Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Wudge]

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.

In your example, you cited three pieces of evidence. That's fine. That can certainly work. I have no problem with your example.

Nevertheless, to support a guilty verdict in any case, at least ONE item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence must proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lin]

In your example, you cited three pieces of evidence. That's fine. That can certainly work. I have no problem with your example.

Nevertheless, to support a guilty verdict in any case, at least ONE item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence must proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

BBM

The evidence must be proved to be true; and must be proved to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If that's what you're saying, I agree. If you're saying a single piece of evidence must prove KC's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I strongly disagree. Would you please rephrase and/or elaborate?

ETA: Or credible, as in the case of testimony.

2nd ETA: Misty water colored memory from way back when is that the evidence must be credible and doesn't set a firm standard. Criminal lawyers?

 

[Wudge]

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.

To reach a guilty verdict in a case based on circumstantial evidence, our criminal standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt (reliability level of evidence -- degree of certainty). If a jury deems that no inculpatory circumstantial evidence (not a single item) is proved reliable to that level, then, by definition, there is insufficient evidence (none meets required standard) to support a "guilty" verdict.

As for my definition, I have previously explained that I hold "proof beyond a reasonable doubt to have a degree of certainty > 99% (reliability) -- the corresponding degree of uncertainty is necessarily <1% (error rate).

HTH

 

[marspiter]

In your example, you cited three pieces of evidence. That's fine. That can certainly work. I have no problem with your example.

Nevertheless, to support a guilty verdict in any case, at least ONE item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence must proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

See based on my example when you say "Nevertheless, to support a guilty verdict in any case, at least ONE item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence must proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

To me that means you are saying that the finger print, or any of the other evidence items in the example I used must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in and of itself as a stand alone only piece of evidence.

So for the gun example the finger print must by itself and by itself only. Prove guilt with out the other evidence present. That's what I understand you to be saying and what i felt your argument was. Is this incorrect?

 

[marspiter]

lin said it better then me.

"The evidence must be proved to be true; and must be proved to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If that's what you're saying, I agree. If you're saying a single piece of evidence must prove KC's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I strongly disagree. Would you please rephrase and/or elaborate?"

 

[kushka]

In your example, you cited three pieces of evidence. That's fine. That can certainly work. I have no problem with your example.

Nevertheless, to support a guilty verdict in any case, at least ONE item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence must proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What you are saying is not true, as has been pointed out by other posters time and time again, with large amount of quotes from sources. No one item of information has to be proved true beyond a reasonable doubt, but all the evidence taken together as a whole must point to reasonable doubt.

I just had to post on this, because I found this discussion so very interesting until it became bogged down with this point - which you continue to argue, stating it as fact, not an opinion - and never posting a reasonable source, that I have gotten so frustrated that I am leaving this board for awhile. By all

 

[Wudge]

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.

I'm not concerned with "each" piece of inculpatory circumstantial evidence in any trial being deemed to be fact. What's paramount is that before a jury can rely on an item (or items) of inculpatory circumstantial evidence to reach an inferred conclusion of guilty, that item (or items) must be first be proved to be true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (reliability level -- degree of certainty level).


[My posted instruction from the Peterson trial ends with: "each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."]

 

[lin]

I was wrong.

The more I think about it, the more I believe the standard is "credible" evidence to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps that standard was raised in Peterson. I just don't see how anyone's opinion can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt or how much of any testimony could be proven to that degree. Amy can testify: I loaned her my car. That may be credible, but I don't see how/why it's necessary to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt; present pictures of KC driving the car and numerous witnesses that saw her driving it, etc. It would take years to litigate a traffic ticket.

 

[Wudge]

lin said it better then me.

"The evidence must be proved to be true; and must be proved to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If that's what you're saying, I agree. If you're saying a single piece of evidence must prove KC's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I strongly disagree. Would you please rephrase and/or elaborate?"

I have repeatedly said that in a circumstantial evidence case, there must be at least one (minimum amount required, which does not have to be as clear and convincing as your smoking gun reference) item of inculpatory evidence that the jury deems to be proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If "at least" one such item does not exist, then insufficient evidence exists to support a verdict of guilty.

(A jury cannot find that zero such evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of "guilty".)

 

[AZlawyer]

To reach a guilty verdict in a case based on circumstantial evidence, our criminal standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt (reliability level of evidence -- degree of certainty). If a jury deems that no inculpatory circumstantial evidence (not a single item) is proved reliable to that level, then, by definition, there is insufficient evidence (none meets required standard) to support a "guilty" verdict.

As for my definition, I have previously explained that I hold "proof beyond a reasonable doubt to have a degree of certainty > 99% (reliability) -- the corresponding degree of uncertainty is necessarily <1% (error rate).

HTH

The requirement is that the evidence (taken as a whole) must be PROBATIVE of (i.e., tend to prove) guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. RELIABILITY is something different. There is no requirement that evidence must be reliable beyond a reasonable doubt. The air tests, for example, might be challenged on their reliability, but they don't have to be "reliable beyond a reasonable doubt" to get admitted as evidence--or for the jury to rely on them as part of their mountain of evidence to get to the conclusion that Caylee's body in the trunk has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, George and Cindy's identification of the decomp odor is not "reliable beyond a reasonable doubt", but can still be thrown into the pile of evidence on the "Caylee's body was in the trunk" side of the scale in an effort to reach a PROBATIVE value of evidence that shows this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have repeatedly said that in a circumstantial evidence case, there must be at least one (minimum amount required, which does not have to be as clear and convincing as your smoking gun reference) item of inculpatory evidence that the jury deems to be proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If "at least" one such item does not exist, then insufficient evidence exists to support a verdict of guilty.

(A jury cannot find that zero such evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of "guilty".)

Evidence does not get proved true. Facts get proved true by evidence.

 

[MissJames]

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......................... )

Respectfully Wudge,
We,who are trying to follow and process this argument,might have a better chance of understanding it if you would leave the original quote in tact and bold the section you wish to reply to. When I read your answers it's hard to get the gist without going back and finding the original post. I appreciate the effort you are taking to educate us and this would be a great help to me.
Thanks :blowkiss:

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Thank you lin, for posting the info. I'm not done reading thru it. I think it serves this discusson well.

At the end of the day, I think the jury in KC's case will look at the totality (this term has been used here numerous times, so I'm borrowing it.) of the evidence. And that totality is staggering. I don't think they are going to sweat it: That if one piece of inculpatory evidence is not proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that they will then toss the whole guilty verdict out the window. As has been asked countless times for a citation, a credible source that they would have to do just that....Well, it would seem we are still waiting. But in the end, I don't give a rat's........paw. I think the jury will look at those photos of the tape applied in mutliple strips over her mouth and nose, finished off w/ a heart sticker, and put two and two and together. I keep going back to the one defense atty on NG who said once, *Well, you just can't win a child murder case*. And I can't think of a case (but I could be wrong) where the totality of the evidence (circumstantial though it might be) is so overwhelming.

 

[Pink Panther]

"Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that each piece corroborates the other pieces (the pieces then become [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroborating_evidence"]corroborating evidence[/ame]). Together they support more strongly the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference"]inference[/ame] that the assertion is true."

"One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt."

"A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. In fact many successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence."

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence[/ame]

: )

 

[marspiter]

I have repeatedly said that in a circumstantial evidence case, there must be at least one (minimum amount required, which does not have to be as clear and convincing as your smoking gun reference) item of inculpatory evidence that the jury deems to be proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If "at least" one such item does not exist, then insufficient evidence exists to support a verdict of guilty.

(A jury cannot find that zero such evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of "guilty".)

Ok once again. You are saying that one piece of evidence in a case, by itself must prove guilt? So you are saying as in the gun example. The finger print alone must prove guilt. Yes or No?

 

[Pink Panther]

Thank you lin, for posting the info. I'm not done reading thru it. I think it serves this discusson well.

At the end of the day, I think the jury in KC's case will look at the totality (this term has been used here numerous times, so I'm borrowing it.) of the evidence. And that totality is staggering. I don't think they are going to sweat it: That if one piece of inculpatory evidence is not proved true at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that they will then toss the whole guilty verdict out the window. As has been asked countless times for a citation, a credible source that they would have to do just that....Well, it would seem we are still waiting. But in the end, I don't give a rat's........paw. I think the jury will look at those photos of the tape applied in mutliple strips over her mouth and nose, finished off w/ a heart sticker, and put two and two and together. I keep going back to the one defense atty on NG who said once, *Well, you just can't win a child murder case*. And I can't think of a case (but I could be wrong) where the totality of the evidence (circumstantial though it might be) is so overwhelming.

I totally agree with you. I think those of us who are still here discussing this issue have been immersed in the case far too long. There are no alternatives. No one else has come up as a possible suspect. No other scenario has presented itself as plausible. The only situation in which she (KC) won't be found guilty is through "glitches" in legal procedure. In fact, her defence is filing motion after motion in the hopes that they will find something (other than evidence) that could work in her favor now or in the future through appeal.

MOO

 

[AZlawyer]

A little thought experiment re: cumulative evidence.

Suppose the State's attorney says: this coin is fixed to come up heads. To demonstrate this, the SA flips the coin once and it comes up heads. Well, you say, there was a 50-50 chance of that happening anyway--doesn't prove much. So the SA keeps flipping the coin, for a total of 10 flips. They all come up heads. No one coin flip proves much by itself. But the cumulative total of the 10 coin flips proves a lot. A fair coin would come up with 10 heads in a row about 0.0009765625 percent of the time. I think the SA has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the coin is fixed.

 

[Wudge]

The requirement is that the evidence (taken as a whole) must be PROBATIVE of (i.e., tend to prove) guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. RELIABILITY is something different. There is no requirement that evidence must be reliable beyond a reasonable doubt. The air tests, for example, might be challenged on their reliability, but they don't have to be "reliable beyond a reasonable doubt" to get admitted as evidence--or for the jury to rely on them as part of their mountain of evidence to get to the conclusion that Caylee's body in the trunk has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, George and Cindy's identification of the decomp odor is not "reliable beyond a reasonable doubt", but can still be thrown into the pile of evidence on the "Caylee's body was in the trunk" side of the scale in an effort to reach a PROBATIVE value of evidence that shows this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Probative evidence (both direct and circumstantial) is also used to obtain a criminal indictment. That same probative evidence can obviously be ruled admissable in the criminal trial. However, in a criminal trial based on circumstantial evidence (no direct evidence), the triers-of-fact (the jury) must first deem any item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" before they can rely on that item of evidence to support an inferred conclusion of "guilty". If the jury finds that not a single item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict must necessarily be "not guilty".

As for your examples, the focus has been on evidence that could support the elements necessary to prove the first-degree murder charge. Caylee's body in the trunk can't prove that by itself, but I would have no problem with a jury finding that to be a fact. However, it's not a fact that, by itself, can be inferred to a support the necessary elements of murder one, such as intent or premeditation or reflection. If you want to add evidence of air quality to evidence of Casey's body being in the trunk and develop multiple items of evidence to an inferred conclusion of guilt, be my guest -- though I'm not sure that is where you intend or hoped to go.

 

[marspiter]

A little thought experiment re: cumulative evidence.

Suppose the State's attorney says: this coin is fixed to come up heads. To demonstrate this, the SA flips the coin once and it comes up heads. Well, you say, there was a 50-50 chance of that happening anyway--doesn't prove much. So the SA keeps flipping the coin, for a total of 10 flips. They all come up heads. No one coin flip proves much by itself. But the cumulative total of the 10 coin flips proves a lot. A fair coin would come up with 10 heads in a row about 0.0009765625 percent of the time. I think the SA has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the coin is fixed.

Thank you for this simplistic easy to understand example.

Based on this example here it would seem to me that Wudge is saying the one coin flip must prove the coin is fixed, and what lin, myself, and others are saying is that you must look at all the coin flips together as you pointed out in this example.

Once again thank you.

 

[Wudge]

Ok once again. You are saying that one piece of evidence in a case, by itself must prove guilt?

SNIP

No.

Next time please quote me.