REVISIT Does LE have enough evidence to Convict Casey on 1st Degree Murder?

[Wudge]

SNIP

Some states so NOT allow tapes to be played to a jury UNLESS the witness mis-states is prior testimony or recounts it in some way that the defense could then try to use the tapes to discredit him.

SNIP

Citation on use of tapes for impeachment only? List of states?

 

[Wudge]

Are you talking from a defense standpoint? Your comment is intriguing... tell us more. What would the best possible jury pool look like from the prosecution's side of things? And vice versa.

This is a very emotional case. To me, it's very similar to JonBenet's case in terms of the emotional reaction to what people have seen/heard.

If I were the prosecutor, one thing I would certainly hope to do is to seat a good number of Mothers and Grandmothers on the jury. Moreover, I would not be looking to seat highly educated jurors, because, I believe, the best asset the prosecution has right now is a poisoned jury pool that has developed in large measure based on internalized outrage against Casey's post-disappearance actions/behavior. So if I thought a jury was likely to be inclined to think emotionally versus weighting through a detailed review of the evidence against the jury instructions, I would hope to seat a juror I thought would be inclined to vote on emotion.

 

[Chezhire]

When cross-examining various detectives, the defense can use LE's interrogation tapes that contain Casey's answers to the questions the detective asked her. This technique puts Casey's words and story into the trial record without requiring her to take the stand.

HTH

It really depends upon FL evidentiary rules. Some states so NOT allow tapes to be played to a jury UNLESS the witness mis-states is prior testimony or recounts it in some way that the defense could then try to use the tapes to discredit him. So, if LE does their job on the witness stand, they probably won't come in (I stand to be corrected by any FL attorney out there - yoo hoo!!!)

Citation on use of tapes for impeachment only? List of states?

The Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 801, from which all states derive some, if not all, of their rules of evidence, generally prohibits use of hearsay, which is what a taped interview is considered if the declarant is present and the tape is offered to prove the truth of the matter being asserted, which is, I believe, what you have suggested the defense may do with the recorded interviews (I assume this is what you mean when you write "interrogation tapes.")

In terms of the defendant herself, Casey, whom you've said could benefit from these tapes because the defense "can use LE's interrogation tapes that contain Casey's answers to the questions the detective asked her.... [to] put Casey's words and story into the trial record without requiring her to take the stand," is simply incorrect and it will never happen, unless the prosecution fails to object and/or the judge incorrectly rules upon said objection. As I stated before, if LE testifies truthfully, and doesn't mis-state anything, then there is no basis for admitting the taped interviews.

Do you have a citation for any case in any jurisdiction where a defendant did not testify and where her/his recorded sattement was played in lieu of same? I highly doubt any such case exists.

Hope that helps.

 

[sha-sha]

This is a very emotional case. To me, it's very similar to JonBenet's case in terms of the emotional reaction to what people have seen/heard.

If I were the prosecutor, one thing I would certainly hope to do is to seat a good number of Mothers and Grandmothers on the jury. Moreover, I would not be looking to seat highly educated jurors, because, I believe, the best asset the prosecution has right now is a poisoned jury pool that has developed in large measure based on internalized outrage against Casey's post-disappearance actions/behavior. So if I thought a jury was likely to be inclined to think emotionally versus weighting through a detailed review of the evidence against the jury instructions, I would hope to seat a juror I thought would be inclined to vote on emotion.

Thank you for your insight. Interesting. Now my next question is about her post-Caylee-disappearance behavior. How do you think that will play out? I mean it's not evidence of murder, premeditated or not. Will the jury be able to consider it, and is there any possible reason the defense could come up with to make them disregard it?

 

[Wudge]

Thank you for your insight. Interesting. Now my next question is about her post-Caylee-disappearance behavior. How do you think that will play out? I mean it's not evidence of murder, premeditated or not. Will the jury be able to consider it, and is there any possible reason the defense could come up with to make them disregard it?

If post disappearance statements/behavior by Casey are admitted as evidence, they would almost assuredly be considered as evidence of false statements or consciousness of guilt. However, both false statements after-the-fact and consciousness of guilt would be limited to corroborative evidence, not inculpatory evidence.

 

[Wudge]

The Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 801, from which all states derive some, if not all, of their rules of evidence, generally prohibits use of hearsay, which is what a taped interview is considered if the declarant is present and the tape is offered to prove the truth of the matter being asserted

SNIP

Do you have a citation for any case in any jurisdiction where a defendant did not testify and where her/his recorded sattement was played in lieu of same? I highly doubt any such case exists.

Hope that helps.

When the prosecution puts a detective on the witness stand and asks: "what did the defendant tell you?", that question opens the cross-examination door to everything the defendant told them. That's not hearsay, and I know of no state that limits the use of tapes or transcripts for impeachment only.

A transcript or audio tape or video tape goes to the truth of what the defendant told the LEO or detective. An evaluation of the absolute truth of the answer is left to the finders-of-fact; i.e., the jurors.

HTH

ETA: Another poster noted that this technique was used to get Scott Peterson's story into the trial record. That is true. It's a very common technique when the defense is not sure that they wish to have their client testify.

 

[4oneluv]

The definition of "premeditation" is somewhat ambiguous and can easily be misleading. The legal definition of "premeditation" is with planning or deliberation. However, the amount of time needed for premeditation, regarding any act, depends on the person and the circumstances. After forming intent, the time must be long enough to act, and it must also allow for the person to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the act.

As far as I know, you must have prior planning to have premeditation. Hence, in this case that lacks: a clear and unyielding motive, a place of death, a time of death, a cause of death, the mechanics of death, the circumstances surrounding the death, a confession and an eyewitness, then unless the words came from the defendant's mouth premeditation would appear not likely be proven to have existed for an instant or otherwise.

Additionally, the words in the legal definition are deliberation and planning. The definition for both of those words indicates that this is not an "instant" process. Although the definition states that it depends on the circumstances and the person and indicates that it could be "instantaneous", those two words indicate that it can not be so.

Still, the key thing is to prove it in court, and that means the prosecutors must prove deliberation and planning beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for the defense trying to exclude Mothers from the jury, I could not agree more. The next best group to exclude would be women, any model will do.

Not trying to get smart or start an argument, and yes, that is the definition for premeditation, just a question so what would you call looking up the recipe for chloroform, looking at missing childrens websites, wanting to give up her daughter for adoption and not cooperating with LE.

Maybe it was not premeditated, but out of rage, due to her and her mother getting in an argument and the fact her mother kept telling her she was an unfit mother. She said it best that she was a spiteful B*&^%!

 

[Wudge]

Not trying to get smart or start an argument, and yes, that is the definition for premeditation, just a question so what would you call looking up the recipe for chloroform, looking at missing childrens websites, wanting to give up her daughter for adoption and not cooperating with LE.

Maybe it was not premeditated, but out of rage, due to her and her mother getting in an argument and the fact her mother kept telling her she was an unfit mother. She said it best that she was a spiteful B*&^%!

I do not believe that we know for sure exactly when Casey allegedly looked up chloroform or that we know for sure that she did if fact look up chloroform. I don't know that LE has corroborated this rumor.

If she did look up chloroform after the disappearance, I do not believe that evidence would be admitted as inculpatory evidence that could support premeditation.

As regards both the alleged missing children searches and the alleged chlorofrm searches, I will wait to hear both sides.

I should note that if the defense offers a reasonable explanation for either of these alleged searches, the jury would not be permitted to use this evidence in any manner to support a guilty verdict. This is true even if the "reasonableness" of the searches is deemed to be but a very small percentage of all possible reasons or a much, much smaller percentage of the possibility that the searches were used in some way to support murder.

HTH

 

[lizzysf]

What statistically measured evidence are you using to reach this "probability" that, in your mind, looks unpromising for the defense?

What is the probability (number) that must be reached to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Well, let's start with the air sample. Based upon executing the same test with the same variables over and over they have rendered outcome statistics. The results of Casey's trunk air showed 80% probability of human remains based on elements found in the sample.
Let's talk about the mtDNA from the hair sample...old science. Eliminates most but not all of the general population. The death ring tells us it was from a dead person, further eliminating those potential contributers. Consider the likelihood now. And wow, found in Casey's trunk whom just happens to have a mysteriously missing child. And the death band hair is similar color and length. Now consider the possibility. The odds that it isn't from her is rapidly shrinking. Now let's add the non-scientific things we know about the case surrounding this mysterious disappearance. I won't rehash several months worth..it's all there from the mouths of Casey and the A's themselves.

And then you just do the math. I am not a scientist and I understand the science, do you think the jurors won't? Do you think with the other known facts, interviews, lies uncovered, the jury won't be able to do that math either? So yes, all combined...the probability of finding her innocent is pretty low. But then there is the OJ case to consider. The Justice System is never perfect...but it tries. The state has done it's job, and well. Chop it up as you will. I stand firm on my own math in this case. You can add it up any way you like.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Well, let's start with the air sample. Based upon executing the same test with the same variables over and over they have rendered outcome statistics. The results of Casey's trunk air showed 80% probability of human remains based on elements found in the sample.
Let's talk about the mtDNA from the hair sample...old science. Eliminates most but not all of the general population. The death ring tells us it was from a dead person, further eliminating those potential contributers. Consider the likelihood now. And wow, found in Casey's trunk whom just happens to have a mysteriously missing child. And the death band hair is similar color and length. Now consider the possibility. The odds that it isn't from her is rapidly shrinking. Now let's add the non-scientific things we know about the case surrounding this mysterious disappearance. I won't rehash several months worth..it's all there from the mouths of Casey and the A's themselves.

And then you just do the math. I am not a scientist and I understand the science, do you think the jurors won't? Do you think with the other known facts, interviews, lies uncovered, the jury won't be able to do that math either? So yes, all combined...the probability of finding her innocent is pretty low. But then there is the OJ case to consider. The Justice System is never perfect...but it tries. The state has done it's job, and well. Chop it up as you will. I stand firm on my own math in this case. You can add it up any way you like.

How did you get 80% and the elmination of most the general population from mtdna?

 

[Wudge]

Well, let's start with the air sample. Based upon executing the same test with the same variables over and over they have rendered outcome statistics. The results of Casey's trunk air showed 80% probability of human remains based on elements found in the sample.
Let's talk about the mtDNA from the hair sample...old science. Eliminates most but not all of the general population. The death ring tells us it was from a dead person, further eliminating those potential contributers. Consider the likelihood now. And wow, found in Casey's trunk whom just happens to have a mysteriously missing child. And the death band hair is similar color and length. Now consider the possibility. The odds that it isn't from her is rapidly shrinking. Now let's add the non-scientific things we know about the case surrounding this mysterious disappearance. I won't rehash several months worth..it's all there from the mouths of Casey and the A's themselves.

And then you just do the math. I am not a scientist and I understand the science, do you think the jurors won't? Do you think with the other known facts, interviews, lies uncovered, the jury won't be able to do that math either? So yes, all combined...the probability of finding her innocent is pretty low. But then there is the OJ case to consider. The Justice System is never perfect...but it tries. The state has done it's job, and well. Chop it up as you will. I stand firm on my own math in this case. You can add it up any way you like.

When I do the math, I don't come up with any evidentiary equation that produces a result beyond 80% reliability -- I take your human decomposition number at face value and do not even argue it, because it is the number amongst your alleged evidence that has the highest reliability. This means that a composite reliability number that takes into account the other cited evidence must necessarily be less.

Taking the best case, an equation that closes at 80% reliability (for 100% confidence), results in an expected error rate of 20%. In turn, this means that if we use "80%" as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, this standard would result in 1 out of 5 verdicts being a wrongful conviction.

I doubt that many people would think we should be equate 80% certainty to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lizzysf]

How did you get 80% and the elmination of most the general population from mtdna?

Right from the report on the air sample: Of the 51 chemicals found in the trunk, 80% of them are associated with a decomp event, further narrowing it down to 5 compounds that are present in HUMAN decomp. NO pizza was even in the trunk. Read any article on mtDNA sequencing, inclusions and exclusions, on the web like I have, to find out for yourself. It is there for you to sleuth. Just don't forget to throw into the quotient that it is a hair from a dead person, matches color and length of Caylee's, and oh yeah, Caylee is missing.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Right from the report on the air sample: Of the 51 chemicals found in the trunk, 80% of them are associated with a decomp event, further narrowing it down to 5 compounds that are present in HUMAN decomp. NO pizza was even in the trunk. Read any article on mtDNA sequencing, inclusions and exclusions, on the web like I have, to find out for yourself. It is there for you to sleuth. Just don't forget to throw into the quotient that it is a hair from a dead person, matches color and length of Caylee's, and oh yeah, Caylee is missing.

Really I am not being snarky but, you need to keep reading on after it says 80%. Causes it goes on to say only 17 of these overlap with known or possible gasoline constitiuents leaving 24 compounds (59%)and soon..... and they only single in on 5!

 

[magnolia]

*Snipped*

I should note that if the defense offers a reasonable explanation for either of these alleged searches, the jury would not be permitted to use this evidence in any manner to support a guilty verdict. This is true even if the "reasonableness" of the searches is deemed to be but a very small percentage of all possible reasons or a much, much smaller percentage of the possibility that the searches were used in some way to support murder.

HTH

Wudge, sorry, but the bolded part of your post is simply not true. A Jury is not required to accept any explanation whatsoever from the defense. Jurors must reject explanations that they themselves don't find reasonable.

I believe you are probably familiar with the following Jury instruction.

If on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appeared to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, sorry, but the bolded part of your post is simply not true. A Jury is not required to accept any explanation whatsoever from the defense. Jurors must reject explanations that they themselves don't find reasonable.

My post was correct.

The computer searches represent circumstantial evidence. As part of jury instructions for criminal trials, judges in all states instruct the jury that if the circumstantial evidence, which goes to any charge, permits two reasonable explanations (one put forth by prosecutors and one put forth by the defense) that jurors must accept the reasonable explanation provided by the defense and, in turn, jurors must reject the prosecution's explanation -- even if that explanation might seem more reasonable.

HTH

 

[whiteangora]

My post was correct.

The computer searches represent circumstantial evidence. As part of jury instructions for criminal trials, judges in all states instruct the jury that if the circumstantial evidence, which goes to any charge, permits two reasonable explanations (one put forth by prosecutors and one put forth by the defense) that jurors must accept the reasonable explanation provided by the defense and, in turn, jurors must reject the prosecution's explanation -- even if that explanation might seem more reasonable.

HTH

Did you follow the Jessie Davis/Bobby Cutts case?
The Defense and the State both had different scenerios as to how Cutts killed Jesse, both seemed reasonable but the judge never told the jury which side they could choose.
This was circumstantial evidence because Jesse's body was so decomposed a COD could not be diagnosed.

 

[lizzysf]

Really I am not being snarky but, you need to keep reading on after it says 80%. Causes it goes on to say only 17 of these overlap with known or possible gasoline constitiuents leaving 24 compounds (59%)and soon..... and they only single in on 5!

I disagree with your interpretation. Of the narrowed down 16 compounds found (those not overlapped with gasoline vapors), 7 were associated with human decomp and only 5 of those were USED to draw conclusions. But originally, the 80% of 51 chemicals found were from a decomp event. No pizza in the trunk, and nothing else found in there decomposing. So what would account for the decomp event in 80% of the chemicals found? My bet is the presence of the 17 decomp associated chemicals that were overlapped by gasoline contributed to the big decomp picture.

 

[Wudge]

Did you follow the Jessie Davis/Bobby Cutts case?
The Defense and the State both had different scenerios as to how Cutts killed Jesse, both seemed reasonable but the judge never told the jury which side they could choose.
This was circumstantial evidence because Jesse's body was so decomposed a COD could not be diagnosed.

Link to jury instructions?

ETA: Scenarios (storylines) are not evidence; they're argument.

 

[magnolia]

My post was correct.

The computer searches represent circumstantial evidence. As part of jury instructions for criminal trials, judges in all states instruct the jury that if the circumstantial evidence, which goes to any charge, permits two reasonable explanations (one put forth by prosecutors and one put forth by the defense) that jurors must accept the reasonable explanation provided by the defense and, in turn, jurors must reject the prosecution's explanation.

HTH

Yes, and this is the other part of the standard Jury instruction.

If on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

It's all about the Juror's interpretation of what they, themselves, find reasonable.

What do you think the role of a Jury is Wudge?

An explanation that you find reasonable may not be reasonable to me. This is why we have Jurors.

 

[lizzysf]

When I do the math, I don't come up with any evidentiary equation that produces a result beyond 80% reliability -- I take your human decomposition number at face value and do not even argue it, because it is the number amongst your alleged evidence that has the highest reliability. This means that a composite reliability number that takes into account the other cited evidence must necessarily be less.

Taking the best case, an equation that closes at 80% reliability (for 100% confidence), results in an expected error rate of 20%. In turn, this means that if we use "80%" as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, this standard would result in 1 out of 5 verdicts being a wrongful conviction.

I doubt that many people would think we should be equate 80% certainty to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Incorrect. The jury will not make a decision based upon one element of the case, such as the air sample. Don't be silly. The probability rises as more elements are introduced and digested by the jurors. The probability rises or decreases as the case moves along. There is more than enough probability here already, in my opinion. And more to come. Your math is based on one single element I mentioned, don't be foolin'.