Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[lin]

False. No expert testified that the amount of blood in the stairwell proved premeditation.

The point has been and remains that what the juror said was not and is not, in any way, sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you still hold otherwise, provide the premises that you're relying on to force such a conclusion at the certainty level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let's not play semantics, ok? If an expert testified that the amount of blood was inconsistent with the accident theory, I think what is meant here is that turned the tide. I could be wrong but I don't see a forensic expert testifying about blood spatter and the meaning of blood spatter likely being qualified to give an opinion other than on the spatter.

 

[Wudge]

That doesn't stand for what you imply it does.

SNIP

It most certainly does. The jury instruction that I posted is predicated on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in "Winship".

REPOST

38. Further, 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.

 

[lin]

What was the precise question posed to the juror?

Exactly. The juror may have inferred, depending on the exact question, that they were being asked what caused them to discount accidental death. Without the exact question and further questioning of the jurist, we'll never know. But I think we've reached a consensus here that the amount of blood in that case did tend to rule out an accidental death and most of us seem to believe the answer was appropriate to the question. Regardless of the accent or manner of speaking of the jurist.

 

[lin]

It most certainly does. The jury instruction that I posted is predicated on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in "Winship".

REPOST

38. Further, 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.

Picking one sentence from my post to respond to is not unlike you picking a sentence or two from that ruling to support your erroneous beliefs. As previously stated, one must read the entire opinion and it's a very good idea to read others that will help expand.

You also failed to address the citations listed and pose a way they fit your (mis)understanding of the law.

 

[Tuba]

There is the added complication that there are two layers or levels of fact involved in proof of a crime.

If a yellow convertible Lic. plate GO 113 J, belonging to Mr. Gordon Vol, is captured on parking garage surveillance as present in space L-17 over a period of seven hours, whereupon who appears to be defendant Fulsham enters the car and is taped exiting the parking floor in it and then, in the afternoon, such convertible is discovered in defendant Fulsham's home garage, particular facts are certain and just listed but there is still inference to be drawn or not, as to whether the fact (element) of the suspected & alleged grand theft auto has been proven. I am using the term "fact" here because Winship did.

How did Fulsham enter the car? Was he a repo man? Did he originally have Gordon Vol's permission? Does and did Gordon Vol actually own the convertible? Another box of factual evidence needs to be wheeled out. Yet each & every element of grand theft auto needs to be examined for sufficiency. Otherwise, though the items in evidence may be sound as a gold bar, the facts (elements) that go to proving the crime may be inconclusive. There is room for gaps on both layers or levels.

 

[DotsEyes]

As regards this being a premediated murder proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the answer is: No.

If you hold otherwise, please, first, cite the fact (or facts) that your inferred conclusion of "guilty" relies on that has been proved to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, using that fact (or facts), layout the premises that are the basis for your, necessarily, highly reliable conclusion of "guilty".

(

Toddler missing for 31 days, disappearance never reported by Mother who was last person known to be seen with toddler and who had care, custody and control of toddler. Mother avoided contact with anyone who would be suspicious of toddler's absence for 31 days and would have remained absent but for being tracked down by concerned parents. On the day the toddler was reported missing, Mother told LE she had just spoken to the toddler at noon that day - lie. Toddler found in canvas bag and wrapped in duck tape, both items were consistent with identical items found in Mother's residence. Dump site for toddler's body was around the corner from Mother's residence in the place where she once buried dead pets. Mother's car trunk held death band hair of toddler as well as odor of human decomposition when retrieved from tow yard where it was held due to abandonment at local store. Mother admits to stench in car and attempt to clean it. Mother made up imaginanny story and stuck with it despite the story being proved a lie. Mother never made a plea for child's return. Although Mother returned home on occassion when no one was home to steal food and get changes of clothes for herself, no clothes for the toddler were taken. Mother searched for kidnapper at her beau's apartment and a few bars.

Actually, I should have stopped at the bolded part. The rest is all sprinkles on top the cake.

I have no problem with premeditation. No matter what KC did, there was a moment of reflection available to her. Whether it was between the first strip of duck tape and the second, or from the moment she put her hands on the child in anger until she choked the life from her, it tooks minutes for Caylee to die. There was time to stop herself and she didn't. A decison, however brief, was made to continue.

LWOP.

 

[lin]

There is the added complication that there are two layers or levels of fact involved in proof of a crime.

If a yellow convertible Lic. plate GO 113 J, belonging to Mr. Gordon Vol, is captured on parking garage surveillance as present in space L-17 over a period of seven hours, whereupon who appears to be defendant Fulsham enters the car and is taped exiting the parking floor in it and then, in the afternoon, such convertible is discovered in defendant Fulsham's home garage, particular facts are certain and just listed but there is still inference to be drawn or not, as to whether the fact (element) of the suspected & alleged grand theft auto has been proven. I am using the term "fact" here because Winship did.

How did Fulsham enter the car? Was he a repo man? Did he originally have Gordon Vol's permission? Does and did Gordon Vol actually own the convertible? Another box of factual evidence needs to be wheeled out. Yet each & every element of grand theft auto needs to be examined for sufficiency. Otherwise, though the items in evidence may be sound as a gold bar, the facts (elements) that go to proving the crime may be inconclusive. There is room for gaps on both layers or levels.

Good hypo. Thanks.

Evidence is simply that, evidence. Evidence is not fact and is not to be confused with fact. The jury determines what is and is not fact based on the evidence presented.

 

[strach304]

To further simplify Marspiters post, we don't know that was his only reason for conviction, right? We don't know if he thought that's all the reporter was after. One thing and not a list of evidence that he based his guilty verdict on.

 

[Wudge]

I indicated that the evidence presented in that case proved premeditation to the jurors

SNIP

The issue was not and is not related to the jury's verdict. The issue was and remains whether the juror's answer to the reporter's proved premediation beyond a reasonable doubt. It could not. It did not.

Again, if you so so hold that the juror's answer was sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, layout the premises that necessarily force your conclusion.

 

[lin]

Toddler missing for 31 days, disappearance never reported by Mother who was last person known to be seen with toddler and who had care, custody and control of toddler. Mother avoided contact with anyone who would be suspicious of toddler's absence for 31 days and would have remained absent but for being tracked down by concerned parents. On the day the toddler was reported missing, Mother told LE she had just spoken to the toddler at noon that day - lie. Toddler found in canvas bag and wrapped in duck tape, both items were consistent with identical items found in Mother's residence. Dump site for toddler's body was around the corner from Mother's residence in the place where she once buried dead pets. Mother's car trunk held death band hair of toddler as well as odor of human decomposition when retrieved from tow yard where it was held due to abandonment at local store. Mother admits to stench in car and attempt to clean it. Mother made up imaginanny story and stuck with it despite the story being proved a lie. Mother never made a plea for child's return. Although Mother returned home on occassion when no one was home to steal food and get changes of clothes for herself, no clothes for the toddler were taken. Mother searched for kidnapper at her beau's apartment and a few bars.

Actually, I should have stopped at the bolded part. The rest is all sprinkles on top the cake.

I have no problem with premeditation. No matter what KC did, there was a moment of reflection available to her. Whether it was between the first strip of duck tape and the second, or from the moment she put her hands on the child in anger until she choked the life from her, it tooks minutes for Caylee to die. There was time to stop herself and she didn't. A decison, however brief, was made to continue.

LWOP.

:clap: :clap: :clap: Important points you raised, supported by applicable law:

Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Intent is usually a jury question. See id. In Washington, an infant sustained extensive internal and external injuries and died. The state presented evidence that the defendant was the victim's sole custodian during the playground visit and that the injuries could have been inflicted in anywhere from 10 seconds to 45 minutes. The evidence suggested that a change in technique and position of the defendant's hands would have been required to inflict the different types of injuries and that pauses necessary to make the changes would have allowed the defendant time to reflect. The court held that "[g]iven the varied and extensive nature of the brutal injuries to the 11-month-old victim, we find ample support for sending the question to the jury under the State's felony murder theory." Id.

 

[marspiter]

The issue was not and is not related to the jury's verdict. The issue was and remains whether the juror's answer to the reporter's proved premediation beyond a reasonable doubt. It could not. It did not.

Again, if you so so hold that the juror's answer was sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, layout the premises that necessarily force your conclusion.

I think you should read the rest of my post and not just the first sentence.

 

[lin]

The issue was not and is not related to the jury's verdict. The issue was and remains whether the juror's answer to the reporter's proved premediation beyond a reasonable doubt. It could not. It did not.

Again, if you so so hold that the juror's answer was sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, layout the premises that necessarily force your conclusion.

I think I've already done that. If the evidence didn't conclusively show one or the other but could have been read both ways, then the amount of blood was the determinative factor.

A hypothetical scenario:

Defendant plotted and planned to murder victim. The defense theory is while that may be true, before the plan came to fruition, the victim had a horrible accident and died as a result of that accident. Based on these facts, a jury must acquit. However, if it were shown that it was not an accidental death due too much blood at the scene....

HTH

 

[lin]

I think you should read the rest of my post and not just the first sentence.

And not only entire posts, but entire cases prior to citing.

 

[Wudge]

Toddler missing for 31 days, disappearance never reported by Mother

SNIP

Let me know if this is accurate.

Major premise: Toddler is missing for 31 days.

Minor premise: Disappearance never reported by Mother

Inferred conclusion: The Mother is guilty of premeditated murder.

(If I've accurately stated your position, there are two questions. First, is the reasoning for the inferred conclusion valid? Second, is the inferred conclusion reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?)

 

[Wudge]

I think I've already done that. If the evidence didn't conclusively show one or the other but could have been read both ways, then the amount of blood was the determinative factor.

SNIP

No. You have not. Nor has anyone else.

Using the juror's answer as one premise, layout the other premise that necessarily must exist for the juror's answer to be sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[MissJames]

Let me know if this is accurate.

Major premise: Toddler is missing for 31 days.

Minor premise: Disappearance never reported by Mother

Inferred conclusion: The Mother is guilty of premeditated murder.

(If I've accurately stated your position, there are two questions. First, is the reasoning for the inferred conclusion valid? Second, is the inferred conclusion reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?)

by eliminating any other explanation,because anything else is not reasonable to me.....I'd say yes. But of course we all know many more facts in this case.

 

[lin]

No. You have not. Nor has anyone else.

Using the juror's answer as one premise, layout the other premise that necessarily must exist for the juror's answer to be sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moderators, Wudge "snipped" my post to exclude the hypothetical advanced. Is it possible and if so, would you please edit Wudge's post to provide the full context of my post that was quoted? This part was omitted:

"A hypothetical scenario:

Defendant plotted and planned to murder victim. The defense theory is while that may be true, before the plan came to fruition, the victim had a horrible accident and died as a result of that accident. Based on these facts, a jury must acquit. However, if it were shown that it was not an accidental death due too much blood at the scene.... "

I don't think it helps to further the discussion to take one or two sentences out of context in the way that's being done on this thread. This causes the person partially quoted to have to repost what they already did in response to the partial quote and then they get partially quoted again, and so on.

Using this particular post as an example, I advanced a hypothetical that was omitted. Then the poster responded with 'no you didn't' which impliess that I made no attempt, given they left that part out. Now I respond "yes I did" and then that gets snipped again and we're in a childish "no you didn't infinity" thing. I agree it's a good idea to reduce the length of some posts or to only quote the part to which a poster is responding. But this isn't like that. In my view, it's playing semantics and trying to manipulate the posts of others.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[Wudge]

by eliminating any other explanation,because anything else is not reasonable to me.....I'd say yes. But of course we all know many more facts in this case.

I posted the following categorical syllogism.


Major premise: Toddler is missing for 31 days.

Minor premise: Disappearance never reported by Mother

Inferred conclusion: The Mother is guilty of premeditated murder.


I asked if it accurately represented the poster's (Dot's) position. I don't yet know that it does or does not. Nevertheless, the inferred conclusion is not valid. Rather, it represents a logical fallacy.

Specifically, that logical fallacy is called the "four-terms fallacy". For the conclusion (premeditated murder) is not distributed from either the major or the minor premise.


I could just as well have posted.

Major premise: All who flunk this course in applied logic are lazy.

Minor premise: You flunked this course.

Inferred Conclusion: You are good for nothing.

That too would represent a four-term logical fallacy, for the conclusion is not found in the premises; i.e., it's not validly distributed from or otherwise validly based from the premises in any way. It's logcally invalid.


HTH

 

[tweety933]

As regards this being a premediated murder proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the answer is: No.

If you hold otherwise, please, first, cite the fact (or facts) that your inferred conclusion of "guilty" relies on that has been proved to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, using that fact (or facts), layout the premises that are the basis for your, necessarily, highly reliable conclusion of "guilty".

(The certainty of an inferred conclusion can be no greater than the certainty of the facts in the premises.)

Fact...Casey didn't report her daughter missing or call for help because of an accident.
Fact...Casey was the last person seen with Caylee alive.
Fact...Decomposing head hair of Caylee's was found in the trunk of Casey's car the exact day that Casey told the police that she had "spoken with" Caylee.
Fact...Caylee was found dead, and their were three layers of Henkle brand duct tape over her mouth and nose.
Fact...The Henkle tape would cause death to a anyone when applied in the manner it was found , thereby it IS what caused Caylee's death.
Fact...That particular tape found over Caylee's mouth and nose, came from the same source as the Henkle tape used at Casey's house.

NOW, the totality of THAT evidence tell me all I need to know.

Therefore, I conclude beyond any reasonable doubt, that while CASEY was putting the Henkle brand duct tape over the mouth AND nose of her daughter Caylee, she had the time to reflect that this MAY kill her daughter and chose to apply, both the second and third layers!

Is that what you are looking for Wudge, because, I think the three layers of duct tape prove pre-meditation in the application. Therefore, MURDER in the first degree, premeditated.

 

[Imbackon]

Regarding the 31 days...
Has anyone ever heard of ONE CASE, where a parent did not report their young child missing that subsequently convicted some other person of the murder, where it is NOT BELIEVED that the parent at least had knowledge of the murder?

I am of the understanding Casey can get DP or minimum LWOP whether premeditated or not. Am I right?
If so,why oh why must premeditation keep being brought into the question of reasonable doubt. If people think evidence known so far shows murder 1 or whatever the level is to get LWOP at minimum, why all the emphasis on premeditation in these posts?