Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lin]

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.

According to LP, when he was on security no one at 4937 Hopespring was looking for Caylee. I believe him on this point. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. Think that will be relevant?

 

[Brini]

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?

I've gotta tellya, I don't believe in the CSI effect.

Whenever I've been on a jury, I've seen a very common sense approach to the evidence, among the jurors.

 

[Mamabear1963]

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?

Thanks, hun! now I get it...it was just a little hard to wrap my brain around...I think the defense is going to have to do a real song and dance to convince a jury of anything but guilt.

IMO, they brought AL on board too keep her off of death row. That seems to be what AL does best.

 

[Brini]

According to LP, when he was on security no one at 4937 Hopespring was looking for Caylee. I believe him on this point. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. Think that will be relevant?

Remember CA' famous quote? "I will walk every inch of land, I will open every door..."

Seems like many of us would be right out there with TM, taking advantage of the trained and experienced searchers. TM hasn't JUST found dead people.

 

[lin]

Respectfully snipped:

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.

Yes, great point. Anyone want to put together a "behavior evidence" list? See how that adds to the pile of other evidence accumulating and whether we can find any reasonble doubt there? Imbackon made a list with the car and the disposal site.

Or would that be two separate lists? Consciousness of Guilt and Other Behavior? May overlap some but may work; any thoughts?

 

[lin]

Remember CA' famous quote? "I will walk every inch of land, I will open every door..."

Seems like many of us would be right out there with TM, taking advantage of the trained and experienced searchers. TM hasn't JUST found dead people.

Exactly. But do we have enough to prove no family member was looking and if we do, is that relevant?

I think if it can be proved, (and I'm not sure how it could be), it would suggest that they knew and didn't want her found. And I'd think that would be relevant. Since they have so much other, bigger fish to put in that frying pan, I doubt the state would use it, just interesting thought, imo.

 

[lin]

Thanks, hun! now I get it...it was just a little hard to wrap my brain around...I think the defense is going to have to do a real song and dance to convince a jury of anything but guilt.

IMO, they brought AL on board too keep her off of death row. That seems to be what AL does best.

And just like on the fraud charges, their public statements and actions indicate to me they don't have any confidence that there won't be a penalty phase. It seems assumed there will be. And I don't mean just because of getting AL; they have to have a dp qualified attorney. Every good atty should be prepared for a penalty phase, just in case. I just don't get the impression it's just in case for them, this time.

 

[Jolynna]

Yes, great point. Anyone want to put together a "behavior evidence" list? See how that adds to the pile of other evidence accumulating and whether we can find any reasonble doubt there? Imbackon made a list with the car and the disposal site.

Or would that be two separate lists? Consciousness of Guilt and Other Behavior? May overlap some but may work; any thoughts?

Conduct evidence could include "consciousness of guilt" & deliberate cover-up/deflection behaviors. It could also include conduct inconsistent with shock/surprise over Caylee's supposedly "unplanned" death.

I'm game.

 

[Brini]

Exactly. But do we have enough to prove no family member was looking and if we do, is that relevant?

I think if it can be proved, (and I'm not sure how it could be), it would suggest that they knew and didn't want her found. And I'd think that would be relevant. Since they have so much other, bigger fish to put in that frying pan, I doubt the state would use it, just interesting thought, imo.

Just one more little straw on the haystack.

 

[Brini]

According to LP, when he was on security no one at 4937 Hopespring was looking for Caylee. I believe him on this point. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. Think that will be relevant?

Prolly not. But, it doesn't help KC.

 

[Brini]

Yes, great point. Anyone want to put together a "behavior evidence" list? See how that adds to the pile of other evidence accumulating and whether we can find any reasonble doubt there? Imbackon made a list with the car and the disposal site.

Or would that be two separate lists? Consciousness of Guilt and Other Behavior? May overlap some but may work; any thoughts?

That's one of the most telling points, for me! That she faked a call from her deceased baby.

 

[Marina2]

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.

I would expect a computer of this nature to have the definition of reasonable doubt programmed into it and rule that fractional chance as a "mere possibility" thus rendering the correct verdict. This is all just silly speculation though. I agree with your point and don't see computers replacing human juries.

Common sense and life experience is helpful in coming to a true and just verdict but, without the proper evidence, a true and just verdict cannot be had.

Many times, a jury will have the common sense and life experience to know that a person is guilty but are unable to return a guilty verdict because the prosecution didn't prove their case. The evidence just wasn't there and, though the jury felt the defendant was guilty, they had to acquit. This jury will be accused of having "unreasonable" reasonable doubt when they were actually just following the law.

Other times, the jury will convict the defendant because of their common sense and life experience, whether the evidence was there or not. It's a crapshoot. You never know what a jury will do.

 

[Brini]

I would expect a computer of this nature to have the definition of reasonable doubt programmed into it and rule that fractional chance as a "mere possibility" thus rendering the correct verdict. This is all just silly speculation though. I agree with your point and don't see computers replacing human juries.

Common sense and life experience is helpful in coming to a true and just verdict but, without the proper evidence, a true and just verdict cannot be had.

Many times, a jury will have the common sense and life experience to know that a person is guilty but are unable to return a guilty verdict because the prosecution didn't prove their case. The evidence just wasn't there and, though the jury felt the defendant was guilty, they had to acquit. This jury will be accused of having "unreasonable" reasonable doubt when they were actually just following the law.

Other times, the jury will convict the defendant because of their common sense and life experience, whether the evidence was there or not. It's a crapshoot. You never know what a jury will do.

Yes. My guess is that there are AT LEAST as many wrong acquittals as wrong convictions. But, until King Solomon is in the jury box, that's what you get.

There will never be a perfect court system or government.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

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


​

"Circumstances of the killing" proved beyond a reasonable doubt would be inculpatory evidence if the act was criminal.

If the jury found the defendant's post crime behavior (conduct) to be consciousness of guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be corroborative evidence -- posters allude to a smorgasboard of corrobative evidence in this case.

The core question remains: as regards the circumstances of the alleged killing, what evidence proves the circumstances of the killing 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.]​

 

[Brini]

"Circumstances of the killing" proved beyond a reasonable doubt would be inculpatory evidence if the act was criminal.

If the jury found the defendant's post crime behavior (conduct) to be consciousness of guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be corroborative evidence -- posters allude to a smorgasboard of corrobative evidence in this case.

The core question remains: as regards the circumstances of the alleged killing, what evidence proves the circumstances of the killing 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.]

What evidence in the SP case proved the circumstances of the killing beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[lin]

"Circumstances of the killing" proved beyond a reasonable doubt would be inculpatory evidence if the act was criminal.

If the jury found the defendant's post crime behavior (conduct) to be consciousness of guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be corroborative evidence -- posters allude to a smorgasboard of corrobative evidence in this case.

The core question remains: as regards the circumstances of the alleged killing, what evidence proves the circumstances of the killing 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.]

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Foundation.

There have been numerous no-body, no cause of death convictions. It is not necessary to prove circumstances of the killing. It is necessary to prove the victim died, which in this case, the remains prove beyond any doubt. It is not necessary to prove how.

The cumulative effect of all the other evidence, the car trunk containing Caylee's body and KC's possession of said car; KC's being the last person seen with Caylee; KC's lies to LE to avoid prosecution or indeed, her lies to avoid investigation; etc. etc. will all prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KC is responsible for Caylee's death. The state need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt how she did it; just that she did it.

Can anyone think of a reasonable explanation for lying to LE in obstruction of the search for Caylee?

Can anyone think of a reasonable explanation for lying about receiving a call from her long deceased daughter, once the investigation she had long attempted to prevent actually started?

Can anyone think of a reasonable explanation for fabricating a babysitter and lying to LE about leaving her child with the imaginanny?

These are just a few of the hurdles the defense must overcome.

ETA: Walker v. State, 495 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (holding that evidence that defendant had lied to police to defeat or avoid prosecution was admissible as showing consciousness of guilt).

 

[Wudge]

Objection.

SNIP

It is not necessary to prove circumstances of the killing. It is necessary to prove the victim died, which in this case, the remains prove beyond any doubt. It is not necessary to prove how.

The cumulative effect of all the other evidence, the car trunk containing Caylee's body and KC's possession of said car; KC's being the last person seen with Caylee; KC's lies to LE to avoid prosecution or indeed, her lies to avoid investigation; etc. etc. will all prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KC is responsible for Caylee's death. The state need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt how she did it; just that she did it.

SNIP

I responded to Jolyann's post that referred to "circumstances of the killing". Prosecutors could prove the premeditated murder charge against Casey if inculpatory circumstantial evidence for an entire set of circumstances was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, I reworded my standard question using "circumstances of the killing".

My standard and more simply put question has been: what inculpatory circumstantial evidence proves the premeditated murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt?


[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.]

 

[lin]

Been looking around a bit for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that KC's lies will be used to prove her guilt. If anyone remains unconvinced that this is well settled Florida law, then, imo, you haven't read the information below.

Burkell v. State, No. 4D06-1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
Walker v. State, 495 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (holding that evidence that defendant had lied to police to defeat or avoid prosecution was admissible as showing consciousness of guilt).

Brooks v. State, 2005.FL.0002957 (Fla. 2005)
When a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight, concealment, resistance to lawful arrest, or other indications after the fact of a desire to evade prosecution, such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstances.

See also United States v. Holbert, 578 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1978) (false exculpatory statements may be used as substantive evidence tending to prove guilt.)

From Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980) Brown lied about his whereabouts on the day of the crime. This was substantive evidence tending to prove Brown's guilt and was admissible in the State's case in chief.

United States v. Merrill, 484 F.2d 168 (8th Cir. 1973) (where the Government introduced in its case in chief both the defendant's statement that he had never been in the state where the crime was committed and proof that the defendant had been in the state the day the crime was committed); Matthew v. State, 263 Ind. 672, 337 N.E.2d 821 (1976) (where the state introduced in its case in chief the defendant's grand jury testimony that he had been at a certain friend's house on the night the crime was committed and the friend's testimony that the defendant was not at her house that night). See also United States v. Holbert, 578 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1978) ("the (defendant's) argument overlooks a long line of authority which recognizes that false exculpatory statements may be used not only to impeach, but also as substantive evidence tending to prove guilt."); United States v. Pistante, 453 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1971) (the defendant's pre-trial explanations were admissible in the Government's case in chief to prove consciousness of guilt and unlawful intent, even though defendant was not going to take the stand); Douglas v. State, 89 So.2d 659 (Fla.1956) (where, in dicta, the court stated that under circumstances where "one accused of a crime might deny guilt and then offer a false alibi, a false denial that he owned a weapon of the type employed in committing the crime or a similar statement that could be disproved independently of the proof of the commission of the crime by the defendant," proof of such false statement is evidence tending to show the defendant's guilt).

Samuels v. State, No. 4D07-359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
See Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903, 908 (Fla. 1981) ("When a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight, concealment, resistance to lawful arrest, or other indications after the fact of a desire to evade prosecution, such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstance").

 

[lin]

I responded to Jolyann's post that referred to "circumstances of the killing". Prosecutors could prove the premeditated murder charge against Casey if inculpatory circumstantial evidence for an entire set of circumstances was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, I reworded my standard question using "circumstances of the killing".

My standard and more simply put question has been: what inculpatory circumstantial evidence proves the premeditated murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt?


[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.]

And I responded with car trunk, etc.

 

[lin]

Regarding the list of cases above, I was particularly encouraged that KC's lies will be considered 'substantive evidence of her guilt.' Imho, given the implication of the above as to the weight that will be given to the imaginanny, the made up Caylee call, etc., her lies may make up the bulk of the evidence proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Her lies may actually be "the smoking gun."

Surely, along with the other evidence, the car trunk, Caylee last seen with KC, the duct tape, the items similar to those found in A home at remains site, etc. etc. etc. it will be impossible for the defense to raise even a possibility of doubt, much less a reasonable doubt.