Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Wudge]

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!

Thank you Tweety. That quote was a family favorite when I was but a small pup. Another frequently overheard (or offered) quote was: "No one learns anything, the second time a mule kicks you in the head."

 

[Devon]

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.

Actually the 2.6 days does not indicate the time in the trunk, it's derived from an analysis of the carpet sample and indicates the stage of decomp. of the body at the time the stain was made. This indicates that the body was either bagged immediately and a leak occurred at approx. 2.6 days, or that the body was bagged at approx. 2.6 days, so no further stain occurred. The bagged body could have been in the car for several more days. This time estimate has since been revised to include 1. something days.

So a lot depends on when the handling/bagging of the body occurred and what state it was in. It's entirely possible that KC couldn't bring herself to handle the body unless she covered/tried to change some distressing features.

An immature, cowardly person who had a propensity to lie and deceive her way out of all sorts of problems, both big and small, would certainly be capable of feeling both remorse and sorrow and a desire to avoid any possible blame, even if she did not intend to kill or to be negligent or careless. If she was culpable for the accident in any way, or even just felt that she was, I can see KC as someone who would hide the truth and lie.

I don't think Dr G. is saying the tape was applied before decomp even started, I think she is saying nothing more than it was applied before decomp was complete, because the tape was found attached to the hair mass under the skull, which was why it was kept in situ.

Yes, decomp starts immediately after death, but it starts internally. If Dr G. believed the tape was applied before death I think she would have said so. The implications are that the tape was applied when there was flesh in a stable enough state for it to be applied to - nothing more. If KC did the handling of Caylee's body around the same time that the stain was produced then that would have been around 1-3 days after death. I don't think the flesh would have been unstable at that point. I don't think she 'rushed' for the duct tape, it would have been applied some time during that period before she bagged the body, which is most likely 1 - 3 days after death IMO. A heart sticker on the tape could be deemed a sign of remorse/sorrow.

 

[lin]

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

Please cite the authorities that support your opinions. I've already posted mine to the contrary regarding premeditated and reflection.

 

[lin]

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.

Your experience does not equate applicable law unless you are able to cite which Florida cases you have "experienced."

(mock trials are not precedent setting and their results are not authoritative on any legal basis)

 

[marspiter]

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.

lol Well yes I can attest that being small arms certified does make a difference. Your reaction time becomes instinctive with training for differing situations. However most qualifications take place with in 25ft anything greater would require a certain degree of aiming (for pistols). I do however keep one loaded gun in my home kept in a biometrix safe. The others are in my larger safe. Sorry OT

I was just trying to illustrate that premed in Florida only requires reflection which could take place in the time it takes to pull a trigger.

 

[Devon]

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.

it does not say or imply 'the time needed to pass is only a reflection of ones actions'. The time period it refers to is the period before the killing takes place and the reflection required is a reflection on the intent (which must happen before the killing), not the act that follows it (the killing itself).

 

[impatientredhead]

Actually the 2.6 days does not indicate the time in the trunk, it's derived from an analysis of the carpet sample and indicates the stage of decomp. of the body at the time the stain was made. This indicates that the body was either bagged immediately and a leak occurred at approx. 2.6 days, or that the body was bagged at approx. 2.6 days, so no further stain occurred. The bagged body could have been in the car for several more days. This time estimate has since been revised to include 1. something days.

So a lot depends on when the handling/bagging of the body occurred and what state it was in. It's entirely possible that KC couldn't bring herself to handle the body unless she covered/tried to change some distressing features.

An immature, cowardly person who had a propensity to lie and deceive her way out of all sorts of problems, both big and small, would certainly be capable of feeling both remorse and sorrow and a desire to avoid any possible blame, even if she did not intend to kill or to be negligent or careless. If she was culpable for the accident in any way, or even just felt that she was, I can see KC as someone who would hide the truth and lie.

I don't think Dr G. is saying the tape was applied before decomp even started, I think she is saying nothing more than it was applied before decomp was complete, because the tape was found attached to the hair mass under the skull, which was why it was kept in situ.

Yes, decomp starts immediately after death, but it starts internally. If Dr G. believed the tape was applied before death I think she would have said so. The implications are that the tape was applied when there was flesh in a stable enough state for it to be applied to - nothing more. If KC did the handling of Caylee's body around the same time that the stain was produced then that would have been around 1-3 days after death. I don't think the flesh would have been unstable at that point. I don't think she 'rushed' for the duct tape, it would have been applied some time during that period before she bagged the body, which is most likely 1 - 3 days after death IMO. A heart sticker on the tape could be deemed a sign of remorse/sorrow.

Dr. G cannot say she believes it was placed before death. She can only state what is scientifically supportable based on the examination of the body. She stated that the tape was placed before decomp began. There is no speculation in that statement. Decomp has an operational definition in her line of work.

The 2.6 days is indicative of the gases being released by the body at the time it was removed from the trunk (plus or minus their error factor). Being in a garbage bag does not stop the release of those chemicals. If it did cadaver dogs would not find bodies and body parts wrapped in garbage bags across the country. If garbage bags completely contained the escaping gases of decomp no one would be able to smell rotting garbage on trash day. Put a well wrapped bag of trash in your trunk during a Florida summer and I promise you those gases are not contained inside the bag. Those gases are being released and that is what we smell.

If Caylee's body was in the trunk for weeks the chemical profile they found would have been different no matter how many hefty bags she used. Casey did not have a hermedically sealed tomb in her trunk.

 

[Wudge]

Your experience does not equate applicable law

SNIP

I never said it did.

 

[lin]

Actually the 2.6 days does not indicate the time in the trunk, it's derived from an analysis of the carpet sample and indicates the stage of decomp. of the body at the time the stain was made. This indicates that the body was either bagged immediately and a leak occurred at approx. 2.6 days, or that the body was bagged at approx. 2.6 days, so no further stain occurred. The bagged body could have been in the car for several more days. This time estimate has since been revised to include 1. something days.

So a lot depends on when the handling/bagging of the body occurred and what state it was in. It's entirely possible that KC couldn't bring herself to handle the body unless she covered/tried to change some distressing features.

An immature, cowardly person who had a propensity to lie and deceive her way out of all sorts of problems, both big and small, would certainly be capable of feeling both remorse and sorrow and a desire to avoid any possible blame, even if she did not intend to kill or to be negligent or careless. If she was culpable for the accident in any way, or even just felt that she was, I can see KC as someone who would hide the truth and lie.

I don't think Dr G. is saying the tape was applied before decomp even started, I think she is saying nothing more than it was applied before decomp was complete, because the tape was found attached to the hair mass under the skull, which was why it was kept in situ.

Yes, decomp starts immediately after death, but it starts internally. If Dr G. believed the tape was applied before death I think she would have said so. The implications are that the tape was applied when there was flesh in a stable enough state for it to be applied to - nothing more. If KC did the handling of Caylee's body around the same time that the stain was produced then that would have been around 1-3 days after death. I don't think the flesh would have been unstable at that point. I don't think she 'rushed' for the duct tape, it would have been applied some time during that period before she bagged the body, which is most likely 1 - 3 days after death IMO. A heart sticker on the tape could be deemed a sign of remorse/sorrow.

I'm no forensic expert so can't dispute your conclusions there.

I also agree that KC has a propensity to lie and cover up things to avoid trouble/embarrassment. What I can't see is any evidence whatsoever to support an unplanned or otherwise accidental death. Until it's on the table, so to speak, I don't think we can really consider it. Folks, (general not specific), keep asking for evidence to show it was not an accident. I want to see what shows it was an accident. Until I do, I discount that possibility. The state has given me enough to believe it was murder. Now it's up to the defense to show a reasonable alternate theory of the evidence or to add other evidence to support their theory.

While you could be correct, in the "it's possible" category, I don't think it's reasonable to assume without any corroboration whatsoever that KC couldn't bear to handle the body to put it into the trash bags without duct taping first. I understand you're trying to come up with hypotheticals and may be throwing things out there in a just sayin' kind of way. Does it occur to you that the difficulty in creating these possibilities may be directly proportional to their reasonableness?

 

[Devon]

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.

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.

 

[tweety933]

Actually the 2.6 days does not indicate the time in the trunk, it's derived from an analysis of the carpet sample and indicates the stage of decomp. of the body at the time the stain was made. This indicates that the body was either bagged immediately and a leak occurred at approx. 2.6 days, or that the body was bagged at approx. 2.6 days, so no further stain occurred. The bagged body could have been in the car for several more days. This time estimate has since been revised to include 1. something days.

So a lot depends on when the handling/bagging of the body occurred and what state it was in. It's entirely possible that KC couldn't bring herself to handle the body unless she covered/tried to change some distressing features.

An immature, cowardly person who had a propensity to lie and deceive her way out of all sorts of problems, both big and small, would certainly be capable of feeling both remorse and sorrow and a desire to avoid any possible blame, even if she did not intend to kill or to be negligent or careless. If she was culpable for the accident in any way, or even just felt that she was, I can see KC as someone who would hide the truth and lie.

I don't think Dr G. is saying the tape was applied before decomp even started, I think she is saying nothing more than it was applied before decomp was complete, because the tape was found attached to the hair mass under the skull, which was why it was kept in situ.

Yes, decomp starts immediately after death, but it starts internally. If Dr G. believed the tape was applied before death I think she would have said so. The implications are that the tape was applied when there was flesh in a stable enough state for it to be applied to - nothing more. If KC did the handling of Caylee's body around the same time that the stain was produced then that would have been around 1-3 days after death. I don't think the flesh would have been unstable at that point. I don't think she 'rushed' for the duct tape, it would have been applied some time during that period before she bagged the body, which is most likely 1 - 3 days after death IMO. A heart sticker on the tape could be deemed a sign of remorse/sorrow.

If what you are saying is true, ("If Dr G. believed the tape was applied before death I think she would have said so.") then why did she determine the manner of death to be homicide? This is very curious to me!

 

[marspiter]

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.

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.

 

[Brini]

lol Well yes I can attest that being small arms certified does make a difference. Your reaction time becomes instinctive with training for differing situations. However most qualifications take place with in 25ft anything greater would require a certain degree of aiming (for pistols). I do however keep one loaded gun in my home kept in a biometrix safe. The others are in my larger safe. Sorry OT

I was just trying to illustrate that premed in Florida only requires reflection which could take place in the time it takes to pull a trigger.

I guess I gotta move there....

On the other hand, I can stay in CA, and just eat twinkies!

 

[Brini]

If what you are saying is true, ("If Dr G. believed the tape was applied before death I think she would have said so.") then why did she determine the manner of death to be homicide? This is very curious to me!

I can't read long posts, today (really!)

But, the part about deteriorating from the inside out is true.

Except for the fluids.

 

[Brini]

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.

Then, IRH and I need to stay outta there. Red-heads' blood NEVER cools! ;-)

 

[JBean]

If what you are saying is true, ("If Dr G. believed the tape was applied before death I think she would have said so.") then why did she determine the manner of death to be homicide? This is very curious to me!

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.

 

[MissJames]

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.

 

[Brini]

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.

 

[impatientredhead]

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.

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.

 

[Devon]

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.

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.