Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Devon]

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?

Admittedly I am not familiar with US law, but IMO the opinions expressed in this appeal would be insufficient to set a precedent that there could never be a logical or reasonable reason to tape a dead person's mouth and/or eyes shut because there are clearly situations in which it would be logical and/or reasonable to do just that. To attempt to reduce/prevent insect infestation, to hide/cover the 'gaze' of the deceased, to close the jaw, to 'dehumanise' the corpse so that it would be less distressing to deal with, to push a protruding tongue back are all 'reasonable' explanations depending upon the circumstances.

Admittedly, someone who coldly and purposely killed that person would not be likely to bother about such things, but someone who either caused the death through negligence (or otherwise felt they were responsible), or someone who killed during a sudden loss of control and then felt remorse, might well do something to the body after death.

 

[Marina2]

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?

The logical conclusion of your argument is:
Casey is not a mother. (If the premises are true)

 

[MissJames]

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.

I understand why autopsy photos were not released,but the mE usually has sketches that show puncture wound sites,bruises,etc. The sketches would give us a better understanding of the tape placement and would help this entire argument.
Anyone know why the sketches were not released?

 

[marspiter]

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

Not according to Florida. According to Florida reflection is premeditation. If one has time to reflect on their actions, they have time to stop that action and is the bases of how Florida defines premeditation. That's my interpretation of the jury instructions. I think the problem some are having is they are taking the base meaning of premeditation and not how it is applied, and defined in Florida.

 

[Devon]

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: Here's the link. Turns out it was posted by Themis. Guess I got us confused too.

I read that quoted part of the case as indicating evidence that there was an intent to harm demonstrated during the assault and that since the victim supposedly died from the assault there was sufficient evidence to support a felony murder charge/conviction. I don't see anything in the text that suggests that this evidence showed a premeditated intent to kill.

 

[lin]

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.

You're more generous than am I. I think the tape was affixed so tightly that Dr. G felt compelled to list the nasal openings when describing. Frankly, given the width of the average duct tape when compared to the size of the average 2 year old's face, it seems likely to me that if the tape wasn't placed partially under the chin area, creating a noticable fold which wasn't indicated in the report, it would necessarily have to cover the nasal area. But that's jmo, I'm really not good at time and space things.

 

[marspiter]

I read that quoted part of the case as indicating evidence that there was an intent to harm demonstrated during the assault and that since the victim supposedly died from the assault there was sufficient evidence to support a felony murder charge/conviction. I don't see anything in the text that suggests that this evidence showed a premeditated intent to kill.

Felony Murder does not require premeditation.

 

[lin]

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?'

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.

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?

 

[Devon]

Not according to Florida. According to Florida reflection is premeditation. If one has time to reflect on their actions, they have time to stop that action and is the bases of how Florida defines premeditation. That's my interpretation of the jury instructions. I think the problem some are having is they are taking the base meaning of premeditation and not how it is applied, and defined in Florida.

Here's the relevant part of the jury instruction on premeditation, with emphasis added by me:

Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.2 (2003)

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. 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.



The period between the formation of the intent and the killing must be long enough to allow reflection. It says nothing about reflection during the act. A consciousness of the consequences of what you're doing, once you've already started, is not the same as premeditation.

 

[tweety933]

This is an excerpt from the Huck case ( at http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf ) that I found interesting....

"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)."

Being that the medical examiner In Caylee's concluded this was a homicide (not the same as murder) but definitely not an accident based on the circumstances of the condition the body as found in......would be enough to eliminate accident as a reasonable explaination of the evidence to me, if I was a juror, and this being an "expert witness". IOW....even if I wanted to believe it could have been an accident with a coverup, the testimony of the medical examiner would prevent me from believing it, because she has to use a degree of medical probability, not medical certainty. What say you?

 

[AZlawyer]

This is an excerpt from the Huck case ( at http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf ) that I found interesting....

"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)."

Being that the medical examiner In Caylee's concluded this was a homicide (not the same as murder) but definitely not an accident based on the circumstances of the condition the body as found in......would be enough to eliminate accident as a reasonable explaination of the evidence to me, if I was a juror, and this being an "expert witness". IOW....even if I wanted to believe it could have been an accident with a coverup, the testimony of the medical examiner would prevent me from believing it, because she has to use a degree of medical probability, not medical certainty. What say you?

"Homicide" can include situations that would commonly be described as "accidents."

 

[tweety933]

Here's the relevant part of the jury instruction on premeditation, with emphasis added by me:

Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.2 (2003)

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. 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.



The period between the formation of the intent and the killing must be long enough to allow reflection. It says nothing about reflection during the act. A consciousness of the consequences of what you're doing, once you've already started, is not the same as premeditation.

During in the act, IS before the killing (albeit she's still alive). KWIM One piece, oh, that won't kill her, it's only on her mouth, Two piece, oh that one is on her hair and that'll hurt coming off, but prolly won't kill her, Three piece, now that one is covering her nose, she might night be able to breath and die, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.......how long does it take to die from suffocation via duct tape?

 

[lin]

Admittedly I am not familiar with US law, but IMO the opinions expressed in this appeal would be insufficient to set a precedent that there could never be a logical or reasonable reason to tape a dead person's mouth and/or eyes shut because there are clearly situations in which it would be logical and/or reasonable to do just that. To attempt to reduce/prevent insect infestation, to hide/cover the 'gaze' of the deceased, to close the jaw, to 'dehumanise' the corpse so that it would be less distressing to deal with, to push a protruding tongue back are all 'reasonable' explanations depending upon the circumstances.

Admittedly, someone who coldly and purposely killed that person would not be likely to bother about such things, but someone who either caused the death through negligence (or otherwise felt they were responsible), or someone who killed during a sudden loss of control and then felt remorse, might well do something to the body after death.

I respectfully disagree that these suggestions are "reasonable" under the facts of this case. Possible, maybe, but not likely and therefore not reasonable. JBean posted an excellent example on the old thread:

"The last time i was called to jury duty, during voir dire the judge asked to consider this.
She said suppose there is a plate of chocolate chip cookies in the kitchen and you set them on the table and leave the room. You come back a few minutes later to find your child in the kitchen and there is one cookie missing. There is a small dark spot of chocolate on his face but he insists he didn't take it.
Now you didn't see the child take the cookie and you don't really have any proof that he did.
But there is no one else home, no one else has come in or out but the window is open.
So it is POSSIBLE that an alien or a neighbor came in through the window stole a cookie and then left unnoticed. But it would be unreasonable to reach that conclusion with the circumstances surrounding the cookie caper. "

This is especially true in my view, when taken in context with other evidence, such as 2.6 days in trunk and double bagging. The double bagging was sufficiently "dehumanizing" imo to make the duct tape unnecessary. There is no evidence tape was placed over her eyes to prevent 'gazing' and again, that is covered with the double bagging, as is the tongue protrusion. There is likewise no evidence that any other orifices were similarly duct taped so the insect infestation or bodily fluids theories also fail. And who on earth considers these things when confronted with an accidental death in the midst of remorse and sorrow? It's just not reasonable, imo.

We're looking at roughly a 3 day period that she actually dealt with the remains, imo. Add to that Dr. G's professional opinion is the tape was applied prior to decomposition. When did KC calm down enough over this unplanned act to take the actions you suggest? Wouldn't decomp have been well underway if it was in fact unplanned?

I can't think of a single instance wherein a body was duct taped after death for the reasons you suggested. Perhaps some sort of psychopath as part of some ritual but haven't heard of it before nor seen any evidence that theory applies here. A kneejerk reaction to an accidental or otherwise unplanned death is not likely to rush for the duct tape, imo and I've seen nothing to suggest it applies in this case.

Putting the 'mama' doll with the child may be an act of remorse; an expression of sorrow over an unplanned act. Not duct taping her face, imo.

 

[Devon]

Felony Murder does not require premeditation.

I wasn't saying it does. I was replying to lin's suggestion that the passage she referred to in Washington is authority that premeditation can be demonstrated by evidence that there was time for reflection during the act.

 

[RR0004]

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.

...just as I cannot accept "if" anything.

If anyone can cite cases where a mother did go 31 days without reporting her daughter missing then this would all have a logical connection for me. I'd rather not deal with the "what ifs".

 

[Brini]

During in the act, IS before the killing (albeit she's still alive). KWIM One piece, oh, that won't kill her, it's only on her mouth, Two piece, oh that one is on her hair and that'll hurt coming off, but prolly won't kill her, Three piece, now that one is covering her nose, she might night be able to breath and die, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.......how long does it take to die from suffocation via duct tape?

In an adult, about 3 minutes. I don't know much about peds.

 

[marspiter]

Here's the relevant part of the jury instruction on premeditation, with emphasis added by me:

Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.2 (2003)

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. 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.



The period between the formation of the intent and the killing must be long enough to allow reflection. It says nothing about reflection during the act. A consciousness of the consequences of what you're doing, once you've already started, is not the same as premeditation.

Reflection during the act is all that is needed because it takes place moments before the victim is indeed killed. Reflection satisfys everything you have underlined that's relevant. That's why the jury instructions clearly say the time needed to pass is only a reflection of ones actions. More time can be taken but is not required. By reflecting on your actions you have A: made a conscious decision, and it B: happened before the person was killed that's all that's required. You underlined "between" but the law clearly states in the rest of that sentence that it does not determine an amount of time "between" formed intent and the death.

So once again reflecting on ones action is all that's required for premeditation and that reflection can happen mere seconds before the person is actually killed. That is clearly what the instructions say and imply.

 

[RR0004]

Here's the relevant part of the jury instruction on premeditation, with emphasis added by me:

Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.2 (2003)

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. 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.



The period between the formation of the intent and the killing must be long enough to allow reflection. It says nothing about reflection during the act. A consciousness of the consequences of what you're doing, once you've already started, is not the same as premeditation.

...and it only takes a second...and some "handy" duct tape to commit the premeditated act.

 

[Brini]

...just as I cannot accept "if" anything.

If anyone can cite cases where a mother did go 31 days without reporting her daughter missing then this would all have a logical connection for me. I'd rather not deal with the "what ifs".

Then, we can narrow it down further.

If one can even find ONE mother who did not report her child missing for 31 days, how many carried the dead body in the car, as well.

There was ONE other. Since she wasn't attracative, nobody is debating her innocence, and the press haven't been interested, either.

Anybody remember what the charges against her were? It happened AFTER KC's arrest, IIRC.

 

[lin]

I read that quoted part of the case as indicating evidence that there was an intent to harm demonstrated during the assault and that since the victim supposedly died from the assault there was sufficient evidence to support a felony murder charge/conviction. I don't see anything in the text that suggests that this evidence showed a premeditated intent to kill.

The repositioning of the hands, (2nd strip of duct tape), gave ample time to reflect which is what is required to show premeditation. From the jury instructions:

"A premeditated design to kill means that there was a conscious decision to kill. The decision must be present in the mind at the time the act was committed. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the act. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the act was committed."

If you're still not convinced I can look up some cases explaining this further but my understanding, for example, a single gunshot that caused death instantaneously may not necessarily be premeditated. However, if the death required repeated actions and there was time to reflect, then it may be shown as proof of premeditation.