Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Devon]

Let's say KC wanted Caylee to just shut up.She is angry and sick of dealing with her and dealing with Cindy.She gets the duct tape and pulls a piece off,stradles Caylee with a knee on each of Caylee's arms and puts it over Caylee's mouth. Caylee continues to struggle and KC rips off another piece and puts it over her nose."That'll shut her up....for good,she thinks".A third piece goes on to make sure it sticks well.KC didn't start out to kill,but formed her plan as she was putting the tape on,in the act.
Of course ,then we have the minutes that went by as Caylee was dying and KC chose to leave the tape in place.

No, she didn't form her plan 'in the act', because the first piece of tape was not part of the act of murder since it was applied with no intent to kill. The premeditation (intent to kill) took place just prior to when she purposely decided to apply the 2nd piece that would result in suffocation and death. Premeditation is the forethought and intent that occurs before the act of murder commences, not any thought processes that might occur during it. That would just be a continuation of the pre-act intent, or not, as the case may be.

 

[tweety933]

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.

Excuse me but doesn't beyond a reasonable doubt=nearly certain......when applied to the evidence as being proven? How did you get that Wudge meant that evidence being proven=guilt being proven? First you have to prove the evidence is "certainly" evidence, before using it to conclude guilt?
Do I make any sense here?

 

[AZlawyer]

The jury will decide what evidence, if any, presented at trial represents a fact proved beyond a reasonal doubt. The trial judge will instruct the jury that they are the sole finders-of-fact. Certainly, both sides can agree to stipulate something as fact during the course of a trial, however, the jury usually determines the large measure of what evidence is fact for the purpose of deciding "guilty" or "not guilty".

As regards the first-degree murder charge against Casey, the judge will instruct the jury that, for any of the charges, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of that charge. There is no direct evidence that we know of in this case, which means that the proof for each essential element of murder one must necessarily come via an inferred conclusion, and -- as we just went through -- any facts the jury relies on to support an inferred conclusion of "guilty" must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

For example, as regards the murder one charge, I expect the judge to instuct the jury that intent (willful), premeditation (planning, perhaps reflection), deliberation (consideration or perhaps reflection) and malice (malice aforethought or implied malice) must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Please note that I do not believe Florida's model jury instruction for murder one will be copied and pasted into the final jury instructions. Florida's standard jury instruction was discussed on another thread, and my rememberance is that Florida's standard instruction did not specifically state intent (willful) or malice (malice aforethought or implied malice) as a requirement (essential element). Florida might sweep intent and malice under premeditation, -- diiferent states use different terms for these four basic elements. I expect the trial judge will greatly clarify each term that Florida currently says are essential elements of murder one.

Be that as it may, whatever they might eventually instruct the jury to be an essential element of murder one must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

OK, let's see if we can agree and make everyone happy :
1) each element of a count has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but
2) the jurors can look at the cumulative effect of all the evidence to decide whether any particular element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

As far as the instruction for murder one, IIRC, it says the death has to result from a "criminal act" of the defendant. There would then be additional instructions to cover whatever defense theories involve KC doing something non-criminal that caused Caylee's death...i.e. if KC's team presents a theory of excusable homicide, then the judge would likely instruct re: excusable homicide and then add something like this to connect it up with the instruction for murder one, "Excusable homicide is not a criminal act. If you find that the defendant committed homicide but it was an excusable homicide, you must find the defendant not guilty on Count One."

(Fla. Stat. 782.03 Excusable homicide.--Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.)

 

[Imbackon]

No, she didn't form her plan 'in the act', because the first piece of tape was not part of the act of murder since it was applied with no intent to kill. The premeditation (intent to kill) took place just prior to when she purposely decided to apply the 2nd piece that would result in suffocation and death. Premeditation is the forethought and intent that occurs before the act of murder commences, not any thought processes that might occur during it. That would just be a continuation of the pre-act intent, or not, as the case may be.

Ok, I get it.
We are correct in our examples of premedition, it is just that there is no such thing of premedition "in the act" itself.
There are some whatif's of course to this, but yes I understand, just didn't pick up on the words, in the act, meaning the act of the actual murder.

 

[Wudge]

OK, let's see if we can agree and make everyone happy :
1) each element of a count has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but
2) the jurors can look at the cumulative effect of all the evidence to decide whether any particular element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

As far as the instruction for murder one, IIRC, it says the death has to result from a "criminal act" of the defendant. There would then be additional instructions to cover whatever defense theories involve KC doing something non-criminal that caused Caylee's death...i.e. if KC's team presents a theory of excusable homicide, then the judge would likely instruct re: excusable homicide and then add something like this to connect it up with the instruction for murder one, "Excusable homicide is not a criminal act. If you find that the defendant committed homicide but it was an excusable homicide, you must find the defendant not guilty on Count One."

(Fla. Stat. 782.03 Excusable homicide.--Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.)

Other than what you mean by "cumulative effect of all the evidence to decide", I appreciate your post and agree.

Given that there is no direct evidence in this case and setting aside any evidence presented at trial that the judge might instruct the jury to be corroborative evidence, if by "cumulative effect of all the evidence to decide" you mean specific items of inculpatory circumstantial evidence that the jury decides to be fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt, I agree. In other words, any inculpatory circumstantial evidence that makes it into the jury's inculpatory fact bucket can be used by the jury to develop inferred conclusions that support a "guilty" verdict.

(This inculpatory fact bucket excludes any and all inculpatory evidence presented at trial that jury would not find to be fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt.)

 

[tweety933]

One thing the jurors can find certain, beyond any doubt is that Casey lied to investigators, she said so herself, while her daughter was supposedly missing and they wanted to help find her. What element of the crime would this be.....? Would that be a relevent element in the charges that are leveled against her?

Ok, so what if Caylee was actually just a missing kid at that point, and her mother Casey refused to help, and actually misled investigators....and now the baby is dead by whatever means and by whoever, but what if by Caseys obstification the baby could have been saved, could she still be charged with murder because she committed felony child abuse resulting in the childs death, and end up with the death penalty?

 

[Wudge]

One thing the jurors can find certain, beyond any doubt is that Casey lied to investigators, she said so herself, while her daughter was supposedly missing and they wanted to help find her. What element of the crime would this be.....? Would that be a relevent element in the charges that are leveled against her?

Ok, so what if Caylee was actually just a missing kid at that point, and her mother Casey refused to help, and actually misled investigators....and now the baby is dead by whatever means and by whoever, but what if by Caseys obstification the baby could have been saved, could she still be charged with murder because she committed felony child abuse resulting in the childs death, and end up with the death penalty?

Lying to LE (evidence after the crime) can be corroborative evidence. In and of itself, corroborative evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt. This includes multiple items of corrobative evidence; e.g., five, ten or twenty items or more of corrobative evidence -- corroborative evidence is analogous to a hamburger "bun", not the "beef".

 

[lin]

The jury will decide what evidence, if any, presented at trial represents a fact proved beyond a reasonal doubt. The trial judge will instruct the jury that they are the sole finders-of-fact. Certainly, both sides can agree to stipulate something as fact during the course of a trial, however, the jury usually determines the large measure of what evidence is fact for the purpose of deciding "guilty" or "not guilty".

As regards the first-degree murder charge against Casey, the judge will instruct the jury that, for any of the charges, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of that charge. There is no direct evidence that we know of in this case, which means that the proof for each essential element of murder one must necessarily come via an inferred conclusion, and -- as we just went through -- any facts the jury relies on to support an inferred conclusion of "guilty" must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

For example, as regards the murder one charge, I expect the judge to instuct the jury that intent (willful), premeditation (planning, perhaps reflection), deliberation (consideration or perhaps reflection) and malice (malice aforethought or implied malice) must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Please note that I do not believe Florida's model jury instruction for murder one will be copied and pasted into the final jury instructions. Florida's standard jury instruction was discussed on another thread, and my rememberance is that Florida's standard instruction did not specifically state intent (willful) or malice (malice aforethought or implied malice) as a requirement (essential element). Florida might sweep intent and malice under premeditation, -- diiferent states use different terms for these four basic elements. I expect the trial judge will greatly clarify each term that Florida currently says are essential elements of murder one.

Be that as it may, whatever they might eventually instruct the jury to be an essential element of murder one must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the reasons stated earlier, I disagree the standard for evidence is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but instead think it's more like credible. Some things that will be admitted into evidence, such as testimony, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. GA will likely testify that he saw KC and Caylee leave on Monday, with or without the added 'he put Caylee in carseat.' I see no way to prove this evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact finders will merely decide if this evidence is credible or not. Same with expert opinions, especially those that will conflict.

Still waiting for a criminal law expert to weigh in.

ETA: marspiter posted the statute; malice is not a required element in Florida and I haven't seen a recent jury instruction containing malice. Can anyone cite a case wherein malice is included or specifically disproved? TIA

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Some things that will be admitted into evidence, such as testimony, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

SNIP

Eyewitness testimony represents direct evidence -- it can establish a fact, directly. Of and by itself, if the jury finds eyewitness testimony to be true, the fact is established.

HTH

 

[lin]

In trying to understand 'malice aforethought' I've been reading a few cases. From a quick peek, it looks like malice was possibly required by FL some 30 or so years ago, not sure, just read something suggestive. However, if it ever was listed as an element, it's not now. However, I'm seeing in some cases 'malice aforethought' used interchangeably with 'intent' or with 'intent' bracketed just after so as to imply the same meaning. Same with premeditation. Now, I don't know if the meanings have evolved over time, or if I am over simplifying or just plain misunderstanding. I don't write the courts' opinions, I just read 'em. And report back, of course.

What I am also seeing is that malice aforethought is/was relative to the punishment phase. So, I guess the state would want to prove it to ensure a harsher penalty but doesn't have to, to get a conviction, if I am understanding correctly.

For your perusal:

From Stephens v. State, 787 So.2d 747 (Fla. 2001)

"...A critical facet of the individualized determination of culpability required in capital cases is the mental state with which the defendant commits the crime. Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished. The ancient concept of malice aforethought was an early attempt to focus on mental state in order to distinguish those who deserved death from those who through "Benefit of . . . Clergy" would be spared. 23 Hen. 8, ch. 1, §§ 3, 4 (1531); 1 Edw. 6, ch. 12, § 10 (1547). Over time, malice aforethought came to be inferred from the mere act of killing in a variety of circumstances; in reaction, Pennsylvania became the first American jurisdiction to distinguish between degrees of murder, reserving capital punishment to "wilful, deliberate and premeditated" killings and felony murders. 3 Pa. Laws 1794, ch. 1766, pp. 186-187 (1810). More recently, in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), the plurality opinion made clear that the defendant's mental state was critical to weighing a defendant's culpability under a system of guided discretion, vacating a death sentence imposed under an Ohio statute that did not permit the sentencing authority to take into account "[t]he absence of direct proof that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim." Id., at 608 (opinion of Burger, C.J.); see also Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (adopting position of Lockett plurality). Id. at 156."

(emphasis added)

Pratt v. State 21 Fla. Law W. D 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) also references "lesser included offenses" supporting other posts by our beloved Themis:

"In the case at bar, however, the appellant was charged with an "intent" crime, attempted second-degree (depraved mind) murder. The trial court gave appropriate instructions as to the charged and lesser-included offenses, and the verdict gave the jury the opportunity to find the appellant guilty of the charged offense; guilty of a lesser-included offense (attempted third-degree murder, attempted manslaughter, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, or battery); or not guilty. The jury convicted him of the Category 2 permissively included lesser offense of attempted third-degree (felony) murder, which does not include an intent element. A recent commentary explained, "Under the felony murder rule, state of mind is immaterial, since the malice aforethought is supplied by the felony as a constructive malice device." J. Rafael Rodriguez, "Attempted Felony Murder/--An Improbable Legal Fiction Meets Its Demise," 69 Fla. B.J. 63 (Oct. 1995). According to Gray, the convicted offense is no longer a crime in Florida, and we note that attempted third-degree (felony) murder has no necessarily included lesser offense."

(emphasis added)

Cited in another FL case and worth mentioning here as a premeditation reference: Commonwealth v. Lanoue, 392 Mass. 583, 467 N.E.2d 159 (Mass. 1984) (noting that the victim was beaten prior to her actual strangulation, demonstrating a conscious and fixed purpose to kill continuing for a length of time and warranting a finding of murder with deliberate and premeditated malice aforethought) (citations omitted).

 

[lin]

Ok, I get it.
We are correct in our examples of premedition, it is just that there is no such thing of premedition "in the act" itself.
There are some whatif's of course to this, but yes I understand, just didn't pick up on the words, in the act, meaning the act of the actual murder.

Not so fast there, pal. lol

I was just reading a Florida case that cited a Mass. case:

Commonwealth v. Lanoue, 392 Mass. 583, 467 N.E.2d 159 (Mass. 1984) (noting that the victim was beaten prior to her actual strangulation, demonstrating a conscious and fixed purpose to kill continuing for a length of time and warranting a finding of murder with deliberate and premeditated malice aforethought) (citations omitted).

Now plug that into the equation and see what you get.

 

[lin]

One thing the jurors can find certain, beyond any doubt is that Casey lied to investigators, she said so herself, while her daughter was supposedly missing and they wanted to help find her. What element of the crime would this be.....? Would that be a relevent element in the charges that are leveled against her?

Ok, so what if Caylee was actually just a missing kid at that point, and her mother Casey refused to help, and actually misled investigators....and now the baby is dead by whatever means and by whoever, but what if by Caseys obstification the baby could have been saved, could she still be charged with murder because she committed felony child abuse resulting in the childs death, and end up with the death penalty?

Actually, if you go back a bit to where we discussed the Scott case, you'll see that Scott was convicted of murder basically because his wife inexplicably disappeared and because of his behavior before and after the disappearance. It will be relevant evidence pointing to her guilt, imo.

As for the latter paragraph, I think I see what you mean but am not sure on that limited set of facts any of us can give you a good answer. Sounds like by her lying she was somehow involved and could be a 'co-conspirator' and charged, if she was cooperating with the actual murderer in furtherance of said murder. That's just an off the cuff guess based on very limited facts.

 

[Brini]

You folks are making me nuts! I've had to join SO many fan clubs, behind this thread, I've lost track of my memberships

Thanks for being SO brilliant!))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

[lin]

Lying to LE (evidence after the crime) can be corroborative evidence. In and of itself, corroborative evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt. This includes multiple items of corrobative evidence; e.g., five, ten or twenty items or more of corrobative evidence -- corroborative evidence is analogous to a hamburger "bun", not the "beef".

The Scott court upheld a conviction based almost solely on behavior of the defendant. You really should read that opinion.

ETA: From the US Supreme Court in Scott, syllabus:

"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."

 

[Wudge]

In trying to understand 'malice aforethought' I've been reading a few cases. From a quick peek, it looks like malice was possibly required by FL some 30 or so years ago, not sure, just read something suggestive. However, if it ever was listed as an element, it's not now. However, I'm seeing in some cases 'malice aforethought' used interchangeably with 'intent' or with 'intent' bracketed just after so as to imply the same meaning. Same with premeditation. Now, I don't know if the meanings have evolved over time, or if I am over simplifying or just plain misunderstanding. I don't write the courts' opinions, I just read 'em. And report back, of course.

SNIP

Standards and statutes change over time. Some states seem not to be able to keep their hands off them for more than a nanosecond. Florida is a state that is such a tinkering haven.

On an unrelated case (manslaughter) an attorney -- who is getting their feet wet -- sent me a email with a link (and personal comments) today that reflects on Florida's ever changing definition for manslaughter. I will post the link simply to show that stability is not Florida's strong point (don't ask me what is).

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/probin/sc07-2324_Report.pdf

(A similar link might exist that audit trails definition changes for what constitutes first-degree murder in Florida.)

 

[Imbackon]

Not so fast there, pal. lol

I was just reading a Florida case that cited a Mass. case:

Commonwealth v. Lanoue, 392 Mass. 583, 467 N.E.2d 159 (Mass. 1984) (noting that the victim was beaten prior to her actual strangulation, demonstrating a conscious and fixed purpose to kill continuing for a length of time and warranting a finding of murder with deliberate and premeditated malice aforethought) (citations omitted).

Now plug that into the equation and see what you get

end quote

ahhh, I see what you are saying. First they tried to beat them to death, didn't work, so continued "in the act" by strangling them.
All this "in the act" stuff doesn't really matter, as it is still premeditation either way. whether just before, or in the act right?

 

[lin]

Eyewitness testimony represents direct evidence -- it can establish a fact, directly. Of and by itself, if the jury finds eyewitness testimony to be true, the fact is established.

HTH

Please explain why there is such a different standard between 'direct evidence' and other evidence. I'm trying to figure this all out and since you 'sometimes' want to 'educate' us, as you suggested in your post #156, please elect to do so now by citing the authority supporting your contention.

IMO, most of the facts of this case will be overwhelmingly established. There is so much evidence, it may overwhelm. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any fact they'll attempt to have admitted that won't be proven to that degree, just based on what we know now, so it's difficult for me to come up with a concrete example.

However, despite my promise to Brini (sorry) I'm trying to understand this concept you suggest is the applicable law. Moreover, I don't understand how all expert opinions could be proven to that standard within a reasonable time frame, and they will surely be used to prove elements of the case. I mean, the expert is credible or not, correct? And they are not eyewitnesses. They can't convey their years of study and experience to a jurist to prove their opinions beyond a reasonable doubt while on the stand. And yet the jury may consider their opinions as evidence. Yes, they'll be qualified as experts, I understand. But then again, this is yet another exception to that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' premise, isn't it?

 

[lin]

You folks are making me nuts! I've had to join SO many fan clubs, behind this thread, I've lost track of my memberships

Thanks for being SO brilliant!))))))))))))))))))))))))

Welcome to my world. And right back at ya' and all the rest of the brains so big they often blow the margins.

 

[lin]

Standards and statutes change over time. Some states seem not to be able to keep their hands off them for more than a nanosecond. Florida is a state that is such a tinkering haven.

On an unrelated case (manslaughter) an attorney -- who is getting their feet wet -- sent me a email with a link (and personal comments) today that reflects on Florida's ever changing definition for manslaughter. I will post the link simply to show that stability is not Florida's strong point (don't ask me what is).

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/probin/sc07-2324_Report.pdf

(A similar link might exist that audit trails definition changes for what constitutes first-degree murder in Florida.)

As a resident, I can assure you that among the many strong points are sun, fun and a permanent vacation atmosphere. That is, if one goes for that sort of thing.

ETA: And if one goes for flowers blooming all year long and being able to garden all year long, as do I.

 

[lin]

end quote

ahhh, I see what you are saying. First they tried to beat them to death, didn't work, so continued "in the act" by strangling them.
All this "in the act" stuff doesn't really matter, as it is still premeditation either way. whether just before, or in the act right?

My understanding of Florida law is that premeditation can be formed in the time it takes to tear off that first strip of tape... or to even reach for the roll.

ETA: emphasis on conscious and fixed purpose to kill for a length of time. I think the fact that they took some time in the murder is what showed premeditation. They had time to reflect and chose to continue their course. It wasn't a one shot deal that just sort of happened; I had the gun in my hand and don't remember firing, it just went off, kind of thing. It took time. And in this case time = premeditation.