Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Texana]

An oversimplified explanation is to think of it like this. If you can stop what you are doing , but don't and make the conscious decision to kill.. then it can be premeditated.
So if you are choking someone and you realize they are dying and continue to choke them, it could be premeditated during the murder. Maybe you didn't start out to kill them, but at some point you decided you were going to.
If you look across the room and think i am going to kill her right now and then do, it could be premeditated.

Similar thing I ran into with self defense. I know someone that got attacked by another dude. The guy punched my friend and my friend jerked back but did not fall. He righted himself and moved forward to hit the guy back. The minute he moved forward to hit the guy back, it was no longer self defense because he had to move towards the attacker.

So in the matter of a split second and body positioning it went from self defense to assault and he was charged with it.

Exactly. The second at which a person would reasonably realize "this will kill him/her" is the point it shifts to premeditated. You could have stopped, but chose not to--so it was a conscious decision to kill.

 

[AZlawyer]

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.)

But the jury could hear, for example, the testimony of 25 unrelated eyewitnesses to a crime, each of whom could certainly be wrong and none of which could, alone, provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the perpetrator's identity, and could consider the cumulative effect of the testimony of all 25 eyewitnesses together to determine that the fact of the identity of the perpetrator had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt....right?

 

[Wudge]

Please explain why there is such a different standard between 'direct evidence' and other evidence.

SNIP

Much of our judicial process, procedures, laws and even our base Constitution is largely derived from or fed off what was once the rule or process in other countries, such as England, Italy (Roman Empire) and Greece.

If you go back in time, I'm sure you can appreciate that direct evidence from an eyewitness who saw or heard something many hundreds of thousand of years ago was more readily acceptable and used than inferred conclusions from circumstantial evidence. Aristotle (300 to 400 BC) is the father of logic, and the principles of applied logic that exist today evolved slowly. Whereas direct evidence via eyewitness testimony is but a matter of the jury finding (deciding) whether what the eyewitness testified to is or is not true.

Today, facts obtained from circumstantial evidence and direct evidence carry the same weight.

 

[Wudge]

But the jury could hear, for example, the testimony of 25 unrelated eyewitnesses to a crime, each of whom could certainly be wrong and none of which could, alone, provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the perpetrator's identity, and could consider the cumulative effect of the testimony of all 25 eyewitnesses together to determine that the fact of the identity of the perpetrator had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt....right?

This jury will not hear such evidence, for there is no direct evidence in this case. I noted that in my post, and, in turn, filtered down the evidence sources in this case that could produce facts that would go into this jury's inculpatory facts bucket.

However, if you'e referring to a hypothetical case, eyewitness testimony (direct evidence) can certainly produce inculpatory facts (such as the identity of the perpetrator) that need not be derived through inferred conclusions. That would be but a matter of the jury deciding what testimony they believe is true (if any) and what is not (if any). On that basis, I agree.

 

[Just Jayla]

Of course chances are that LE and the state know more than we have seen, but I wonder, regarding reasonable doubt....

-The state is going to say there is no "Zenaida".
-KC might say there was a "Zenaida". KC has not denied that ZG of Kissimmee was the murderer.
-ZG of Kissimmee was at Sawgrass.

How will the state explain the KC/Zenaida/Sawgrass connection, if no "Zenaida" existed? It is still something I am puzzled about, how KC knew ZG was there. Will they suggest KC was stalking Zenainda? Will that hold water?

Will this create a seed of doubt in the jurors?

 

[Just Jayla]

Yet another reason for Mr. Morgan to want to clear his client ASAP, before she does become involved in the murder case.

 

[AZlawyer]

Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal):
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

It appears that Florida has completely omitted any distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in its standard jury instructions. Recent Florida Supreme Court cases say that the circumstantial evidence instruction was deemed unnecessary in light of the reasonable doubt instruction:

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

The standard set of instructions for homicide does begin with an introductory instruction that covers excusable and justifiable homicide (i.e., homicides that are not criminal acts), so Wudge's hypothetical aunt on the cliff should be OK for those of you who have been following this thread for a while.

 

[Tuba]

I think what the State will assert is that there was no Z.G. who baby sat the victim, not that there is no such individual. Along with the identification of Z.G. to Sawgrass, what I find significant is the description of the car. The defendant saw the car and saw it at those apartments. She didn't approach the car so as to study it, she thought it resembled a Ford Focus and so she said it was one. Just as she phones in circles, she admittedly drives in circles and she circled by the apartments at Sawgrass on the day Z.G. looked at an apartment.

Zenaida did not misspell her own name at the front desk there, it was written down by the woman with the keys, although Cindy made much of this "lie". The defendant may have had a convenient LE friend run the plate for her to obtain Z.'s name or she may have looked at the sign-in sheet. She was scouting for an apt. for TonE and her.

 

[lin]

ok, so here is a test that relates to this case.
This has nothing to do with the premeditation question, nor whether Caylee died by accident or was murdered.

The Pontiac driven by Casey

1. "smells like a dead body in the dam* car"
2. Trained cadaver dog hits on the trunk
3. Death band hair on a hair matched to Lee or the immediate female relatives of Mrs. Anthony using Mitochondrial DNA
4. chemical essay of decomposing body in the trunk (new science)

More maybe with trunk stain, paper towel in car (not sure about this yet with decomposing fluids) but we will not even bring this forward as evidence yet.


Do you have any reasonable doubt as to whether Caylee's body was in the trunk of that car? If you do, please post your doubts.

Bringing this forward to move the discussion along about reasonable doubt and to examine the evidence from that standpoint.

To rephrase Imackon's excellent analysis:

1. Multiple witnesses have given statements regarding the odor, including trained LE officers.

2. KC's text messages acknowledge a smell of death; she tried to give a reasonable explanation of a dead squirrel but the evidence shows no sign of a squirrel or other animal. With her overall lack of credibility and it being only her text that indicates a squirrel rather than a human body...

3. Multiple trained cadaver dogs from different sources hit on the trunk.

4. Hair from deceased Anthony family member found in trunk.

5. GA and CA statements regarding the smell, including GA I believe under oath.

6. Air sample tests from Body Farm indicating 2.6 days-ish human decompositional event.

7. (added by Jolynna) Evidence of clean up in the car; coverup -- if trying to "frame" KC, why clean up?

I don't need #6 to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a dead body in the trunk of the Pontiac. I accept it and would rely on #6 if I was on the jury, but I don't need it, kwim?

So whose dead body was it? From the hair, we can conclude it was an Anthony family member. From the total circumstance, it being in KC's possession; she being the last seen w/Caylee; Caylee being the only known Anthony family member to die around the time frame of the smell, etc., I think it's reasonable to conclude it was Caylee; absent a showing from the defense that it was someone else's dead body and that would open a big can of worms, wouldn't it? lol I highly doubt the defense will try to use the SODDIT defense --- (Some Other Dude Died In Trunk) because I don't see it getting them anywhere other than another charge to KC, lol. (joking)

So, are we convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. there was a dead body in the Pontiac?

b. the body was Caylee's?

(This is an essay quiz, please explain your answers!!)

 

[lin]

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.

Another post I didn't want lost in the shuffle and in truth, the reason I logged in today. Your simple thought experiment was nagging me this a.m., AZlawyer. (Shame on you for making me think! Do you have any idea how dangerous that is??)

I wanted to emphasize this imo excellent example of unreasonable doubt. It is just such situations as this that cause the courts and legislatures to repeatedly write they rely on the common sense of the jurors. Sure, it is possible it's not a trick coin and the 10 flips represent coincidence. We can make a case for that insofar as there is a 50/50 chance that the coin will turn up heads on each flip. That doesn't change from the first flip through the millionth flip. There is always a 50/50 chance it will turn up heads. But is it reasonable?? When one applies common sense, is it reasonable to find a reasonable doubt that the coin is a trick coin just because it's a possibility?

I think not. What say you?

 

[Mamabear1963]

I say I am confused...and my brain hurts from trying to follow the coin flip theory...can you explain a little clearer?

 

[Brini]

Bringing this forward to move the discussion along about reasonable doubt and to examine the evidence from that standpoint.

To rephrase Imackon's excellent analysis:

1. Multiple witnesses have given statements regarding the odor, including trained LE officers.

2. KC's text messages acknowledge a smell of death; she tried to give a reasonable explanation of a dead squirrel but the evidence shows no sign of a squirrel or other animal. With her overall lack of credibility and it being only her text that indicates a squirrel rather than a human body...

3. Multiple trained cadaver dogs from different sources hit on the trunk.

4. Hair from deceased Anthony family member found in trunk.

5. GA and CA statements regarding the smell, including GA I believe under oath.

6. Air sample tests from Body Farm indicating 2.6 days-ish human decompositional event.

I don't need #6 to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a dead body in the trunk of the Pontiac. I accept it and would rely on #6 if I was on the jury, but I don't need it, kwim?

So whose dead body was it? From the hair, we can conclude it was an Anthony family member. From the total circumstance, it being in KC's possession; she being the last seen w/Caylee; Caylee being the only known Anthony family member to die around the time frame of the smell, etc., I think it's reasonable to conclude it was Caylee; absent a showing from the defense that it was someone else's dead body and that would open a big can of worms, wouldn't it? lol I highly doubt the defense will try to use the SODDIT defense --- (Some Other Dude Died In Trunk) because I don't see it getting them anywhere other than another charge to KC, lol. (joking)

So, are we convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. there was a dead body in the Pontiac?

b. the body was Caylee's?

(This is an essay quiz, please explain your answers!!)

Yes, and the defense's challenege will be:

1) KC had custody of the car and the baby.

2) If she lost Caylee to another person, who, when, and how did that happen?

3) If someone took Caylee away from her, why didn't she report. If she thought she was protecting Caylee, why hasn't she reported, since it became evident that Caylee can no longer be protected?

4) If someone put Caylee's body in her car, who? Why did she cover up for the real killer?

 

[lin]

I say I am confused...and my brain hurts from trying to follow the coin flip theory...can you explain a little clearer?

Anything for you, sweetie. Well, almost. Well, at least rephrasing the coin flip thing.

AZlawyer posted a hypothetical thing about a prosecutor telling a jury he had a trick coin that would only come up heads. He flipped the coin and sure enough, it came up heads. Should the jury be convinced, based on that one flip that the coin is for sure a trick coin that will only come up heads? Probably not. So the prosecutor goes on to flip the coin 10 times and it came up heads each time. 10 times in a row. Seems pretty certain now that it was a trick coin, right?

Well, up comes the defense attorney. And the defense attorney starts explaining to the jury why that is NOT a trick coin. Each time a coin is flipped, it's either going to be one or the other, heads or tails. It's a 50/50 chance each time and that the prosecutor got heads 10 times in a row means nothing. Statistically, it's just as likely to come up heads each time as it is to come up tails.

But in the real world, those of us with common sense know that's not how things work. Just cos the statistics say it's just as likely to come up heads for the hundredth time as it is to come up tails on the 100th flip, we know that just isn't so. After 9, or 99 flips that all come up heads, I think we can reasonably conclude it's a trick coin. I think the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt it's a trick coin.

Sure, it's possible that the prosecutor got 9 flips in a row all heads without a trick coin. But is that possibility big enough to make you have a reasonable doubt that it's a trick coin? Reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond any possible doubt and I admit it's possible, but I don't think it's a reasonable possibility. Do you?

 

[lin]

Thanks, mamabear1963 --- come to think of it, the coin flip thing is a good argument against computerized verdicts. I mean, a computer would buy that statistical mumbo jumbo where a thinking person won't.

 

[Jolynna]

Yes, and the defense's challenege will be:

1) KC had custody of the car and the baby.

2) If she lost Caylee to another person, who, when, and how did that happen?

3) If someone took Caylee away from her, why didn't she report. If she thought she was protecting Caylee, why hasn't she reported, since it became evident that Caylee can no longer be protected?

4) If someone put Caylee's body in her car, who? Why did she cover up for the real killer?

And why would KC try to clean up after Caylee's killer? The wadded up paper towel with some of what was left of Caylee is another smoking gun (found in KC's car trunk).

Casey's conduct DOES matter. And the jury will be instructed to consider KC's conduct.

From Federal Public Defender Peacock's proposed instructions to a Florida jury:

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.

http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/al-arian/8-03-cr-00077-JSM-TBM/docs/2470890/0.pdf

​

From the same proposed jury instructions:

Under Florida Law, Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crime of Murder in the Second Degree, both of which are unlawful.
​

Florida's definition of Murder in the Second Degree is spelled out in this document. It would be impossible under this definition for KC not to be guilty of at least Second Degree Murder, in my opinion. I'd be comfortable voting KC guiltyy of First Degree Murder based upon what is in the public domain now.

 

[Marina2]

Thanks, mamabear1963 --- come to think of it, the coin flip thing is a good argument against computerized verdicts. I mean, a computer would buy that statistical mumbo jumbo where a thinking person won't.

Surely a computer would see a 0.0009765625% chance of a fair coin coming up as heads 10 out of 10 flips as only a "mere possibility" and conclude that any doubt that the coin is a trick coin is unreasonable. Not that I'm for computerized verdicts but I see this as a better argument for computerized verdicts.

It is a good argument that cumulative evidence can show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. With each flip of the coin, doubt that it is a trick coin becomes more and more unreasonable. I don't think it would be hard to get a unanimous verdict from any jury. Bring in an expert to testify on the miniscule chance that a fair coin would come up heads 10 out of 10 times and it would be a slam dunk for the prosecution. No chance that a jury would unreasonably have doubt that the coin is a trick coin.

 

[Marina2]

Respectfully snipped:

And why would KC try to clean up after Caylee's killer? The wadded up paper towel with some of what was left of Caylee is another smoking gun (found in KC's car trunk).

Casey's conduct DOES matter. And the jury will be instructed to consider KC's conduct.

Bold is mine.
And why would she tell the investigators that she got a phone call from Caylee so that investigators wouldn't think the killer killed Caylee? Why would she do this for the killer of her baby girl? Unbelievable. I think this is her most damaging lie.

 

[lin]

Surely a computer would see a 0.0009765625% chance of a fair coin coming up as heads 10 out of 10 flips as only a "mere possibility" and conclude that any doubt that the coin is a trick coin is unreasonable. Not that I'm for computerized verdicts but I see this as a better argument for computerized verdicts.

It is a good argument that cumulative evidence can show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. With each flip of the coin, doubt that it is a trick coin becomes more and more unreasonable. I don't think it would be hard to get a unanimous verdict from any jury. Bring in an expert to testify on the miniscule chance that a fair coin would come up heads 10 out of 10 times and it would be a slam dunk for the prosecution. No chance that a jury would unreasonably have doubt that the coin is a trick coin.

Thanks but I wasn't meaning to be quite that literal. Maybe it wasn't the best example of 'common sense' v technical accuracy. But shouldn't the computer be programmed to consider even that fractional possibility? A person would be able to dismiss it quickly but also give great weight to other just as unlikely scenarios. I mean, what is the statistical probability that someone was framed? And yet is has happened.

The point I was trying to make (unsuccessfully) is that I agree with our founders and all those who have seen fit to NOT change the jury system. Common sense, life experience, imo, are necessary components to come to a just and true verdict.

ETA: As has previously been suggested in this thread, imo, a high level of education is not required and may be more hindrance than help in coming to a just and true verdict.

 

[coco puff]

And why would KC try to clean up after Caylee's killer? The wadded up paper towel with some of what was left of Caylee is another smoking gun (found in KC's car trunk).

Casey's conduct DOES matter. And the jury will be instructed to consider KC's conduct.

From Federal Public Defender Peacock's proposed instructions to a Florida jury:

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.

http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/al-arian/8-03-cr-00077-JSM-TBM/docs/2470890/0.pdf

​

From the same proposed jury instructions:

Under Florida Law, Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crime of Murder in the Second Degree, both of which are unlawful.
​

Florida's definition of Murder in the Second Degree is spelled out in this document. It would be impossible under this definition for KC not to be guilty of at least Second Degree Murder, in my opinion. Although I'd be comfortable voting guilty of First Degree Murder based upon what is in the public domain now.

Bolded is mine

I love this point. You can bet that if KC had been video'd out knocking on doors looking for her child, the defense would have that shown on NG every 5 minutes.

 

[lin]

And why would KC try to clean up after Caylee's killer? The wadded up paper towel with some of what was left of Caylee is another smoking gun (found in KC's car trunk).

Casey's conduct DOES matter. And the jury will be instructed to consider KC's conduct.

From Federal Public Defender Peacock's proposed instructions to a Florida jury:

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.

http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/al-arian/8-03-cr-00077-JSM-TBM/docs/2470890/0.pdf

​

From the same proposed jury instructions:

Under Florida Law, Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crime of Murder in the Second Degree, both of which are unlawful.
​

Florida's definition of Murder in the Second Degree is spelled out in this document. It would be impossible under this definition for KC not to be guilty of at least Second Degree Murder, in my opinion. Although I'd be comfortable voting guilty of First Degree Murder based upon what is in the public domain now.

Perfect. Thank you. I guess that puts "paid" to the lesser included offenses being considered. And that behavior thing is what convicted Scott in marspiter's excellent case and instructive case from CA. There was no other evidence; no body, no crime scene, no COD, no TOD, no history of abuse or arguments, no nothing. Just motive, (her money), she dropped out of site and his statements prior to and after her disappearance.

But this was before the CSI effect... Wonder if he'd be convicted today on the same evidence?