1072 users online (173 members and 899 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 354
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal):
    http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/j...uctions.shtml#

    It appears that Florida has completely omitted any distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in its standard jury instructions. Recent Florida Supreme Court cases say that the circumstantial evidence instruction was deemed unnecessary in light of the reasonable doubt instruction:

    Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

    A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

    It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

    A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

    If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.


    The standard set of instructions for homicide does begin with an introductory instruction that covers excusable and justifiable homicide (i.e., homicides that are not criminal acts), so Wudge's hypothetical aunt on the cliff should be OK for those of you who have been following this thread for a while.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759

    Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

    continue here
    if there are a couple of posts you would like me to bring over, let me know please.
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86380"]Thread #1[/ame]
    Last edited by JBean; 07-27-2009 at 02:23 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,694
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    continue here
    if there are a couple of posts you would like me to bring over, let me know please.
    Thread #1
    Yes, please. On the last page of the old thread, Themis began a discussion of a facet of the jury instructions. I waded through a lot of nasty cases last night to further what she started and I'd like to continue the discussion, even though it means reading more of that ugliness. TIA.

    #776 - #784

    Also may want to move not discussion but the research citations that are contained therein as like a thread starter in post #1, imo. Don't know how others feel about it but will dig up the post #'s if anyone else agrees. I mean, how many times have we been on thread 3, or 5, or whatever and someone that hasn't followed from the beginning doesn't realize some facet of the topic has been discussed thoroughly already? Putting some of the legal citations at the top may forestall development of a theory that just isn't going to fit, legally speaking, imo. If the citations are too much, perhaps a list of the things they stand for? For example, that case I posted last night:

    1. According to Washington, the time it takes to readjust the hands in the act of a murder constitutes premeditation.

    2. According to Washington, it was a significant fact that the victim/child was in the sole custody of the defendant at the time the victim was killed.

    3. According to a plethora of cases, legally speaking, a juror may infer consciousness of guilt from false exculpatory statements, such as the imaginanny did it; and the same is true for conflicting pretrial statements, such as 'just like a normal day' v. 'kidnapped from JBP.' Avoiding detection or the start of an investigation for 31 days, as well as obstructing the investigation once started also goes to consciousness of guilt. Some cases verifying this are posted in the [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3982821&postcount=558]jury instructions thread here.[/ame]


    Ack! I went to look for some others to suggest and don't see them. If possible, JBean, if it's not appropriate to post them here, please pm me the citations. I put a lot of work into them and even linked to one page in the Evidence thread to support the contentions raised therein.

    ETA: Found the thread. Whew!
    Last edited by lin; 07-27-2009 at 09:09 AM.
    Opinion above.




    wftv link
    Casey's attorney said it's not in her best interest to tell what she knows about where Caylee is. "It does her no good to show her cards to give the prosecution any advantage they have to put her away for life," Baez said.
    How's that workin' for ya'?

    Please click here to donate to TES


    WARNING! EXTRA SPECIAL GRIEF CAUSES IRRITATION
    .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,694
    Here's another with link to jury instructions by AZlawyer:

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3981514&postcount=527"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt[/ame]

    I guess what I'm getting at is the authorities should transfer. Obviously we can't transfer all of the discussion, or this thread would be too long too, by WS standards but I do believe some would be helpful.

    But in all honesty, I'd vote for an exception to be made on the first thread to let it go as long as it does to keep all the applicable law and other legal info in one place. But that's just me.
    Opinion above.




    wftv link
    Casey's attorney said it's not in her best interest to tell what she knows about where Caylee is. "It does her no good to show her cards to give the prosecution any advantage they have to put her away for life," Baez said.
    How's that workin' for ya'?

    Please click here to donate to TES


    WARNING! EXTRA SPECIAL GRIEF CAUSES IRRITATION
    .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    There are threads discussing theories that Caylee died by accidental means such as drowning in the pool or being left in a hot car. There are threads discussing whether or not KC had premeditation or her acts were just cover-up. None of these discussions actually go to the jury instructions that include the instructions for premeditated murder, 2nd degree murder, justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. The next post will include those jury instructions.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Under Florida Law, Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crime of
    Murder in the Second Degree, both of which are unlawful.
    A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force
    is lawful.
    If you find (victim) was killed by (defendant), you will then consider the
    circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the First Degree or was Murder in the Second Degree, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Florida Statute 782.02 defines justifiable homicide. The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Florida Statute 782.03 defines excusable homicide. The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
    1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any
    lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any
    unlawful intent, or
    2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of
    passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
    3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting
    from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
    A “dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in
    which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    The following are the circumstances that must be proved before (defendant)
    may be found guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder or any lesser included crime.1
    Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a) defines First Degree Premeditated Murder. Before
    you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    1.
    (Victim) is dead.
    2. The death was caused by the criminal act of
    (defendant).
    3. There was a premeditated killing of
    (victim).
    An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
    to a single design or purpose.


    2Florida 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.
    If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill
    that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.
    2


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Florida Statute 782.04(2) defines Second Degree Murder. Before you can find the defendant guilty of Second Degree Murder, the government must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    1. (Victim) is dead.
    2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
    3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous
    to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human
    life.
    An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
    to a single design or purpose.
    3Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.4 (2003)
    An act is “imminently” dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
    1. A person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
    2. Is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and
    3. Is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human
    life.
    In order to convict the defendant of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.3


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    IMHO, it appears that leaving a 2 year old unattended in a hot car or with access to a swimming pool would not meet the elements of justifiable homicide (basically self defense) or excusable homicide. Therefore, those two scenarios would still be a form of culpable homicide.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Lin posted the following posts in the "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt" thread # 1.

    Yesterday, 10:43 PM
    <A href="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/member.php?u=35189" target=_blank>
    Registered User
    Join Date: Sep 2008
    Posts: 1,822


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Themis [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3989743#post3989743"][/ame]
    IMHO, it appears that leaving a 2 year old unattended in a hot car or with access to a swimming pool would not meet the elements of justifiable homicide (basically self defense) or excusable homicide. Therefore, those two scenarios would still be a form of culpable homicide.

    Great posts, thanks. I'm trying to add to the info but two things are slowing me down. One, I charge extra for research on Sunday, , and two, I hope none of you can imagine the sheer ugliness and evil that are there in black and white, reading some of the cases on a broad query. I'm glad you started this line, Themis; it's just difficult to read some of this stuff and I recommend no one else do it. Nothing on point yet but I did find this:

    Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Intent is usually a jury question. See id. In Washington, an infant sustained extensive internal and external injuries and died. The state presented evidence that the defendant was the victim's sole custodian during the playground visit and that the injuries could have been inflicted in anywhere from 10 seconds to 45 minutes. The evidence suggested that a change in technique and position of the defendant's hands would have been required to inflict the different types of injuries and that pauses necessary to make the changes would have allowed the defendant time to reflect. The court held that "[g]iven the varied and extensive nature of the brutal injuries to the 11-month-old victim, we find ample support for sending the question to the jury under the State's felony murder theory." Id.

    (emphasis added)

    So, what I'm seeing here is that if the jury infers the duct tape was the mechanism of death, as has been argued repeatedly by many posters there is legally a sufficient amount of time between strips of tape to sustain a charge of premeditation.

    I also found it interesting that the court noted the defendant was the sole custodian of the child during the time in question, not unlike "Caylee was with her mother," according to CA.

    Just some things to ponder. I'll keep looking.
    Last edited by Themis; 07-27-2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason: Deleted second copy of Lin's post.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Marina2's last post from the first thread

    I gather from reading your posts that you've interviewed many jurors over the years. I'd love to read about some of the "incredible things" you've heard from them.

    SNIP
    (but a few of many)




    “Little children don’t lie.”

    [From a juror who responded to a question regarding why they believed the testimony of a young child. This occurred after a child-care, satanic abuse trial.]
    .
    .
    .

    “There were hundreds of charges. De must be guilty of something.”

    [From a juror who responded to a question regarding why they found the defendants guilty of certain counts but not others. This occurred after another one of the many child-care abuse trials.]
    .
    .
    .

    “They tortured and killed a baby for God sake.”

    [From a juror who responded to a question on what was the deciding piece of evidence. This occurred after yet another child-care, ritual abuse trial. ... Special note: no baby was ever found to be missing, much less dead or even physically injured.]
    .
    .
    .

    “The prosecutor didn’t prove they did it. That’s why we needed to solve what happened.”

    [From a juror who responded to a question on how they determined the evidence proved the charge. This occurred after a murder trial.]
    .
    .
    .

    “Der wud all dat blud”

    [This answer came from a juror who responded to a TV reporter’s question regarding what was the evidence that proved the defendant planned to murder (premeditated murder case) his wife -- the defense held her death was an accident. After the juror answered the reporter’s question, the reporter remained silent for about two minutes. He was waiting for the juror to follow-on with more evidence, but the juror said nothing more, and the silence became embarrassingly deafening. The juror saw “all dat blud” to necessarily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a premeditated murder and not an accident. This has become one of my all-time favorites.]
    .
    .
    .

    “She did it. We just needed to find the evidence”.

    [A juror who responded to a question after a first-degree murder trial – the lesser charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter were also instructed on. In this trial, the trial judge agreed with the jury that the evidence was sufficient to prove the necessary element needed to support the jury’s guilty verdict for second-degree murder. Nonetheless, the trial judge also agreed with the defense that the jury’s “guilty” verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and the judge vacated the jury’s “guilty” verdict and ordered a new trial.]
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge View Post
    (but a few of many)




    “Little children don’t lie.”

    [From a juror who responded to a question regarding why they believed the testimony of a young child. This occurred after a child-care, satanic abuse trial.]
    .
    .
    .

    “There were hundreds of charges. De must be guilty of something.”

    [From a juror who responded to a question regarding why they found the defendants guilty of certain counts but not others. This occurred after another one of the many child-care abuse trials.]
    .
    .
    .

    “They tortured and killed a baby for God sake.”

    [From a juror who responded to a question on what was the deciding piece of evidence. This occurred after yet another child-care, ritual abuse trial. ... Special note: no baby was ever found to be missing, much less dead or even physically injured.]
    .
    .
    .

    “The prosecutor didn’t prove they did it. That’s why we needed to solve what happened.”

    [From a juror who responded to a question on how they determined the evidence proved the charge. This occurred after a murder trial.]
    .
    .
    .

    “Der wud all dat blud”

    [This answer came from a juror who responded to a TV reporter’s question regarding what was the evidence that proved the defendant planned to murder (premeditated murder case) his wife -- the defense held her death was an accident. After the juror answered the reporter’s question, the reporter remained silent for about two minutes. He was waiting for the juror to follow-on with more evidence, but the juror said nothing more, and the silence became embarrassingly deafening. The juror saw “all dat blud” to necessarily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a premeditated murder and not an accident. This has become one of my all-time favorites.]
    .
    .
    .

    “She did it. We just needed to find the evidence”.

    [A juror who responded to a question after a first-degree murder trial – the lesser charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter were also instructed on. In this trial, the trial judge agreed with the jury that the evidence was sufficient to prove the necessary element needed to support the jury’s guilty verdict for second-degree murder. Nonetheless, the trial judge also agreed with the defense that the jury’s “guilty” verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and the judge vacated the jury’s “guilty” verdict and ordered a new trial.]
    DANG! You were really affected by the McMartin crap! I can REALLY relate!

    And the epidemic of other spurious satanic ritual abuse stuff that came up in the 80s.

    It was a great time to re-read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible."


    And, the epidemic of OTHER spurious satanic reitual abuse
    Age. Fac ut gaudeam

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    2,244
    "Der wud all dat blud"... and then the deafening silence. OMG...that's hilarious. I can just picture this juror, serious as a heart attack, putting that out there. That poor reporter. Funny but seriously, very scary to think this juror had someone's life in his hands. Yeah, I would buy a book about this. Thanks, Wudge.


Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt
    By JBean in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 785
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 02:12 AM
  2. Reasonable Doubt
    By krimekat in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 208
    Last Post: 11-16-2008, 01:57 PM