Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Wudge]

Furthermore this is not what the jury instructions say.

According to the Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.1
It says:
"It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the
killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the
existence of premeditation at the time of the killing."

It says nothing about needing a single piece of a single piece of inculpatory evidence. Based on the jury instructions it says the jury is allowed to look at all the evidence when it says both the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused. That's not a single piece of inculpatory evidence. Also note that circumstances is plural and the way conduct is used. Meaning multiple pieces of evidence.

So where exactly do the jury instructions say otherwise? To me it seems to contradict your statement about a single piece of inculpatory evidence , or is that just your own opinion of what it should say and not what it actually says?

"Circumstances of the killing" (such as tape over the mouth and nose) represents inculpatory evidence. "Conduct of the accused" represents corroborative evidence (tends to support, not inculpate). Thus, the instruction you reference refers to a situation where circumstantial inculpatory evidence exists to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inculpatory evidence is satisfactorily supported in the minds of the jurors by corroborative evidence (defendant's behavior) that's produced at trial. Moreover, the instruction says that combination of evidence (inculpatory + corroborative) is sufficient under the law to support a "guilty" verdict. I agree.

However, in your earlier post, you stated that you agreed with me in that no single item of inculpatory evidence reliably rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If one such item of evidence does not exists, two such items of evidence obviously cannot exist, nor can three, four, etc.. Without at least one such item of inculpatory evidence rising to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all the corroborative evidence in the world would mean nothing (corroborative evidence in the form of behavior is deemed bountiful in this case), because there is no inculpatory evidence of sufficient reliability to corroborate.

Now, we discussed the quality of Florida's standard jury instruction elsewhere (another thread). I know we agreed that the element "intent" is required for a murder one conviction, yet Florida's murder one instruction mentions it not. I also demonstrated via a hypo (Mother walking her daughter and two neices) that the element of malice is necessary too. I don't think you disagree on this either, yet (like intent) the element of malice is not cited by Florida. In the end, I believe we agreed that neither of us would say the quality of the murder one instruction was good or clear.

By my measure, Florida's standard instructions leave a lot to be desired -- as do the standard instuctions in other states. Nonetheless, the trial Judge, the defense and the prosecution will deliver to the jury a much refined set of jury instructions. One of those instructions will be a basic boilerplate instruction that explains to the jury (instructs them) that if they intend to use an inferred conclusion to establish guilt, then each fact that the inference rests upon must have first been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


HTH

 

[lin]

Pretty much agree with lin here unless you can site other wise Wudge.

Show me case citation that proves what you are saying. Show me a case where each piece of evidence in and of its own accord must be deemed as you say.

Lets keep this simple. You can have a gun, a finger print, and a bullet. The finger print is found on the gun, the bullet matches the gun and the bullet is found in the victims body. The finger print matches the defendant. It takes all the evidence combined to piece together the story and show the defendant used the gun to shoot the victim.

Which is basically what was done in Scott. The jury reached its conviction based on all the circumstantial evidence combined. The appeals courts upheld that decision.

Ditto. And to elaborate on an example I've already used in this thread:

Defendant is accused of rape and murder. His DNA in victim alone is not going to prove the rape or the murder. Other evidence would be required for the jury to infer he raped the victim, such as the defendant claiming he'd never met the victim nor had he ever had sexual relations with her. The DNA alone doesn't show this; results of LE interviews are required and the jury must connect the dots; infer or conclude that a rape occurred. This doesn't prove that the defendant murdered the victim. The state would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant also murdered the victim, proving each statutorily required element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Separate from the above, as a different scenario, just murder, I'll adopt marspiters ballistics/fingerprint analogy and add that other evidence would have to be adduced showing the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime. His fingerprints on his gun with matching ballistics to murder weapon could be disputed by a showing of, for example, the defendant is on his 3rd tour of duty in Afghanistan and had not been stateside for months prior to the murder and in fact, returned based upon the current charges.

No single piece of evidence must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nor should anyone expect any single piece of evidence to prove this. It appears to be impossible to me.

I concede that I may be misunderstanding Wudge's posts that seem to indicate this and without re-reading them will posit the possibility that Wudge's meaning is to the reliability of the evidence, not that any single piece need carry the day. Eyewitness testimony should be credible to a high degree of certainty; the ballistics should be credible to a high degree of certainty; the chain of custody of evidence should be so reliable; etc. If any of the pieces of evidence used to form the total picture are unreliable, then they should not be relied upon. But if this is the true meaning, I sure wish Wudge had told us all and saved a whole lot of posting contrary to the understood meanings.

 

[Tuba]

In Florida, the elements of ANY crime typically include an act or the omission to act, intent to commit the act and causation, wherein the act and the intent result in the crime.

A jury will not be left uneducated as to intent.

 

[lin]

"Circumstances of the killing" (such as tape over the mouth and nose) represents inculpatory evidence. "Conduct of the accused" represents corroborative evidence (tends to support, not inculpate). Thus, the instruction you reference refers to a situation where circumstantial inculpatory evidence exists to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inculpatory evidence is satisfactorily supported in the minds of the jurors by corroborative evidence (defendant's behavior) that's produced at trial. Moreover, the instruction says that combination of evidence (inculpatory + corroborative) is sufficient under the law to support a "guilty" verdict. I agree.

However, in your earlier post, you stated that you agreed with me in that no single item of inculpatory evidence reliably rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If one such item of evidence does not exists, two such items of evidence obviously cannot exist, nor can three, four, etc.. Without at least one such item of inculpatory evidence rising to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all the corroborative evidence in the world would mean nothing (corroborative evidence in the form of behavior is deemed bountiful in this case), because there is no inculpatory evidence of sufficient reliability to corroborate.

Now, we discussed the quality of Florida's standard jury instruction elsewhere (another thread). I know we agreed that the element "intent" is required for a murder one conviction, yet Florida's murder one instruction mentions it not. I also demonstrated via a hypo (Mother walking her daughter and two neices) that the element of malice is necessary too. I don't think you disagree on this either, yet (like intent) the element of malice is not cited by Florida. In the end, I believe we agreed that neither of us would say the quality of the murder one instruction was good or clear.

By my measure, Florida's standard instructions leave a lot to be desired -- as do the standard instuctions in other states. Nonetheless, the trial Judge, the defense and the prosecution will deliver to the jury a much refined set of jury instructions. One of those instructions will be a basic boilerplate instruction that explains to the jury (instructs them) that if they intend to use an inferred conclusion to establish guilt, then each fact that the inference rests upon must have first been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


HTH

Would you please cite your reference for determining that behavior is 'corroborative' rather than 'inculpatory'? I refer you again to Scott:

"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. "

(emphasis added)

 

[marspiter]

"Circumstances of the killing" (such as tape over the mouth and nose) represents inculpatory evidence. "Conduct of the accused" represents corroborative evidence (tends to support, not inculpate). Thus, the instruction you reference refers to a situation where circumstantial inculpatory evidence exists to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inculpatory evidence is satisfactorily supported in the minds of the jurors by corroborative evidence (defendant's behavior) that's produced at trial. Moreover, the instruction says that combination of evidence (inculpatory + corroborative) is sufficient under the law to support a "guilty" verdict. I agree.

However, in your earlier post, you stated that you agreed with me in that no single item of inculpatory evidence reliably rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If one such item of evidence does not exists, two such items of evidence obviously cannot exist, nor can three, four, etc.. Without at least one such item of inculpatory evidence rising to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all the corroborative evidence in the world would mean nothing (corroborative evidence in the form of behavior is deemed bountiful in this case), because there is no inculpatory evidence of sufficient reliability to corroborate.

Now, we discussed the quality of Florida's standard jury instruction elsewhere (another thread). I know we agreed that the element "intent" is required for a murder one conviction, yet Florida's murder one instruction mentions it not. I also demonstrated via a hypo (Mother walking her daughter and two neices) that the element of malice is necessary too. I don't think you disagree on this either, yet (like intent) the element of malice is not cited by Florida. In the end, I believe we agreed that neither of us would say the quality of the murder one instruction was good or clear.

By my measure, Florida's standard instructions leave a lot to be desired -- as do the standard instuctions in other states. Nonetheless, the trial Judge, the defense and the prosecution will deliver to the jury a much refined set of jury instructions. One of those instructions will be a basic boilerplate instruction that explains to the jury (instructs them) that if they intend to use an inferred conclusion to establish guilt, then each fact that the inference rests upon must have first been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


HTH

Wudge I believe the points is and what lin and I have been saying is that there is what is stated in the law and the jury instructions (which were cited). You may think the jury instruction is weak and/or doesn't say certain things that it should. You then try to present your opinion of what it should say as fact. I am merely pointing out that what you are saying is not factual (according to the reading) and is your opinion. Yes we agreed on intent and other points, but just because we agree it should be there does not mean it is there. So to infer otherwise would misrepresent what it says. Furthermore saying the Judge would refine such instructions could be true but that is speculation only and what the judge may or may not modify in the instructions is not fact. The judge could decide the standard instructions are good enough.

In Scott there was no body, murder weapon, or cause of death. Yet they were able to convict, and that conviction (guilty=inculpatory) was based on a combination of evidence (totality) and not one single stand alone only piece of inculpatory evidence. That case has with stood appeals.

Not every piece of evidence in a case must stand alone and in and of itself prove guilt. A juror is allowed to determine guilt based on a combination of the evidence presented.

Once again I will ask for citation or a link to prove other wise.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Show me case citation that proves what you are saying. Show me a case where each piece of evidence in and of its own accord must be deemed as you say.

SNIP

Lets keep this simple. You can have a gun, a finger print, and a bullet. The finger print is found on the gun, the bullet matches the gun and the bullet is found in the victims body. The finger print matches the defendant. It takes all the evidence combined to piece together the story and show the defendant used the gun to shoot the victim.

SNIP

Many posters are familiar with the jury instructions in the Scott Peterson case -- I know they exist somewhere in Websleuth's archives.

If you can locate that set of instructions, you will find that instruction #38 reads: "Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

As regards your example of: a gun, a finger print and a bullet, which you relied on to claim that the defendant used the gun to shoot the victim (gun is the murder weapon), pay close attention to the following clause in the above instruction: "each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

1) Finger print on the gun matches the defendant -- fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt

2) Bullet was taken from the defendant's body -- fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt

3) Markings on the bullet in the victim's body match markings on bullets fired by the cited gun in ballistic testing -- fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt

Three facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Three facts used to establish a gun was the murder weapon and that the defendant had in his possession the particular gun that fired the bullet that killed the defendant.

(Re: each fact......................... )

 

[marspiter]

Many posters are familiar with the jury instructions in the Scott Peterson case -- I know they exist somewhere in Websleuth's archives.

If you can locate that set of instructions, you will find that instruction #38 reads: "Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury instructions for the Scott Peterson case are not the instructions for Florida. Please site or link Florida jury instructions as those particular jury instructions are for California and may not be relevant as to this case.

 

[lin]

If one shoots a person A but misses and instead kills person B, it is not a defense to say, "But I didn't intend to kill person B and had no malice toward them."

If one blows up a building, it is not a defense to murder to say, "But I didn't know anyone would be in the building and therefore had no intent or malice."

 

[lin]

The jury instructions for the Scott Peterson case are not the instructions for Florida. Please site or link Florida jury instructions as those particular jury instructions are for California and may not be relevant as to this case.

If you read those instructions again, you'll probably agree that they are reasonable and not unlike what you, I and many others have been saying all along. They are, however, quite unlike postulating that a single piece of evidence must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

IMO:

It's common sense that to circumstantially prove something, each piece of evidence must be proven. It's unreasonable to suggest that each piece must prove something; or if a piece fails to prove something, the entire premise is unreliable.

For example, for the jury to reason that Caylee's body was in the trunk and use that as part of the entirety on which they conclude guilt, they need to believe it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's body was in the trunk. They don't necessarily have to believe the air tests, if they don't think they're reliable. But just because they discount that one piece of evidence doesn't mean that can't infer the same thing based on the other evidence -- cadaver dogs, smell, etc. Nor does the single premise of the car trunk have to prove KC's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but instead, can be a piece of a whole series of evidence leading to the inference that KC did it.

Am hoping to start a dialogue on this so we can all try to figure it out. Two heads are better than one, and generally necessary if one is mine, but a whole lot of heads can flesh this out for the better understanding of all.

 

[marspiter]

As regards your example of: a gun, a finger print and a bullet, which you relied on to claim that the defendant used the gun to shoot the victim (gun is the murder weapon), pay close attention to the following clause in the above instruction: "each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

1) Finger print on the gun matches the defendant -- fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt

2) Bullet was taken from the defendant's body -- fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt

3) Markings on the bullet in the victim's body match markings on bullets fired by the cited gun in ballistic testing -- fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt

Three facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Three facts used to establish a gun was the murder weapon and that the defendant had in his possession the particular gun that fired the bullet that killed the defendant.

(Re: each fact......................... )

Now based on my very simplistic example. What I have been saying is that all three facts combined prove guilt. What I understand you to be saying is that fact number 1, 2, or 3 in and of itself must prove guilt by themselves with out the others.
Just having a finger print on the gun doesn't prove guilt until you add the other facts to it.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

In Scott there was no body, murder weapon, or cause of death. Yet they were able to convict, and that conviction (guilty=inculpatory) was based on a combination of evidence (totality) and not one single stand alone only piece of inculpatory evidence. That case has with stood appeals.

SNIP

Not every piece of evidence in a case must stand alone and in and of itself prove guilt. A juror is allowed to determine guilt based on a combination of the evidence presented.

SNIP

I never said "Scott" was decided on a single item of inculpatory inevidence.

That truth aside, for a valid guilty verdict based on circumstantial evidence at least ONE item of inculpatory evidence must meet the reliability level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Repeat: at least ONE item of inculpatory evidence. If more inculpatory evidence is proved to meet that reliability level and that evidence is needed to support an inferred conclusion of "guilt", that's great -- the more the merrier. However, for guilt to be reached via an inferred conclusion from circumstantial evidence, there must be "at least ONE" item of inculpatory evidence that meets the reliability level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your original post said that no such evidence exists in this case.

 

[JBean]

Believe me, if I could have, I would have --- it took a lot more time than I wanted to spend to edit out spaces and such to try to make it a bit smaller. However, can't link to a pay service.

ETA: But still want to thank everyone for not posting until it was finished; overly polite of y'all and appreciated. If the case had been allowed to stand in the multiple posts, it would have been much easier to follow.

PLEASE do not copy and paste from a Pay service!! Holy smokes!



Just to throw a monkey wrench into this whole conversation , we also have to factor in that the jury will not even follow the instructions and that can make it go either way.

IIRC, a juror is not to factor the sentence into their verdict. IOW, they should not let the sentence sway their decision. I THINK that is true. But in my favorite reference case, the Haidel Gang Rape trial, many of the jurors freely admitted they thought the boys were guilty but would not convict based on the sentencing structure putting the young men in prison for 50 plus years.They thought that was excessive, so they voted to acquit. The prosecutor reduced all the charges and eliminated many so that the sentence was not as severe. It worked and they were convicted.

Point being, the jurors are going to do what the jurors are going to do regardless of the instruction and that could work in anyone's favor depending on the case of course.

 

[Wudge]

Now based on my very simplistic example. What I have been saying is that all three facts combined prove guilt. What I understand you to be saying is that fact number 1, 2, or 3 in and of itself must prove guilt by themselves with out the others.
Just having a finger print on the gun doesn't prove guilt until you add the other facts to it.

Each item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence that a jury would find necessary to support an inferred conclusion of "guilty" must have first been proved to be reliable at the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There might be more than one item, but there has to be at least one item.

Your gun example established three separate items of evidence that were proved to be true and found by the jury to be fact (triers of fact) at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, (for anyone that wants to play), try doing with the tape across Caylee's face what Marspiter did in his example of a gun, bullet and fingerprints.

 

[marspiter]

Each item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence that a jury would find necessary to support an inferred conclusion of "guilty" must have first been proved to be reliable at the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There might be more than one item, but there has to be at least one item.

Your gun example established three separate items of evidence that were proved to be true and found by the jury to be fact (triers of fact) at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, (for anyone that wants to play), try doing with the tape across Caylee's face what Marspiter did in his example of a gun, bullet and fingerprints.

My understanding of your argument is not that the 3 separate items of evidence need to be proven as facts of the case but that one of those items in itself and itself only with out the others must prove guilt beyond the shadow of doubt.

Not one of those items of evidence by itself and by itself only can prove guilt (example: finding the finger print on the gun). It took all 3 items to (prints, ballistics, and evidence on body) to prove guilt for example purposes.

When I agreed with you to my understanding I was more or less saying there is no "smoking gun" that in and of its self only as a stand alone piece of evidence proves guilt (just like only the finger print in the example doesn't). I do however believe that multiple items in this case can be proven reliably and the combination of those facts like in my example of the gun prove guilt.

 

[lin]

PLEASE do not copy and paste from a Pay service!! Holy smokes!



Just to throw a monkey wrench into this whole conversation , we also have to factor in that the jury will not even follow the instructions and that can make it go either way.

IIRC, a juror is not to factor the sentence into their verdict. IOW, they should not let the sentence sway their decision. I THINK that is true. But in my favorite reference case, the Haidel Gang Rape trial, many of the jurors freely admitted they thought the boys were guilty but would not convict based on the sentencing structure putting the young men in prison for 50 plus years.They thought that was excessive, so they voted to acquit. The prosecutor reduced all the charges and eliminated many so that the sentence was not as severe. It worked and they were convicted.

Point being, the jurors are going to do what the jurors are going to do regardless of the instruction and that could work in anyone's favor depending on the case of course.

I wouldn't have posted copyrighted material; no worries. Legal services expect the user to print and use the cases; it's why we pay them.

 

[JBean]

I wouldn't have posted copyrighted material; no worries. Legal services expect the user to print and use the cases; it's why we pay them.

Oh Lin I just mean they probably wouldn't appreciate posting on the internet what others have to pay to get and there was no link.Not exactly the same as printing it and using it. I alwasy have to err on the side of caution. Just please don't do it in the future k?
Thank you for all your hard work, I appreciate it very much and I know your intentions are always honorable.

 

[Wudge]

All but "monkey wrench" SNIPPED


Point being, the jurors are going to do what the jurors are going to do regardless of the instruction and that could work in anyone's favor depending on the case of course.

Since 1976, Florida has executed 67 people. Since 1976, Florida has exonerated 19 people who were sentenced to death. Clearly, more monkey wrenches are not needed.

Florida's judicial process (as well as that of other states) is overloaded with monkey wrenches. One of those money wrenches is jury error, indeed. Knowingly or unknowingly, this includes a failure by the jury to follow jury instructions.

Today, I have focused on a false belief and/or mythical instruction that many people hold to be true or think exists. That false belief or mythical instruction being that in a circumstantial evidence case, if not a single item of inculpatory evidence is proved to be reliable at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury can still hold to be factual that all of the evidence "in total" presented at trial can rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and be validly used to support a "guilty" verdict.

It's not law. No such instruction exists anywhere. It's fallacious logic that could be deadly logic.

 

[AZlawyer]

Each item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence that a jury would find necessary to support an inferred conclusion of "guilty" must have first been proved to be reliable at the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There might be more than one item, but there has to be at least one item.

Your gun example established three separate items of evidence that were proved to be true and found by the jury to be fact (triers of fact) at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, (for anyone that wants to play), try doing with the tape across Caylee's face what Marspiter did in his example of a gun, bullet and fingerprints.

Even with the Peterson instruction you quoted, the point was that each FACT that was absolutely necessary to the conclusion of guilt had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not that, for each such fact, there had to be some single piece of EVIDENCE that proved that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, for example, the FACT that Caylee's dead body was in KC's trunk has, IMO, been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, but there are numerous items of EVIDENCE (and likely more to come) that support that fact. It is the cumulative effect of all that EVIDENCE that proves the FACT of the dead Caylee in the trunk beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every bit of evidence that is added, even if that single item of evidence only slightly tips the scale in favor of the fact that Caylee's body was in the trunk, adds to the pile of evidence that makes the scale tip sharply to the "this fact is established beyond a reasonable doubt" side of the scale.

 

[AZlawyer]

Since 1976, Florida has executed 67 people. Since 1976, Florida has exonerated 19 people who were sentenced to death. Clearly, more monkey wrenches are not needed.

Florida's judicial process (as well as that of other states) is overloaded with monkey wrenches. One of those money wrenches is jury error, indeed. Knowingly or unknowingly, this includes a failure by the jury to follow jury instructions.

Today, I have focused on a false belief and/or mythical instruction that many people hold to be true or think exists. That false belief or mythical instruction being that in a circumstantial evidence case, if not a single item of inculpatory evidence is proved to be reliable at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury can still hold to be factual that all of the evidence "in total" presented at trial can rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and be validly used to support a "guilty" verdict.

It's not law. No such instruction exists anywhere. It's fallacious logic that could be deadly logic.

I think one problem here is that you keep talking about "reliability" of evidence being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and I (and perhaps others) have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[lin]

Each item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence that a jury would find necessary to support an inferred conclusion of "guilty" must have first been proved to be reliable at the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There might be more than one item, but there has to be at least one item.

Your gun example established three separate items of evidence that were proved to be true and found by the jury to be fact (triers of fact) at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, (for anyone that wants to play), try doing with the tape across Caylee's face what Marspiter did in his example of a gun, bullet and fingerprints.

Once again, I think you misunderstand. The example was to show how even something as seemingly ironclad as ballistics is dependent on other evidence and cannot stand alone. That much was clear to me.

Imbackon and presumably the state will play and will not be limited to solely the duct tape. It will be the totality of the evidence, the car trunk, her behavior and all else that will total a guilty verdict, imo, or an acquital. No single piece of evidence, no matter how well proven, must prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Scott case shows as much as do many other cases.

Repeat for anyone that may be confused on this issue:

The state cannot simply state: Caylee's body was in the trunk of the car. The car trunk piece of evidence rests on other evidence such as the air sample tests, the smell reported by witnesses, cadaver dogs, and a hair from a dead body. The jury need not find all of the evidence supporting the car trunk to be reliable to believe Caylee's body was in the trunk. But they must find that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's body was in the trunk of the car to consider it a fact. They may disbelieve the air sample tests but accept the rest is proof enough; they may only believe the air sample tests and think the rest is junk, so long as they are convinced Caylee's body was in the trunk of that car, they may consider it a fact that Caylee's body was in the trunk of the car and use that now proven fact as one of the building blocks toward a finding of guilty.

The now proven, in this hypothetical, fact that Caylee was in the car trunk does not need to prove that KC put her there or that KC murdered her. However, this now proven fact, this building block, will be put with other facts, other building blocks and a picture will emerge. Maybe that's why it's called 'building a case.'