped about the face, including the mouth & nose. And this would look like premeditated murder even if we just blew into town the night before and nothing were known about us.

I'm not suggesting that these actions fit the Anthony case but that the synthesis of many self-directed, independent acts can exist in a case and point to murder one without knowing cause of the victim's death.

 

[Imbackon]

I can see Imbackon's point,Marina
It's not that we should lower expectations,exactly. There is not always going to be dna,or enough dna to make the case.There may not be fingerprints or any other hard evidence to go with.Sometimes all the prosecution has is a circumstantial case or a "he said - she said" case. Supposedly ,the CSI effect is that some juries today feel if there is no hard ,scientific proof,they can't convict.They see the lack of hard evidence as reasonable doubt,despite a strong circumstantial case.I'm not sure that's really happening,but I wouldn't be surprised.
Yet,not all that long ago we didn't have all the wonderful scientific tools and juries were able to find guilty based on ......what? Logical,but mostly circumstantial ,evidence. Or eyewitness testimony that today,we know, can be faulty as well.

YES, thank you Miss James.
Why my explanation keeps getting construed to mean I want the burden of proof lowered is beyond me.

 

[Marina2]

I can see Imbackon's point,Marina
It's not that we should lower expectations,exactly. There is not always going to be dna,or enough dna to make the case.There may not be fingerprints or any other hard evidence to go with.Sometimes all the prosecution has is a circumstantial case or a "he said - she said" case. Supposedly ,the CSI effect is that some juries today feel if there is no hard ,scientific proof,they can't convict.They see the lack of hard evidence as reasonable doubt,despite a strong circumstantial case.I'm not sure that's really happening,but I wouldn't be surprised.
Yet,not all that long ago we didn't have all the wonderful scientific tools and juries were able to find guilty based on ......what? Logical,but mostly circumstantial ,evidence. Or eyewitness testimony that today,we know, can be faulty as well.

I see the point too MissJames. I don't believe in the CSI effect though. My only question, (no matter how it came to be that someone see's reasonable doubt as "unreasonable"), has been "How can we change reasonable doubt without lowering the burden of proof? I don't dispute that many guilty go free, I don't dispute that times are changed, I don't dispute that convictions were had in the past without the technology we have today. I comprehend all that.

ImBackon's original thought was that reasonable doubt has become unreasonable. I never disputed this but offered that the only way to change that is to lower the burden of proof, adding that we can't do that.
My point is and remains- Reasonable doubt is what it is and the only way we can change it is to lower the burden of proof. How all that other stuff came up, I don't know...I just addressed it.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

:behindbar

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.

This dovetails nicely w/ my post earlier about why I think an "applied logic test" as Wudge has deemed necessary would be flawed. Many people do not function well when you put them in a testing situation, yet they have the necessary intelligence and applied logic skills to serve on these professional juries that are being proposed here. I once knew a man who was so intelligent he leap frogged numerous grades and graduated from college in his teens. But he lived in his head so much, his personal life suffered. He could not use common sense and apply logic, and had difficulties b/c of it. Good old fashioned horse sense, and good listening habits is all a good juror needs, IMO.

 

[Marina2]

YES, thank you Miss James.
Why my explanation keeps getting construed to mean I want the burden of proof lowered is beyond me.

No, I said that the only way to change reasonable doubt to make it more reasonable to you is to lower the burden of proof. You brought all that other stuff up, to me it's irrelevant. If you think reasonable doubt is unreasonable how would you suggest we change it? I only stated my thoughts that we can't unless we lower the burden of proof. And lowering the burden of proof is not an option so, the status quo remains...unreasonable or not.

 

[Imbackon]

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.

 

[Brini]

Quantifying reasonable doubt has been attempted. Don't ask me what the end result is though. :crazy: :waitasec:

http://www.valpo.edu/mcs/pdf/ReasonableDoubtFinal.pdf

I don't think it can be done, actually. Particularly in the case of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Imbackon]

No, I said that the only way to change reasonable doubt to make it more reasonable to you is to lower the burden of proof. You brought all that other stuff up, to me it's irrelevant. If you think reasonable doubt is unreasonable how would you suggest we change it? I only stated my thoughts that we can't unless we lower the burden of proof. And lowering the burden of proof is not an option so, the status quo remains...unreasonable or not.

how would you know what is "reasonable to me"?
Go back to the original post where I said I think some people have unreasonable doubt.
"if you think reasonable doubt is unreasonable" Does that statement even make sense to you? Does this argument even sound reasonable (tongue in cheek). That statement is enough to make the computer run thru billions of line of code right there.
I've made my statement and stick by it.

 

[Brini]

Just wanted to add my :twocents: on the CSI shows effect.

These shows have been around for so many years that people don't even bring them into their conscious anymore regarding the actual forensic testing. I don't think any juror will believe the "junk" science explanations the defense will throw in the air to see what sticks. None of it will to any intelligent person who can see a magic trick for what it is.

The forensic testing for Michael Jackson is a great example of what I am trying to say. The media was told results would be released in two weeks, and now another two weeks or more. The science used is tired and tested on many legal levels. As Dr. G has stated many times on her programs; the science speaks for the deceased. Caylee has much to say to us.

Which is why the body is the best evidence.

It is often said that dead people will talk, testify, accuse, shout, and point fingers. Once found and questioned, they will not shut up.

Some do so even after hundreds o thousands of years (anthropolgists re: cause of death in mummys).

I am quite sure that Caylee and Dr. G. had a VEEERRY long and detailed discussion. The duct tape did not shut Caylee up. It may have made her more vocal.

 

[Marina2]

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 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.

 

[Imbackon]

Robert Gueverra killed 5 year old Corinne Erstad in MN.
Some of the evidence.
Robert a family friend, slept over at the family home
Robert occasionally even slept with Corinne in her bed.
Robert left that home that morning about the last time Corinne was last seen.
Corinne has never been seen since (over 10 years ago at least)
Roberts semen mixed with Corinne's blood was found on a shower curtain found under his bed by his girlfriend. It was subsequently retrieved from a trash bin.
Clothes belonging to Corinne were found in a storage locker owned by Robert
and much more I don't even remember.
The VAn Robert drove that day, was meticulously washed right away (something he never did before).

Robert was acquitted and walks free today.
The jury thought by not having Corinnes body there was a chance her mother (for which there was no proof offered) sold her into some kind of child business.
This jury's doubts were unreasonable to me, and I will alway think of poor Corinne and her family whenever I think of injustice.

 

[Brini]

This dovetails nicely w/ my post earlier about why I think an "applied logic test" as Wudge has deemed necessary would be flawed. Many people do not function well when you put them in a testing situation, yet they have the necessary intelligence and applied logic skills to serve on these professional juries that are being proposed here. I once knew a man who was so intelligent he leap frogged numerous grades and graduated from college in his teens. But he lived in his head so much, his personal life suffered. He could not use common sense and apply logic, and had difficulties b/c of it. Good old fashioned horse sense, and good listening habits is all a good juror needs, IMO.

Exactly! And, there are so many flaws inherent in tests.

Psychometrics are often culturally biased, and not that reliable re: "street smarts." They are easily manipulated (we used to do that in senior year). They are not reliably predictive.

And, really creative, intelligent people sometimes score poorly, because they come up with solutions to the questions that are "off norm." That os, the farther above the average, the less reliable the score often is.

I'm just not sure common sense can be tested.

If it CAN be, I don't know the instrument. IMHO it's indispensable to a juror.

 

[Marina2]

how would you know what is "reasonable to me"?
Go back to the original post where I said I think some people have unreasonable doubt.
"if you think reasonable doubt is unreasonable" Does that statement even make sense to you? Does this argument even sound reasonable (tongue in cheek). That statement is enough to make the computer run thru billions of line of code right there.
I've made my statement and stick by it.

Imbackon:
"What I am saying, is that the reasonable doubt part is oftentimes too unreasonable, aka CSI effect."

I don't know what's reasonable to you and never said that I did. Looking at what you said above, I take it that you think reasonable doubt is unreasonable. And no, that statement doesn't make sense to me but you said it, not me. I responded that the only way to change reasonable doubt and to make it more reasonable to you ala, the CSI effect, is to lower the burden of proof. I further contend that that is not possible so, unreasonable or not, it remains.

 

[Imbackon]

Imbackon:
"What I am saying, is that the reasonable doubt part is oftentimes too unreasonable, aka CSI effect."

I don't know what's reasonable to you and never said that I did. Looking at what you said above, I take it that you think reasonable doubt is unreasonable. And no, that statement doesn't make sense to me but you said it, not me. I responded that the only way to change reasonable doubt and to make it more reasonable to you ala, the CSI effect, is to lower the burden of proof. I further contend that that is not possible so, unreasonable or not, it remains.

"oftentimes too unreasonable" are the key words here. I did not say reasonable doubt was unreasonable as a blanket statement, where you imply I have. Read my example of unreasonable doubt in the Robert Gueverra case I wrote about above.
In the end, I have a right to believe that some jurors are unreasonable in their doubts regarding guilt.
Lets not go round and round with this anymore and agree to disagree as we are probably boring the pants off others.

 

[chefmom]

"oftentimes too unreasonable" are the key words here. I did not say reasonable doubt was unreasonable as a blanket statement, where you imply I have. Read my example of unreasonable doubt in the Robert Gueverra case I wrote about above.
In the end, I have a right to believe that some jurors are unreasonable in their doubts regarding guilt. Lets not go round and round with this anymore and agree to disagree as we are probably boring the pants off others.

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:

 

[Marina2]

"oftentimes too unreasonable" are the key words here. I did not say reasonable doubt was unreasonable as a blanket statement, where you imply I have. Read my example of unreasonable doubt in the Robert Gueverra case I wrote about above.
In the end, I have a right to believe that some jurors are unreasonable in their doubts regarding guilt.
Lets not go round and round with this anymore and agree to disagree as we are probably boring the pants off others.

Yeah, I'm done with that. It's boring the pants off me as well.

As far the Gueverra case, some might not think the jury decision was unreasonable. 17 years ago, DNA evidence wasn't as widely accepted as today. The prosecutor wasn't even allowed to use statistical analysis to link the DNA and blood to eiither the defendant or the victim. (no CSI effect back then). The defense suggested that the clothes were planted in the unlocked storage shed by LE and they played a tape recording of a phone call the detectives received from a girl who claimed to be Corinne. The jury may have thought the man was guilty but couldn't convict because the prosecution didn't meet the high burden of proof required of them.

 

[kaRN]

Neutralizing strategies for both prosecution and defense aside, I find it amazing that ANY case would include inculpatory evidence that even met much less exceeded 99% certainty in toto. Even evidence not-considered circumstantial, like eyewitnesses or perhaps very clear surveillance films are always subject to some sort of question (whether it's ultimately that reasonable or not).

I still also find it highly improbable to see how a small sample of people can look at the same piece of evidence and agree on the exact same percentage of certainty it represents. I'm sure many of our friends in the psychological, sociological or neurological sciences (not to mention various semanticians, linguists or certain marketing analytics types) would find that possibility not only astonishing but unrealistic as well and I would love to hear how some of these professionals view the general feasibility of entire subject or argument.

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.