Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Devon]

The courts may eventually infer intent from the continuation of the beating. You must have intended for her to die to keep kicking her for so long and with such strength.

I agree that a preformed intent to kill could be inferred from evidence of where I kicked, how long I kicked, how hard I kicked etc, put my point is that it couldn't be inferred simply from the fact that I had time to reflect on my actions. That chance for reflection on my actions was there even if I had absolutely no intention to kill. It shows nothing other than the fact that I had time to decide to stop hurting her.

 

[JBean]

Yes. That remains a possibility.

Also, she could have died in a manner that encompasses a form of negligence. I would not necessarily construe that to be at or under "the hands of another". In my mind, that would depend on the circumstances.

I was just going to post something similar regarding negligence. I see what you are saying.

 

[impatientredhead]

But your position has been (unless I've misunderstood) that intent sufficient to prove premeditation can be demonstrated by the fact that there was enough time during the act for reflection.

Lets say that I absolutely did not mean for my neighbour to die, but was just so angry that I kicked her several times before I cooled off. The situation is the same - I kicked her repeatedly even though she was clearly injured and my last kick caused her death. Does that change things? It doesn't IMO. You say 'however, if you intended to kill her and took that long to do it, yes', but doesn't that mean that you recognise that the intent must be there in the first place?

Again it will depend on where you commit this act at. In some states they will allow for heat of the moment defense/lacking rational thought. Some states do not allow for that distinction and will consider a death resulting from an act "that any reasonable person could predict an outcome of death" to be intent.

You decided to kick her, you intended to harm her, any reasonable person can foresee that kicking someone repeatedly while they are unable to defend themselves could result in death. You intended to kick her, you intended to harm her, you could foresee death as a possible outcome, so therefore you rationally chose the act you and therefore committed murder in some states.

As I said before good attorney and no record could result in a lesser charge, prior record and a public defender in a state that does not allow heat of the moment, murder one.

 

[lin]

But your position has been (unless I've misunderstood) that intent sufficient to prove premeditation can be demonstrated by the fact that there was enough time during the act for reflection.

Lets say that I absolutely did not mean for my neighbour to die, but was just so angry that I kicked her several times before I cooled off. The situation is the same - I kicked her repeatedly even though she was clearly injured and my last kick caused her death. Does that change things? It doesn't IMO. You say 'however, if you intended to kill her and took that long to do it, yes', but doesn't that mean that you recognise that the intent must be there in the first place?

I've given you my best interpretation of the law. The time involved has been used by the state, inferred by the jury and upheld on appeal, to show premeditation.

We cannot know what is in your heart. The circumstances that you described are such that I opined it may and I emphasized may lead a jury to infer intent, as in that fixed and conscious thing in the Lanoue case from Mass. I think at some point you would be expected to recognize what you were doing. Of course, you can also offer an alternate reasonable theory to explain the evidence of you kicking this woman long enough to kill her.

Also recall that I opined at first blush the answer was no. There just really isn't enough information provided to take a firm stance on this, imo. Did the state put on witnesses talking about how much you despised the neighbor and had for a long time? Etc. etc. etc.

 

[lin]

I can't begin to give an alternate explanation for the tape and I'm not even arguing the point that there is one. I was just saying that time to reflect on your actions is not all it takes to convict on premeditation. You have to show intent. That's well illustrated in the appeals I posted earlier. While the defendants had ample time to reflect on their actions, the intent wasn't there so premeditation wasn't proven, according to the justices. One would think that a man who puts his bare hands around a woman's neck and chokes the life out of her would be convicted of premeditated murder. But, since he had a habit of doing this to women in the past without it leading to their death, the justices saw reasonable doubt that he intended to murder them. If we (WS) were arguing premeditation in that case, I'm sure most of us would be sure he intended the women's death. The main argument would be -after effecting the death of the first women by strangling her with his bare hands, surely he would know that the second women was dying when he strangled her. But, the justices didn't see it that way. You never know what will happen and that's why I'm just trying to learn to rules of law here. I have opinions on the other threads as to why I think she's guilty, my own theory of what happened etc., but these are just layman's opinions. That's a luxury I have as someone viewing this case from the outside. If I were a juror, I have to follow the law. Take, for instance, the 31 days. When I first heard these words uttered by NG I said to myself, "She killed her and doesn't want the police to find the body until the evidence is gone." That was before the lies or anything came out, the first time NG reported on it. At the same time, I will say that it's not enough to prove premeditation. Not if I were a juror and had to follow a legal standard. Some people who see me say that want to go on and argue KC's case from a legal standpoint. I can't do that because I haven't heard the case. By a legal standard, I can't use preconceived notions, (which I had from the first day, still have and they're probably correct). I'm not trying to convince anyone that KC can or can't be found guilty of premeditation, either in spite of or because of the law. The jury will do what it wants regardless. I'm trying to understand the law here so that when her case is tried I'll be better informed about the whole legal process. I've learned a lot thanks to those who share their vast knowledge of the legal system and from a lot of reading about the law which I wouldn't have done otherwise. I would have, undoubtedly, convicted that man of premeditated murder in the strangulation death of two prostitutes on two separate occasions. Now, I have more to think about from what I've learned. Sometimes, I'm hesitant to quote any legal standard that doesn't support KC's conviction because a barrage of posts will come assuming I think KC is innocent and ask me to explain how the duct tape could be there if it wasn't premeditation (or something to that effect).

Sorry about the long post. It's just my long-winded way of saying "I don't have an alternate explanation for the duct tape placement and that wasn't the point of my post." My theories of what happened and opinion as to KC's guilt are on other threads. I think all this stuff should be a required subject in high school since we all have the potential to be jurors with someones life in the balance. All those accused are not guilty and that's why we have standards that must be followed. I was certainly ignorant of many things that I should know as a juror and there's no way I could expect to learn them from jury instructions given during the trial.

bbm

Thanks for the long post, it was very helpful to my understanding of your position(s)

They couldn't find intent because a reasonable alternate explanation was offered for the actions, is my understanding. For example, in Cummings posted by Jolynna, an alternate explanation the court found reasonable was the shots were meant to scare not to kill. In the case you cite, as you note, the man had a habit of similar actions with different intent and results. Where is the evidence of aggravated child abuse in putting tape over Caylee's airways without intent to kill?

So in the case at bar, it's my belief a reasonable theory to explain the duct tape is necessary. I can't think of any other "intent" than to kill someone when covering their only airways. Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. The length of time to accomplish the placing of the duct tape and then to expire from lack of oxygen will establish the time to reflect, or the legal equivalent of premeditation.

You raise an excellent point bbm that I am sure will resonate equally with the jury. I agree with you that it does not prove premeditation. But under the law, it can be inferred to show consciousness of guilt. That is the inference it appears you drew and I expect a panel of 12 other reasonable people will draw the same conclusion.

 

[Devon]

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.

Dr G did not state that the tape was placed before decomp began - she stated 'before decomposition', which carries a fairly broad scope for interpretation.

The 2.6 days is an approximate PMI derived from the LIBS test on the stain on the trunk carpet samples. It's not from the air tests. It indicates only the likely PMI before the stain was made. The short PMI indicates a recent death, but does not necessarily correlate with the body having been removed from the trunk then. It could have been bagged after the stain was caused and kept for longer with no further seepage occurring. That's how I'm reading the results anyway but I stand corrected if I'm wrong.

End of OT and time for bed for me.

 

[lin]

I agree that a preformed intent to kill could be inferred from evidence of where I kicked, how long I kicked, how hard I kicked etc, put my point is that it couldn't be inferred simply from the fact that I had time to reflect on my actions. That chance for reflection on my actions was there even if I had absolutely no intention to kill. It shows nothing other than the fact that I had time to decide to stop hurting her.

It's going to be the circumstances surrounding the acts. In the case of the duct tape, it can be inferred that it was the mechanism of death. And therefrom would flow the premeditation because there was time to reflect which is required under the law.

If one inferred an intent to kill from the savagery of the beating, then one could also infer premeditation as occurring during the beating, under Lanoe, previously cited.

 

[Shear22]

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.

BBM
I imagine that someone who couldn't bring herself to handle a dead body would have a really really hard time getting so up close and personal with the face to affix duct tape to it.

 

[tweety933]

Is the jury gonna become privy to the State dropping the death penalty before the body was found, and then reinstating it after it was found? Curious because, I wonder what evidence the SA thought they had that could prove Pre-meditation before the duct tape was discovered with the remains?

 

[Shear22]

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.

The difference is that KC had approximately three minutes to remove the duct tape after having placed it. Your aggressive kicker could be in a rage during the kicking and not reflecting on his actions until it's too late to undo the last fatal kick.

 

[MissJames]

BBM
I imagine that someone who couldn't bring herself to handle a dead body would have a really really hard time getting so up close and personal with the face to affix duct tape to it.

ITA with you.It's a really morbid thing to do,especially if your child died by accident.
You find your child slipped into the pool while you were talking on the phone.You get her out ,but she's not breathing. Her mouth is hanging open,so naturally you go get the duct tape.I mean,there really is nothing else you can do for HER,so let's tape her up.
Then hide her so no one ever finds out.She thinks.....
"I'll just keep making up stories so no one knows she drowned ,then I won't get into any trouble.
Okay,now that I have that worked out I'll change and go meet Tone at Blockbusters."

 

[Marina2]

bbm

Thanks for the long post, it was very helpful to my understanding of your position(s)

They couldn't find intent because a reasonable alternate explanation was offered for the actions, is my understanding. For example, in Cummings posted by Jolynna, an alternate explanation the court found reasonable was the shots were meant to scare not to kill. In the case you cite, as you note, the man had a habit of similar actions with different intent and results. Where is the evidence of aggravated child abuse in putting tape over Caylee's airways without intent to kill?

So in the case at bar, it's my belief a reasonable theory to explain the duct tape is necessary. I can't think of any other "intent" than to kill someone when covering their only airways. Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. The length of time to accomplish the placing of the duct tape and then to expire from lack of oxygen will establish the time to reflect, or the legal equivalent of premeditation.

You raise an excellent point bbm that I am sure will resonate equally with the jury. I agree with you that it does not prove premeditation. But under the law, it can be inferred to show consciousness of guilt. That is the inference it appears you drew and I expect a panel of 12 other reasonable people will draw the same conclusion.

The defense will definitely have to come up with an alternate theory to explain the duct tape. It will have to be reasonable. It isn't required that it's as reasonable as the prosecution's and there must be no evidence that excludes their theory. It will have to show no intent to kill or that KC wasn't the one who placed it.

If there's evidence that shows there was no intent to kill that will be presented by the defense. We aren't privy to that information yet.

ETA: So far, the alternate theories we've come up with don't seem to be very reasonable. We need to hear what the defense says.

 

[lin]

Is the jury gonna become privy to the State dropping the death penalty before the body was found, and then reinstating it after it was found? Curious because, I wonder what evidence the SA thought they had that could prove Pre-meditation before the duct tape was discovered with the remains?

I don't see how it could 'officially' come in at trial but they'll likely know.

 

[lin]

The defense will definitely have to come up with an alternate theory to explain the duct tape. It will have to be reasonable. It isn't required that it's as reasonable as the prosecution's and there must be no evidence that excludes their theory. It will have to show no intent to kill or that KC wasn't the one who placed it.

If there's evidence that shows there was no intent to kill that will be presented by the defense. We aren't privy to that information yet.

ETA: So far, the alternate theories we've come up with don't seem to be very reasonable. We need to hear what the defense says.

Totally agree and have been trying to make the same point that you actually accomplished making.

 

[Brini]

Is the jury gonna become privy to the State dropping the death penalty before the body was found, and then reinstating it after it was found? Curious because, I wonder what evidence the SA thought they had that could prove Pre-meditation before the duct tape was discovered with the remains?

Or, what the pathologist found that we don't know about, yet.

 

[RR0004]

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.

I agree...and thought the 2.6 days was derived from the air sample...not the stain (?).

 

[RR0004]

Yes, we let an unpleasant and inarticulate guy (not much good on the stand) off 2nd to evidence of no intent to harm.

Complaint of domestic abuse, by the woman.

The MAN called 911.

When LE came, the cop saw the defendant holding the woman against the wall with his left hand, and with his right hand upraised in a fist.

The defendant was LEFT handed. He was holding her with his strong hand and threatening her with his weak hand.

There was also evidence that he had tried to leave the scene, when she first battered him.

Turned out SHE was the assailant. He was trying to restrain her, until LE arrived.

Curious...why didn't he just walk away?

 

[impatientredhead]

Curious...why didn't he just walk away?

Never been attacked by an irate woman, huh? You can't just walk away when someone is literally attacking you. Restraining them is really the only option for self defense if you are trying to protect yourself and not injure them in the process

 

[DotsEyes]

Major premise: KC had time for reflection in the moments it took to kill the baby.

Minor premise: The baby is dead.

Conclusion: KC is guilty of premeditated murder.

 

[Imbackon]

I have really been thinking about what can be used to offer evidence that this was premedidated aside from what has been said so far.
Didn't Casey tell George that day, per his statements, that Zanny was watching Caylee that night and they wouldn't be home? If so, that was prior to her death and seems to show intent to do away with her, considering there is no Nanny and evidently she didn't arrange for George or Cindy to sit.
Otherwise she would have had to cancel her plans with Tony right? Tony has not said specifics about their plans that night, so depends on what he says too.


Maybe I'm just tired but think small picture here in terms of actual testimony used for evidentiary purposes.