Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[RR0004]

Well,I guess I flunked AND I'm lazy,cuz I don't know,nor do I care ,what a categorical syllogism is :blowkiss:

Thanks for being you!

 

[lin]

Hypothetical here....a reporter asked me what conclude that Casey Anthony committed premeditated murder? my response "The Henkle Brand duct tape".

I guess when someone doesn't know the facts of the case that would seem like a really silly answer, don't ya think? One thing I "assumed" when the reporter asked me that question was that the reporter "knew" the facts of the case before asking me that question.

So, in the context of the conversation it made sense, but as a sound bite, it sounds ridiculous. KWIM

What's really ridiculous, imo, is taking the quote out of context so as to make it subject to ridicule.

 

[Devon]

The minor premise being......When duct tape is applied over a persons mouth and nose in this manner it is without a doubt something that is likely to suffocate someone.

That's my logic of the premeditation element!

Being that I find these facts, each seperately, to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, the combination of the totality of these facts lead me to the logical conclusion that the crime was committed beyond any reasonable doubt!

IMO the problem with that reasoning is that knowing that an action is 'likely' to kill someone may demonstrate a reckless disregard for life or safety, but does not meet the definition of premeditation, which requires an intent to kill that is formed before the act commences. I think the clue is in the 'pre' part of premeditation. Thinking about what you're doing whilst doing it is meditation/reflection but it's not premeditation

 

[Wudge]

Your minor premise is out of sync, too, for me. Am I supposed to be looking at this illogically? Because logically I would never presume that only cowboys wear cowboy hats.

I simply modified the original minor premise with the very limiting term "only".

Then I asked: "if" the premises are true, is the inferred conclusion necessarily valid and reliable? Focus on the condition: "if", then answer.

 

[tweety933]

We do not know of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the tape went on before Caylee died. What proves beyond a reasonable doubt Caylee was suffocated by the tape?

It is un-reasonable to conclude that anyone would put duct tape over the mouth and nose of someone who is dead, or even someone who is injured. ONE....and there is a case that shows a precedent on this mentioned on another thread, sorry I can't cite it, I'll try to find it later, and edit this post. HUCK.....(2004 Florida Fifth Circuit)

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf

TWO....the medical examiner determinded that the tape was placed prior to decomposition, and that it was homicide. (Expert witness)

Therefore, it does prove premeditation to me.

It may not prove CAUSE of death though, I'll concede to that.

If the tape is not what caused her death, then maybe the death was caused by say,a bullet through the soft tissue and organs with a 30 caliber rifle, and she bled to death before she actually suffocated from the tape, or she was manually strangled, or say she was injected with some lethal chemical. Either way.....whomever put the tape on her mouth, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, was the same person who effected her cause of death, no matter if it was strangulation, suffocation, poisoning, or gunshot wound.

OK, so say their was an accomplice, I'll put on the tape, and you strangle her, OK? Even in that scenario, the person who put on the tape is complicit, and it was premeditated, JMO

Cause of death can not be definitively proven, due to the condition of the corpse, and is not necessary in order to prove intent (premeditation).

Am I making any sense here?

 

[MissJames]

It is un-reasonable to conclude that anyone would put duct tape over the mouth and nose of someone who is dead, or even someone who is injured. ONE....and there is a case that shows a precedent on this mentioned on another thread, sorry I can't cite it, I'll try to find it later, and edit this post. TWO....the medical examiner determinded that the tape was placed prior to decomposition, and that it was homicide. (Expert witness)

Therefore, it does prove premeditation to me.

It may not prove CAUSE of death though, I'll concede to that.

If the tape is not what caused her death, then maybe the death was caused by say,a bullet through the soft tissue and organs with a 30 caliber rifle, and she bled to death before she actually suffocated from the tape, or she was manually strangled, or say she was injected with some lethal chemical. Either way.....whomever put the tape on her mouth, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, was the same person who effected her cause of death, no matter if it was strangulation, suffocation, poisoning, or gunshot wound.

OK, so say their was an accomplice, I'll put on the tape, and you strangle her, OK? Even in that scenario, the person who put on the tape is complicit, and it was premeditated, JMO

Cause of death can not be definitively proven, due to the condition of the corpse, and is not necessary in order to prove intent (premeditation).

Am I making any sense here?

yes,you are making sense . ITA

 

[AZlawyer]

We do not know of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the tape went on before Caylee died. What proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was suffocated by the tape?

I think we can agree that the tape was put on Caylee on purpose rather than by accident. I think the jury can also conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the one who applied the tape, based on the fact that there is no indication whatsoever of the involvement of any other person and the materials found with the body all apparently came from the home.

Then we can ask ourselves, "For what purposes would one apply 3 layers of duct tape over a child's face, either before or after death?"

Then go through each alternative that is NOT "to suffocate the child" and see if it is reasonable in light of all the evidence.

Alternative 1: To keep the child quiet for a period of time. Is this a reasonable explanation in light of all the evidence? (It would still be second-degree murder.) If Casey had intended merely to keep Caylee quiet, would her discovery of the horrible result of her efforts have left her happier than she had been for a long time, as she said to Iassen in her IM? Was Casey's behavior consistent with that of a devasted grieving mother? Would she have applied the tape over Caylee's hair if she had intended to remove it at some future time?

Alternative 2: To cover up an accidental death by making it look like a kidnapping. (The accidental death, by the way, whatever it was, would likely constitute aggravated manslaughter of a child if it was worth covering up.) Is this reasonably consistent with the evidence? Again, was Casey's behavior consistent with a mother who had just lost her precious daughter in a horrible accident? Would Casey have used 3 layers of duct tape and taped into Caylee's hair to stage a kidnapping? Are the multiple layers of duct tape more consistent with an alive, struggling child than with a dead child?

Alternative 3: To prevent fluid leakage/insect activity/etc. following a death from an accident. (Again, given the undisputed evidence of cover-up and the fact that Caylee was totally dependent upon Casey, this "accident" would potentially constitute aggravated manslaughter of a child.) Is this reasonably consistent with the evidence? Again, was Casey's behavior consistent with a mother who had just lost her precious daughter in a horrible accident? Is this theory consistent with the fact that only a select number of body openings were taped? Would multiple layers of tape have been necessary or helpful to accomplish this purpose? Would duct tape stick after decomp/insect activity had begun? If not, does this mean the person who applied the tape would have to have known ahead of time that such activity would occur AND have had the presence of mind to apply duct tape as their initial reaction to the death? Is such presence of mind consistent with the shock of losing one's precious daughter in a horrible accident? What would be the purpose of preventing decomp/insect activity? If to avoid disfigurement of the child, would the application of 3 layers of duct tape over a child's face reasonably seem like a step to take to accomplish that goal?

Alternative 4: ???

 

[lin]

IMO the problem with that reasoning is that knowing that an action is 'likely' to kill someone may demonstrate a reckless disregard for life or safety, but does not meet the definition of premeditation, which requires an intent to kill that is formed before the act commences. I think the clue is in the 'pre' part of premeditation. Thinking about what you're doing whilst doing it is meditation/reflection but it's not premeditation

I agree with you as far as plain English but disagree as far as the law. Did you read the case I cited near the beginning of the thread? Washington, iirc?

ETA: [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3990675&postcount=12]Here's the link.[/ame] Turns out it was posted by Themis. Guess I got us confused too.

 

[Marina2]

Your minor premise is out of sync, too, for me. Am I supposed to be looking at this illogically? Because logically I would never presume that only cowboys wear cowboy hats.

The question was:
If the revised premises are true, is the conclusion now necessarily valid and reliable?

I would reverse the major and minor premises:

Only cowboys wear cowboy hats
Jim wears a cowboy hat
Jim is a cowboy

Dot's argument: (KC not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days is enough for her to believe that KC committed premeditated murder)

All mothers who don't report their child missing for 31 days are murderers.
KC didn't report her child missing for 31 days.
KC is a murderer.

While valid in form, it's materially untrue because the major premise can't be accepted.

 

[Wudge]

It is un-reasonable to conclude that anyone would put duct tape over the mouth and nose of someone who is dead, or even someone who is injured. ONE....and there is a case that shows a precedent on this mentioned on another thread, sorry I can't cite it, I'll try to find it later, and edit this post. HUCK.....(2004 Florida Fifth Circuit)

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf

TWO....the medical examiner determinded that the tape was placed prior to decomposition, and that it was homicide. (Expert witness)

Therefore, it does prove premeditation to me.

It may not prove CAUSE of death though, I'll concede to that.

If the tape is not what caused her death, then maybe the death was caused by say,a bullet through the soft tissue and organs with a 30 caliber rifle, and she bled to death before she actually suffocated from the tape, or she was manually strangled, or say she was injected with some lethal chemical. Either way.....whomever put the tape on her mouth, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, was the same person who effected her cause of death, no matter if it was strangulation, suffocation, poisoning, or gunshot wound.

OK, so say their was an accomplice, I'll put on the tape, and you strangle her, OK? Even in that scenario, the person who put on the tape is complicit, and it was premeditated, JMO

Cause of death can not be definitively proven, due to the condition of the corpse, and is not necessary in order to prove intent (premeditation).

Am I making any sense here?

You are correct in your assessment regarding the tape not necessarily causing death, which is an extremely important and necessary fact (in the example we we're discussing) that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lin]

It is un-reasonable to conclude that anyone would put duct tape over the mouth and nose of someone who is dead, or even someone who is injured. ONE....and there is a case that shows a precedent on this mentioned on another thread, sorry I can't cite it, I'll try to find it later, and edit this post. HUCK.....(2004 Florida Fifth Circuit)

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf

TWO....the medical examiner determinded that the tape was placed prior to decomposition, and that it was homicide. (Expert witness)

Therefore, it does prove premeditation to me.

It may not prove CAUSE of death though, I'll concede to that.

If the tape is not what caused her death, then maybe the death was caused by say,a bullet through the soft tissue and organs with a 30 caliber rifle, and she bled to death before she actually suffocated from the tape, or she was manually strangled, or say she was injected with some lethal chemical. Either way.....whomever put the tape on her mouth, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, was the same person who effected her cause of death, no matter if it was strangulation, suffocation, poisoning, or gunshot wound.

OK, so say their was an accomplice, I'll put on the tape, and you strangle her, OK? Even in that scenario, the person who put on the tape is complicit, and it was premeditated, JMO

Cause of death can not be definitively proven, due to the condition of the corpse, and is not necessary in order to prove intent (premeditation).

Am I making any sense here?

Perfect sense, Tweety933. Not only that, in the short time that you've been posting, I've notice significant progress, (maybe confidence?), in your posts and I'm quickly becoming your biggest fan.

The state is not required to prove HOW, WHERE or WHY (motive) Caylee died. The jury can and will draw conclusions based on the evidence presented. I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude the duct tape as a mechanism of death for the reasons you stated. And I mean even the 5th DCA made a point of opining there is no reasonable explanation for duct tape after death. They agree with you too.

ETA: Not meant to be condescending or imply your first posts were lacking. I just notice you seem to be including more info and more of your own reasoning which to me is improving on something that wasn't bad to start with.

 

[tweety933]

You are correct in your assessment regarding the tape not necessarily causing death, which is an extremely important and necessary fact (in the example we we're discussing) that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I disagree that cause of death has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to find a defendant guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder (the example we we're discussing). Why would the SA have charged KC with this prior to a body even being found?

I really would like to know how you come to the belief that "cause of death" is a necessary element in proving the crime charged? TIA

 

[lin]

I think we can agree that the tape was put on Caylee on purpose rather than by accident. I think the jury can also conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the one who applied the tape, based on the fact that there is no indication whatsoever of the involvement of any other person and the materials found with the body all apparently came from the home.

Then we can ask ourselves, "For what purposes would one apply 3 layers of duct tape over a child's face, either before or after death?"

Then go through each alternative that is NOT "to suffocate the child" and see if it is reasonable in light of all the evidence.

Alternative 1: To keep the child quiet for a period of time. Is this a reasonable explanation in light of all the evidence? (It would still be second-degree murder.) If Casey had intended merely to keep Caylee quiet, would her discovery of the horrible result of her efforts have left her happier than she had been for a long time, as she said to Iassen in her IM? Was Casey's behavior consistent with that of a devasted grieving mother? Would she have applied the tape over Caylee's hair if she had intended to remove it at some future time?

Alternative 2: To cover up an accidental death by making it look like a kidnapping. (The accidental death, by the way, whatever it was, would likely constitute aggravated manslaughter of a child if it was worth covering up.) Is this reasonably consistent with the evidence? Again, was Casey's behavior consistent with a mother who had just lost her precious daughter in a horrible accident? Would Casey have used 3 layers of duct tape and taped into Caylee's hair to stage a kidnapping? Are the multiple layers of duct tape more consistent with an alive, struggling child than with a dead child?

Alternative 3: To prevent fluid leakage/insect activity/etc. following a death from an accident. (Again, given the undisputed evidence of cover-up and the fact that Caylee was totally dependent upon Casey, this "accident" would potentially constitute aggravated manslaughter of a child.) Is this reasonably consistent with the evidence? Again, was Casey's behavior consistent with a mother who had just lost her precious daughter in a horrible accident? Is this theory consistent with the fact that only a select number of body openings were taped? Would multiple layers of tape have been necessary or helpful to accomplish this purpose? Would duct tape stick after decomp/insect activity had begun? If not, does this mean the person who applied the tape would have to have known ahead of time that such activity would occur AND have had the presence of mind to apply duct tape as their initial reaction to the death? Is such presence of mind consistent with the shock of losing one's precious daughter in a horrible accident? What would be the purpose of preventing decomp/insect activity? If to avoid disfigurement of the child, would the application of 3 layers of duct tape over a child's face reasonably seem like a step to take to accomplish that goal?

Alternative 4: ???

And a "staged" kidnapping wouldn't likely include duct tape over the child's nose; nor would the coverage of the nose be consistent with simply trying to quiet the child for a non-permanent amount of time.

 

[Marina2]

IMO the problem with that reasoning is that knowing that an action is 'likely' to kill someone may demonstrate a reckless disregard for life or safety, but does not meet the definition of premeditation, which requires an intent to kill that is formed before the act commences. I think the clue is in the 'pre' part of premeditation. Thinking about what you're doing whilst doing it is meditation/reflection but it's not premeditation

If you remember the appeal I posted about the woman who shot at the truck several times it illustrates your point. It was her intent or lack thereof, that brought about the reversal. She had plenty of time to change her mind while firing several shots at the truck. That was not the issue or deciding factor.

 

[lin]

The question was:
If the revised premises are true, is the conclusion now necessarily valid and reliable?

I would reverse the major and minor premises:

Only cowboys wear cowboy hats
Jim wears a cowboy hat
Jim is a cowboy

Dot's argument: (KC not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days is enough for her to believe that KC committed premeditated murder)

All mothers who don't report their child missing for 31 days are murderers.
KC didn't report her child missing for 31 days.
KC is a murderer.

While valid in form, it's materially untrue because the major premise can't be accepted.

While it may not prove guilt to a legal standard, I am certain the jury will draw reasonable inferences from same that will weigh heavily.

 

[lin]

If you remember the appeal I posted about the woman who shot at the truck several times it illustrates your point. It was her intent or lack thereof, that brought about the reversal. She had plenty of time to change her mind while firing several shots at the truck. That was not the issue or deciding factor.

I think the deciding factor, iirc, was not on the time or the amount of reflection but instead that there was an alternative reasonable explanation for why she shot at the truck. Or am I mixing it up with another case?

ETA: I see you were saying essentially the same thing. Therefore, that begs the question of, (previously posed by AZlawyer), 'what is the reasonable alternate explanation?'

 

[Wudge]

The question was:
If the revised premises are true, is the conclusion now necessarily valid and reliable?

I would reverse the major and minor premises:

Only cowboys wear cowboy hats
Jim wears a cowboy hat
Jim is a cowboy

Dot's argument: (KC not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days is enough for her to believe that KC committed premeditated murder)

All mothers who don't report their child missing for 31 days are murderers.
KC didn't report her child missing for 31 days.
KC is a murderer.

While valid in form, it's materially untrue because the major premise can't be accepted.

I have no problem with your reversing the major and minor premises in the cowboy example. Either way, if the premises are true, the conclusion that Jim is a cowboy is valid and reliable.

As regards redoing Dot's example, you are doing well in your modifications. Still, in a trial, the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the premise "All Mothers who don't report their child missing for 31 days are murderers" is true. That's a problem which you also properly recognized.

The premises being untrue or not being proven to be true is usually where the major problem lies with the validity and/or reliability of inferred conclusions.

 

[AZlawyer]

And a "staged" kidnapping wouldn't likely include duct tape over the child's nose; nor would the coverage of the nose be consistent with simply trying to quiet the child for a non-permanent amount of time.

Oh, I agree. If the evidence shows that the nasal openings would have been covered at the time the tape was applied, the analysis is simpler. I understand from the autopsy report that the tape was over the mouth and nasal apertures at the time of the autopsy. I'm just a little unclear on whether the tape might have moved from its original position following decomposition of the tissues to which it was sticking, so for now I'm giving Casey the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Marina2]

I think the deciding factor, iirc, was not on the time or the amount of reflection but instead that there was an alternative reasonable explanation for why she shot at the truck. Or am I mixing it up with another case?

Correct. It was her lack of intent to commit murder that reversed the conviction. Just because a person has time to change their mind it doesn't necessarily equal premeditation. The guy who strangled the two prostitutes had plenty of time to change his mind but it didn't equal premeditation. His conviction was reversed because his intent wasn't to murder them.

 

[tweety933]

I have no problem with your reversing the major and minor premises in the cowboy example. Either way, if the premises are true, the conclusion that Jim is a cowboy is valid and reliable.

As regards redoing Dot's example, you are doing well in your modifications. Still, in a trial, the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the premise "All Mothers who don't report their child missing for 31 days are murderers" is true. That's a problem which you also properly recognized.

The premises being untrue or not being proven to be true is usually where the major problem lies with the validity and/or reliability of inferred conclusions.

Major Premise: All Mothers whose children go missing call authorities for help. (Beyond a reasonable doubt)

Minor Premise: Casey did not call authorities, even though she admitted that she should have. (Without a Doubt)

Conclusion: Casey is responsible for what happened to her daughter. (Beyond a reasonable doubt)

What actually happened to her daughter matters NOT, she is responsible with these premises ALONE, but WHAT of, that is the question?