Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Wudge]

I think everyone on this forum will agree that Caylee died at the hands of another. So homicide is the appropriate MOD. But that doesn't speak to the tape.

I do not agree that she necessarily died "at the hands" of another. She might have. She might not have.

Based on what is in the public domain, I would have listed the manner of death as undetermined, not homicide.

 

[JBean]

OT, for a second, but it's gotta be said.

I have to thank Wudge for recommending the book, "Our Guys," re: the Glen Ridge Rape. It is un-put-downable.

In that case i also have to tip my hat to Wudge for continuing to post where her/his posts are constantly under scrutiny. Many posters translate that as being bullied or bothered, but Wudge just keeps coming back for more, never gets personal and is always logical in posting style. Agree or disagree with Wudge's take on things, not many of us could keep coming back and responding and remaining cool throughout.

This has been a great discussion by all. Good form folks.

 

[lin]

If I was an aggressive person with a short temper and my neighbour hacked me off one day, and I kicked her repeatedly, even when she was clearly injured, on the ground and screaming in pain, and my last kick ruptured an internal organ and killed her, does that show a premeditated intent to kill? I would have had sufficient time to reflect on what I was doing.

At first blush, based on my understanding, no, it wouldn't. However, if you intended to kill her and took that long to do it, yes, it would and a case was cited in the last thread so holding.

ETA: This is a Mass. case but it was cited in a FL case that I unfortunately neglected to cite in the previous thread:

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).

If anyone would like the FL citation, I'll look it up upon request.

 

[JBean]

I do not agree that she necessarily died "at the hands" of another. She might have. She might not have.

Based on what is in the public domain, I would have listed the manner of death as undetermined, not homicide.

I see your point. Accidental drowning (or whatever) and then a cover up?

 

[Brini]

Depends on the state you live in.

In some states yes, that is plenty of time to form intent.
And plenty of time for you formulate another plan (like stopping and calling for help which would show an intent to prevent death... making a call taking less time than it does to kick someone to death, so intent doesn't require much time).

There are no universal black and white answers to how the law applies. It depends on who you are, who your attorney will be, and what state is prosecuting you. Anyone who tries to answer these questions in black and white terms is discussing legal theory, not real life.

Yes, we let an unpleasant and inarticulate guy (not much good on the stand) off 2nd to evidence of no intent to harm.

Complaint of domestic abuse, by the woman.

The MAN called 911.

When LE came, the cop saw the defendant holding the woman against the wall with his left hand, and with his right hand upraised in a fist.

The defendant was LEFT handed. He was holding her with his strong hand and threatening her with his weak hand.

There was also evidence that he had tried to leave the scene, when she first battered him.

Turned out SHE was the assailant. He was trying to restrain her, until LE arrived.

 

[impatientredhead]

Snipped.

But firing a gun at a person with an 'assumption' that it 'may' kill is not the same thing as an intent TO kill.

A reasonable person can foresee that the outcome of pointing a firearm at a human being and pulling the trigger is likely to be death. Unless your defense in that case is a mental inability to understand that concept? Otherwise you have made a conscious decision (to shoot someone) and are responsible for the outcome (someone's death). It is either a justifiable shooting (he needin' killin') or it is murder.

If I run someone down with my car they *may* not die from it, but the foreseeable outcome is death and my running them down is intent, therefore the outcome is my responsibility. If I shove someone off a cliff they *may* not die, but the foreseeable outcome is death and my shoving them is intent.

 

[JBean]

If I was an aggressive person with a short temper and my neighbour hacked me off one day, and I kicked her repeatedly, even when she was clearly injured, on the ground and screaming in pain, and my last kick ruptured an internal organ and killed her, does that show a premeditated intent to kill? I would have had sufficient time to reflect on what I was doing.

I would think generally speaking intent to kill would have to be proven. but each state has a different take on that as well, so you better just get a good attorney

 

[lin]

We've been going round and round on this for days. I've learned a lot and am so impressed with the research and time devoted to back up the legal arguments.Yet it appears most involved in this thread remain exactly where they were when the 1st thread was started.
I guess we'll have to wait for the trial [I may have to hibernate,it's so far away] to see what evidnece is laid out and the jury instructions given.
Kudos to the hard workers here,especially you Lin. I'm in awe.

Aw, thanks, big compliment coming from you!

 

[Wudge]

I see your point. Accidental drowning (or whatever) and then a cover up?

Yes. That remains a possibility.

Also, she could have died in a manner that encompasses a form of negligence. I would not necessarily construe that to be at or under "the hands of another". In my mind, that would depend on the circumstances.

 

[Devon]

In the state of Florida yes that's premeditated. In other states no. For example NC has a blood cooling clause in it. Florida does not.

Where is the evidence of any intent to kill in that scenario, much less a premeditated one? I lost my temper and attacked her. What shows I intended her to die?

 

[lin]

Yes. That remains a possibility.

Also, she could have died in a manner that encompasses a form of negligence. I would not necessarily construe that to be at or under "the hands of another". In my mind, that would depend on the circumstances.

And what is your evidence to support this theory?

 

[Brini]

Yes. That remains a possibility.

Also, she could have died in a manner that encompasses a form of negligence. I would not necessarily construe that to be at or under "the hands of another". In my mind, that would depend on the circumstances.

That was my thought. Actually, I opined that Caylee died in a hot car.

Until the duct tape.

 

[lin]

Where is the evidence of any intent to kill in that scenario, much less a premeditated one? I lost my temper and attacked her. What shows I intended her to die?

The courts may eventually infer intent from the continuation of the beating. You must have intended for her to die to keep kicking her for so long and with such strength.

 

[lin]

At first blush, based on my understanding, no, it wouldn't. However, if you intended to kill her and took that long to do it, yes, it would and a case was cited in the last thread so holding.

ETA: This is a Mass. case but it was cited in a FL case that I unfortunately neglected to cite in the previous thread:

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).

If anyone would like the FL citation, I'll look it up upon request.

In case anyone missed the case I ETA.

 

[tweety933]

I think everyone on this forum will agree that Caylee died at the hands of another. So homicide is the appropriate MOD. But that doesn't speak to the tape.

I found her Conclusion and Opinions on page 3 of the medical examiners report and took this portion of it to Clearly suggest that she suspects to a degree of probability that the tape was likely the instrument of death. …“Although there is no trauma evident on the skeleton, there is duct tape over the lower facial region still attached to head hair. This duct tape was clearly placed prior to decomposition, keeping the mandible in place.”… p. 6442 evidence number

I guess she will make a good prosecution witness to elaborate more on her conclusions.

I found these cases when reading the Huck case.....

[The Florida
Supreme Court has held that "expert medical testimony as to the cause of death need not be stated with reasonable certainty in a homicide prosecution and is competent if the expert can show that, in his opinion, the occurrence could cause death or that the occurrence might have or probably did cause death." Buenoano v. State, 527 So. 2d 194, 197-98 (Fla. 1988); see also Butts v. State, 733 So. 2d 1097, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).]; and think they may be relevant to her testimony concerning cause of death.

Is it reasonable to doubt an expert witnesses testimony? Trying to keep this on topic!

 

[JBean]

That was my thought. Actually, I opined that Caylee died in a hot car.

Until the duct tape.

Okay I am on board now and that takes us right back to tweety's comment and what he/she meant about the tape and homicide.

 

[Brini]

Snipped.

But firing a gun at a person with an 'assumption' that it 'may' kill is not the same thing as an intent TO kill.

1) Guns are never not loaded.
2) If you aim a gun at a person (not even fire), you intend to kill that person.
3) If a gun is aimed at you, you may fire to defend yourself, because you may assume there is intent to kill.

It varies by law of the state. I gather FL requires firing the gun.

But, my guess is that if you killed a person who was firing a gun at you, intent to kill or not, you'd be let off in any state.

That's deadly force by any definition.

 

[Devon]

At first blush, based on my understanding, no, it wouldn't. However, if you intended to kill her and took that long to do it, yes, it would and a case was cited in the last thread so holding.

ETA: This is a Mass. case but it was cited in a FL case that I unfortunately neglected to cite in the previous thread:

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).

If anyone would like the FL citation, I'll look it up upon request.

But your position has been (unless I've misunderstood) that intent sufficient to prove premeditation can be demonstrated by the fact that there was enough time during the act for reflection.

Lets say that I absolutely did not mean for my neighbour to die, but was just so angry that I kicked her several times before I cooled off. The situation is the same - I kicked her repeatedly even though she was clearly injured and my last kick caused her death. Does that change things? It doesn't IMO. You say 'however, if you intended to kill her and took that long to do it, yes', but doesn't that mean that you recognise that the intent must be there in the first place?

 

[Wudge]

And what is your evidence to support this theory?

I never said it was a theory.

 

[Marina2]

You're too quick for me! See the eta above.

Had there not been a reasonable alternate explanation for why she shot, the length of time between shots would have been ample to show premeditation. What is the reasonable alternate explanation of duct tape placement?

I can't begin to give an alternate explanation for the tape and I'm not even arguing the point that there is one. I was just saying that time to reflect on your actions is not all it takes to convict on premeditation. You have to show intent. That's well illustrated in the appeals I posted earlier. While the defendants had ample time to reflect on their actions, the intent wasn't there so premeditation wasn't proven, according to the justices. One would think that a man who puts his bare hands around a woman's neck and chokes the life out of her would be convicted of premeditated murder. But, since he had a habit of doing this to women in the past without it leading to their death, the justices saw reasonable doubt that he intended to murder them. If we (WS) were arguing premeditation in that case, I'm sure most of us would be sure he intended the women's death. The main argument would be -after effecting the death of the first women by strangling her with his bare hands, surely he would know that the second women was dying when he strangled her. But, the justices didn't see it that way. You never know what will happen and that's why I'm just trying to learn to rules of law here. I have opinions on the other threads as to why I think she's guilty, my own theory of what happened etc., but these are just layman's opinions. That's a luxury I have as someone viewing this case from the outside. If I were a juror, I have to follow the law. Take, for instance, the 31 days. When I first heard these words uttered by NG I said to myself, "She killed her and doesn't want the police to find the body until the evidence is gone." That was before the lies or anything came out, the first time NG reported on it. At the same time, I will say that it's not enough to prove premeditation. Not if I were a juror and had to follow a legal standard. Some people who see me say that want to go on and argue KC's case from a legal standpoint. I can't do that because I haven't heard the case. By a legal standard, I can't use preconceived notions, (which I had from the first day, still have and they're probably correct). I'm not trying to convince anyone that KC can or can't be found guilty of premeditation, either in spite of or because of the law. The jury will do what it wants regardless. I'm trying to understand the law here so that when her case is tried I'll be better informed about the whole legal process. I've learned a lot thanks to those who share their vast knowledge of the legal system and from a lot of reading about the law which I wouldn't have done otherwise. I would have, undoubtedly, convicted that man of premeditated murder in the strangulation death of two prostitutes on two separate occasions. Now, I have more to think about from what I've learned. Sometimes, I'm hesitant to quote any legal standard that doesn't support KC's conviction because a barrage of posts will come assuming I think KC is innocent and ask me to explain how the duct tape could be there if it wasn't premeditation (or something to that effect).

Sorry about the long post. It's just my long-winded way of saying "I don't have an alternate explanation for the duct tape placement and that wasn't the point of my post." My theories of what happened and opinion as to KC's guilt are on other threads. I think all this stuff should be a required subject in high school since we all have the potential to be jurors with someones life in the balance. All those accused are not guilty and that's why we have standards that must be followed. I was certainly ignorant of many things that I should know as a juror and there's no way I could expect to learn them from jury instructions given during the trial.