Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[marspiter]

No.

Next time please quote me.

I did quote you and asked if that is what you were saying.

You said:

"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".)"


I asked:

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?

You just answered No to my question above.

Thank you, and that answers my question then and I agree. One single piece of evidence does not have to prove guilt on its own.

 

[Wudge]

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.

Flips on a coin that's not fixed are independent events. In your example, you would hope to show that a defendant is guilty of using a fixed coin (outcome not independent, rather it was dependent on a fixed coin) by comparing the statiscal outcome of a very large number of flips (far greater than 10) with that coin that you had an expert control and flip, and then compare that outcome to the expected outcome established by probability theory -- say comparing outcomes for a confidence level of 99% and a sample error of +/- 1%.

If the circumstance of your expert's controlled flips produced a significant deviation from the expected value, you would have your expert testify and present as evidence their results along with the expected value. The jury would decide if he was truthful and credible or not and/or that his test was sufficient to prove your charge beyond a reasonable doubt.


[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.]

[

 

[Brini]

But, as someone pointed out.. W's solution to the issue of the highly intelligent professional jurors is already in place. KC can opt for trial by judge.

 

[Wudge]

I did quote you and asked if that is what you were saying.

You said:

"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".)"


I asked:

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?

You just answered No to my question above.

Thank you, and that answers my question then and I agree. One single piece of evidence does not have to prove guilt on its own.

Please note, I said "AT LEAST" one. "At least" one is not the same as saying ONE.

HTH

 

[Searchfortruth]

So, in the end we are still talking about what is "reasonable". We all know that is a subjective finding, my "reasonable" may not be yours. IMO, that's where life experience, common sense and yes, logic comes into play. We have a trained cadaver dog that hit on Casey's trunk, homicide detectives testify to the smell of human decomp in Casey's trunk, and the air tests show chemicals of decomposition in Casey's trunk...plus the tow lot Mgr and his statement that the smell, in Casey's trunk, was more like the smell of the car that held a dead man for five days than garbage. Casey texts her friend about the awful smell in her car, about a week after Caylee was last seen, and then abandons her car at the Amscot...she does not come back for this car and in three days it's towed to a tow yard. Casey's father, George (ex-LE) was worried that his Granddaughter was in the trunk when he first opens the door of the car, at the tow yard, he later tells LE that you never forget the smell of human decomposition.

If the above is not enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a deceased Caylee was in her mother's trunk, I don't know what is.

 

[marspiter]

Please note, I said "AT LEAST" one. "At least" one is not the same as saying ONE.

HTH

Now see to me that makes it sound like your trying to confuse the issue again by arguing semantics.

Again I asked:

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?

You said NO!

Which to me means that multiple pieces of evidence (as in the gun example)can be combined to establish guilt. As AZlawyer mentioned cumulative evidence.

 

[Brini]

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.

As was the case in the trial of Busk (?), I believe. The plastic bag was part of the same roll from Busk's house that was found on the victim. I fingerprint was, I believe, found on the plastic bag, on the victim.

The circumstances worked together. One would not have been enough.

 

[Pink Panther]

So, in the end we are still talking about what is "reasonable". We all know that is a subjective finding, my "reasonable" may not be yours. IMO, that's where life experience, common sense and yes, logic comes into play. We have a trained cadaver dog that hit on Casey's trunk, homicide detectives testify to the smell of human decomp in Casey's trunk, and the air tests show chemicals of decomposition in Casey's trunk...plus the tow lot Mgr and his statement that the smell, in Casey's trunk, was more like the smell of the car that held a dead man for five days than garbage. Casey texts her friend about the awful smell in her car, about a week after Caylee was last seen, and then abandons her car at the Amscot...she does not come back for this car and in three days it's towed to a tow yard. Casey's father, George (ex-LE) was worried that his Granddaughter was in the trunk when he first opens the door of the car, at the tow yard, he later tells LE that you never forget the smell of human decomposition.

If the above is not enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a deceased Caylee was in her mother's trunk, I don't know what is.

Excellent summary about that "damn" smell Search! And you're only talking about ONE single part of the total circumstantial case! Just one piece of evidence!

She's cooked. (And deserves to be.)

MOO

 

[Wudge]

Now see to me that makes it sound like your trying to confuse the issue again by arguing semantics.

Again I asked:

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?

You said NO!

Which to me means that multiple pieces of evidence (as in the gun example)can be combined to establish guilt. As AZlawyer mentioned cumulative evidence.

It's not semantics. Saying ONE is not the same as saying AT LEAST ONE. I never set the firm condition of only "ONE".

 

[lin]

Flips on a coin that's not fixed are independent events. In your example, you would hope to show that a defendant is guilty of using a fixed coin (outcome not independent, rather it was dependent on a fixed coin) by comparing the statiscal outcome of a very large number of flips (far greater than 10) with that coin that you had an expert control and flip, and then compare that outcome to the expected outcome established by probability theory -- say comparing outcomes for a confidence level of 99% and a sample error of +/- 1%.

If the circumstance of your expert's controlled flips produced a significant deviation from the expected value, you would have your expert testify and present as evidence their results along with the expected value. The jury would decide if he was truthful and credible or not and/or that his test was sufficient to prove your charge beyond a reasonable doubt.


[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.]

[

Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.

There is no need to dissect the fine points of a simple illustration, imo. And I agree with the conclusion reached in AZlawyer's hypo. While it's statistically possible that the coin flipper just had a long streak of luck in hitting the same side of the coin, each side having a probability of 50/50 on each flip, it's very, very farfetched.

Thank you for giving a good example of "unreasonable doubt" imo.

 

[marspiter]

It's not semantics. Saying ONE is not the same as saying AT LEAST ONE. I never set the firm condition of only "ONE".

In my question I said:

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?


In the context of the question you had to have one piece of evidence that proves guilt by itself.....that could mean you have more then one but you have to have one. That is the way I had written it in the context and the way it was implied.

"At least one" means you have to have one, and could be more which is basically saying the same thing.

Regardless you said no to the above question and I take that to mean multiple pieces of evidence can be used to prove guilt.

 

[lin]

To (hopefully) close out this facet of the discussion, and please correct if I misunderstand, (again):

1. Wudge has made repeated posts that I (mis)understood to indicate that each single piece of evidence must in and of itself, alone, prove KC's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I and others strenuously argued this contention.

2. It now appears that Wudge has attempted to clear up this misunderstanding by rephrasing to indicate that the intent was to show that:

a) Each fact that the jury relies upon to convict must be a proven fact. A mere allegation by the prosecution is not a fact; they must present evidence showing that it is a fact. For example, the state can't allege Caylee was in the car trunk without providing evidence to support that contention.

b) If a fact is not proven, the jury cannot use it as a building block in the totality of the evidence to reach a guilty verdict. If the state does not present evidence proving that Caylee was in the car trunk, the jury may not consider this as part of the basis for conviction. If the state only presents the air sample tests to prove Caylee's presence in the trunk and the jury doesn't trust/believe this test, perhaps swayed by a 'junk science' argument, then they can't later say: KC was the last one with Caylee and Caylee's body was in KC's trunk and therefore, KC was last to have her alive and had possession of her deceased; along with her behavior, etc. we're going to convict.

Hope I got that right and hope that ends this facet of the debate.

 

[marspiter]

To (hopefully) close out this facet of the discussion, and please correct if I misunderstand, (again):

1. Wudge has made repeated posts that I (mis)understood to indicate that each single piece of evidence must in and of itself, alone, prove KC's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I and others strenuously argued this contention.

2. It now appears that Wudge has attempted to clear up this misunderstanding by rephrasing to indicate that the intent was to show that:

a) Each fact that the jury relies upon to convict must be a proven fact. A mere allegation by the prosecution is not a fact; they must present evidence showing that it is a fact. For example, the state can't allege Caylee was in the car trunk without providing evidence to support that contention.

b) If a fact is not proven, the jury cannot use it as a building block in the totality of the evidence to reach a guilty verdict. If the state does not present evidence proving that Caylee was in the car trunk, the jury may not consider this as part of the basis for conviction. If the state only presents the air sample tests to prove Caylee's presence in the trunk and the jury doesn't trust/believe this test, perhaps swayed by a 'junk science' argument, then they can't later say: KC was the last one with Caylee and Caylee's body was in KC's trunk and therefore, KC was last to have her alive and had possession of her deceased; along with her behavior, etc. we're going to convict.

Hope I got that right and hope that ends this facet of the debate.

Thank you. I think that sums it up in a nut shell, and is better then I can word it.

 

[lin]

In my question I said:

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?


In the context of the question you had to have one piece of evidence that proves guilt by itself.....that could mean you have more then one but you have to have one. That is the way I had written it in the context and the way it was implied.

"At least one" means you have to have one, and could be more which is basically saying the same thing.

Regardless you said no to the above question and I take that to mean multiple pieces of evidence can be used to prove guilt.

I think I misunderstood and influenced others with my flawed interpretation. I think Wudge is saying that the evidence to support something being found as a fact by the jury, such as KC was the last one seen with Caylee, must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I am leaning more to credibly proven but that's another debate.

Anyway, once proof that KC was the last one seen with Caylee is presented and accepted, this becomes a single fact which will later become the totality of the evidence. Conversely, if the state fails to prove that KC was the last one seen with a live Caylee, this is therefore NOT a fact and can't be used to support a guilty verdict.

I think the debate is the standard of proof necessary to establish a fact, not the standard of proof necessary to establish KC's guilt. The accumulation of proven facts will then establish KC's guilt, or fail to. (Yeah, right, fail to. <snicker>

 

[Wudge]

In my question I said:

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?


In the context of the question you had to have one piece of evidence that proves guilt by itself.....that could mean you have more then one but you have to have one. That is the way I had written it in the context and the way it was implied.

"At least one" means you have to have one, and could be more which is basically saying the same thing.

Regardless you said no to the above question and I take that to mean multiple pieces of evidence can be used to prove guilt.

Originally you asked: "You are saying that one piece of evidence in a case, by itself must prove guilt?"

To which I answered: No. ("No", was based on your thought that I was saying that "one piece of evidence, by itself, must prove guilt)


Now you query: "I take that to mean multiple pieces of evidence can be used to prove guilt."

My answer is: Yes. (For example, I believe I said that I had no problem with your hypo of a gun, a bullet and a fingerprint.)

Please understand, in a circumsantial evidence case, there's no upside limit on the number of items of inculpatory circumstantial evidence a jury could find to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if they did not find at least one item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that would mean that they deemed zero inculpatory evidence to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which represents reasonable doubt and, in turn, supports a verdict of "not guilty".

 

[marspiter]

Originally you asked: "You are saying that one piece of evidence in a case, by itself must prove guilt?"

To which I answered: No. ("No", was based on your thought that I was saying that "one piece of evidence, by itself, must prove guilt)


Now you query: "I take that to mean multiple pieces of evidence can be used to prove guilt."

My answer is: Yes. (For example, I believe I said that I had no problem with your hypo of a gun, a bullet and a fingerprint.)

Please understand, in a circumsantial evidence case, there's no upside limit on the number of items of inculpatory circumstantial evidence a jury could find to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if they did not find at least one item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that would mean that they deemed zero inculpatory evidence to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which represents reasonable doubt and, in turn, supports a verdict of "not guilty".

Thank you for that clarification. I now understand what you are saying.

 

[Wudge]

Thank you for that clarification. I now understand what you are saying.

(a big tip of my hat)

 

[AZlawyer]

Originally you asked: "You are saying that one piece of evidence in a case, by itself must prove guilt?"

To which I answered: No. ("No", was based on your thought that I was saying that "one piece of evidence, by itself, must prove guilt)


Now you query: "I take that to mean multiple pieces of evidence can be used to prove guilt."

My answer is: Yes. (For example, I believe I said that I had no problem with your hypo of a gun, a bullet and a fingerprint.)

Please understand, in a circumsantial evidence case, there's no upside limit on the number of items of inculpatory circumstantial evidence a jury could find to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if they did not find at least one item of inculpatory circumstantial evidence to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that would mean that they deemed zero inculpatory evidence to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which represents reasonable doubt and, in turn, supports a verdict of "not guilty".

OK...honestly trying to understand here...

You can't really mean that at least one item of EVIDENCEhas to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because evidence doesn't get proved...evidence is what you USE to prove FACTS. So do you mean that the jury must find, from the totality of whatever evidence is presented, at least one FACT proved beyond a reasonable doubt that supports each ELEMENT of the crime?

In other words, are you saying, for example, that if the jury has to find premeditation as one element of one count, they have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one fact exists in support of that element? If so, that makes a lot more sense than what we've been talking about up until now.

 

[JBean]

No.

Next time please quote me.

LOL, I think I am the only one here that understands what you are saying.
I urge everyone to clear your minds as to what you think i being said and re read the posts.

 

[JBean]

Thank you for that clarification. I now understand what you are saying.

Woohoo!