Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Brini]

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.

Happen when one reaches for the duct tape.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Very interesting...

ETA: I came up with RAS's mom

 

[MissJames]

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.

I vaguely remember this story.A woman had her child in the trunk for awhile IIRC.
Do tell......

 

[Brini]

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.

That's why so much h... broke loose re: the Harvey Milk case, that books were written and a flick was made. The killer reloaded.

The killer was found not responsible, IIRC, because his junk-food diet "left him unable to premeditate." That decision went down (I mean DOWN) in legal history as "The Twinkie Defense."

The killer hated gays. I think this happened before hate crimes were made federal.

 

[impatientredhead]

Happen when one reaches for the duct tape.

With Susan Smith they played a tape of how long it would have taken the car to sink and how long she had to react/reflect/respond. If they do this with the tape she has to get the tape, tear off the first piece, put the roll down place it, reach for the tape, tear off another piece, put the roll down, place it, reach for the tape tear of the final piece, put the roll down, place the tape. And then you add 3-5 minutes for death to occur. That is a long silent time in a courtroom for the jury to realize how long she sat and reflected on the choice she was making.

 

[Brini]

I vaguely remember this story.A woman had her child in the trunk for awhile IIRC.
Do tell......

Yep. An unattractive, overweight woman, I believe. Killed her three-year old and left the body in the trunk of the car. I think she got pulled over.....

 

[lin]

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.

Great job! To me it makes it even more clear.

1. Reaching for the duct tape to apply to the child's face = premeditation unless you can come up with a reasonable alternative as to why she would duct tape a child's face. (And if so, it's likely to be aggravated abuse, bringing us back to fm.)

2. She had time to reflect between acquiring the duct tape and before applying the first strip and more time to reflect before the second and more time to reflect after the third and so on for however many strips were applied

3. Reaching for the duct tape may not have been premeditated. But everything that followed was.

 

[marspiter]

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.

To illustrate the point: pulling the trigger on a gun is during the act. If while squeezing the trigger you think for just a second about what your about to do that's premeditation right there in the time it takes to pull the trigger.

Not going to get into what someone would reasonably think would happen by pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. Just using this example to show how fast that length of time for reflection can be.

 

[Brini]

With Susan Smith they played a tape of how long it would have taken the car to sink and how long she had to react/reflect/respond. If they do this with the tape she has to get the tape, tear off the first piece, put the roll down place it, reach for the tape, tear off another piece, put the roll down, place it, reach for the tape tear of the final piece, put the roll down, place the tape. And then you add 3-5 minutes for death to occur. That is a long silent time in a courtroom for the jury to realize how long she sat and reflected on the choice she was making.

In the trial re: the murder of Dominic Dunne's daughter, Domenique, the state timed out three minutes, and made the jury aware of ev-e-ry, sin-gle, se-cond.

The murder got a slap on the wrist. Dunne started cranking out great books on unpunished true crime.

There are, of course, abberational jury and other legal decisions, now and then.

But, there is rarely this much circumstantial evidence available, and we do have Knight.

Knight cannot be argued away.

 

[impatientredhead]

Yep. An unattractive, overweight woman, I believe. Killed her three-year old and left the body in the trunk of the car. I think she got pulled over.....

My post just dissappeared into to cyberland so I apologize if this is a duplicate. It was in Montana, a native american name that I cannot come up with at the moment. This is the case that they compare the air found in the trunk to in Caylee's forensics. I think this woman took a plea deal, but it barely made the news and it if it hadn't been for the Casey similarity it probably would have only been local news.

There are no cases of a mother not reporting their child missing where the mother didn't cause the child's death. Not one. People who want their kids back call the police. Criminals who want the evidence to decompose don't. It is a a simple equation.

ETA- http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5757005
The mother, Summer ManyWhiteHorses, was charged Monday with deliberate homicide. Authorities say the body of her 2-year-old son, James, was found Friday in the trunk of her car — more than six weeks after it was towed to a wrecking yard when she was arrested.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_017b7ad4-2da2-5952-bc49-94b6fafaf4ae.html

Plead to negligent homicide. Autopsy shows skull fracture as cause of death. Evidence he was beaten over a 100 times in his 2 years.

 

[Wudge]

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.

Look for final jury instructions in this case to be related to or equated to the following:

"intent" equated to willful

"premeditation" equated to planning

"reflection" equated to deliberation, consideration

? equated to malice aforethought

 

[Brini]

Felony Murder does not require premeditation.

Tru dat!

 

[MissJames]

Look for final jury instructions in this case to be related to or equated to the following:

"intent" equated to willful

"premeditation" equated to planning

"reflection" equated to deliberation, consideration

? equated to malice aforethought

What are you basing this on.Premeditaion is NOT equated to planning ,especially in FL.

 

[Brini]

To illustrate the point: pulling the trigger on a gun is during the act. If while squeezing the trigger you think for just a second about what your about to do that's premeditation right there in the time it takes to pull the trigger.

Not going to get into what someone would reasonably think would happen by pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. Just using this example to show how fast that length of time for reflection can be.

A trained, skilled shooter might only aim, to establish premed. Trained shooters do not even AIM, unless they are going to fire.

In my house, if I loaded a gun, premed might be inferred. Having been trained and small-arms certified, I do not keep the house gun loaded. It is loaded on the firing range, just before firing at the target. When I am not shooting at a target it is not in my hand.

 

[Brini]

Look for final jury instructions in this case to be related to or equated to the following:

"intent" equated to willful

"premeditation" equated to planning

"reflection" equated to deliberation, consideration

? equated to malice aforethought

No, honey. Premed is not the same as planning, in the FL criminal codes.

Page back and read, please.

Premed is reflection.

 

[marspiter]

Look for final jury instructions in this case to be related to or equated to the following:

"intent" equated to willful

"premeditation" equated to planning

"reflection" equated to deliberation, consideration

? equated to malice aforethought

Given that the state of Florida has selected their standard jury instruction to say what they do, it's not inconceivable that this is what they will use for this trial. Speculating that they will say anything other then they do is just that....speculation.

 

[Wudge]

What are you basing this on.Premeditaion is NOT equated to planning ,especially in FL.

Experience.

I would not at all be surprised if Florida considered premeditation to encompass both planning and malice aforethought (evil mind, depraved mind); i.e., a depraved plan.

 

[tweety933]

Experience.

I would not at all be surprised if Florida considered premeditation to encompass both planning and malice aforethought (evil mind, depraved mind); i.e., a depraved plan.

It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

I love your quote!

 

[impatientredhead]

A trained, skilled shooter might only aim, to establish premed. Trained shooters do not even AIM, unless they are going to fire.

In my house, if I loaded a gun, premed might be inferred. Having been trained and small-arms certified, I do not keep the house gun loaded. It is loaded on the firing range, just before firing at the target. When I am not shooting at a target it is not in my hand.

Yep, reaching for the gun is intent and premeditation in many states.
It takes forethought. I am going to get my/that gun, aim it, pull the trigger, and a reasonable assumption will be that it may cause this person's death. Murder with intent.

Some states will allow for crimes of passion, ie hubby comes home and finds wife in bed with his best friend, flips and shoots them. They will allow for a difference in I am going to drive an hour home, thinking and planning to kill this cheating wife of mine versus omg I am stunned by what I found and had I been an hour away from home I would have calmed down and not killed her. Not many states allow for that difference anymore. Florida does not. Florida is a picking up the gun, aiming it and pulling the trigger takes intent and planning state. Maybe not much planning, maybe it happens quickly, but it is premeditated and intentional.

The other scenario is I am in a fight with someone who pulls a gun on me, we wrestle for the gun and I end up shooting him. There is no intent or planning on my part in that case to cause his death. Depending on the state it could be considered self defense while my life is in danger or it could be consider the outcome of our initial fight and I could face charges related to those event and resulting in an unintentional death (manslaughter).

 

[Brini]

Yep, reaching for the gun is intent and premeditation in many states.
It takes forethought. I am going to get my/that gun, aim it, pull the trigger, and a reasonable assumption will be that it may cause this person's death. Murder with intent.

Some states will allow for crimes of passion, ie hubby comes home and finds wife in bed with his best friend, flips and shoots them. They will allow for a difference in I am going to drive an hour home, thinking and planning to kill this cheating wife of mine versus omg I am stunned by what I found and had I been an hour away from home I would have calmed down and not killed her. Not many states allow for that difference anymore. Florida does not. Florida is a picking up the gun, aiming it and pulling the trigger takes intent and planning state. Maybe not much planning, maybe it happens quickly, but it is premeditated and intentional.

The other scenario is I am in a fight with someone who pulls a gun on me, we wrestle for the gun and I end up shooting him. There is no intent or planning on my part in that case to cause his death. Depending on the state it could be considered self defense while my life is in danger or it could be consider the outcome of our initial fight and I could face charges related to those event and resulting in an unintentional death (manslaughter).

There used to be a joke about the TX defense, "He needed killing."