Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

Status
Not open for further replies.

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,121
Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal):
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.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. ;)
 
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]
 
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!
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](victim) [/FONT]was killed by [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT], 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The following are the circumstances that must be proved before [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)
[/FONT]
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.
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](Victim) [/FONT]is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT].
3. There was a premeditated killing of
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](victim)[/FONT].
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

 
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. [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](Victim) [/FONT]is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT].
3. There was an unlawful killing of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](victim) [/FONT]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
 
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.
 
Lin posted the following posts in the "Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt" thread # 1.

post_old.gif
Yesterday, 10:43 PM
<A href="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/member.php?u=35189" target=_blank>
image.php

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"]
viewpost.gif
[/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. :)
 
Marina2's last post from the first thread said:
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)




&#8220;Little children don&#8217;t lie.&#8221;

[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.]
.
.
.

&#8220;There were hundreds of charges. De must be guilty of something.&#8221;

[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.]
.
.
.

&#8220;They tortured and killed a baby for God sake.&#8221;

[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.]
.
.
.

&#8220;The prosecutor didn&#8217;t prove they did it. That&#8217;s why we needed to solve what happened.&#8221;

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

&#8220;Der wud all dat blud&#8221;

[This answer came from a juror who responded to a TV reporter&#8217;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&#8217;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 &#8220;all dat blud&#8221; 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.]
.
.
.

&#8220;She did it. We just needed to find the evidence&#8221;.

[A juror who responded to a question after a first-degree murder trial &#8211; 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&#8217;s guilty verdict for second-degree murder. Nonetheless, the trial judge also agreed with the defense that the jury&#8217;s &#8220;guilty&#8221; verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and the judge vacated the jury&#8217;s &#8220;guilty&#8221; verdict and ordered a new trial.]
 
(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
 
"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.
 
"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.

Sorry, but I don't get what's funny. Perhaps that was the convincing evidence; perhaps the prosecution put on experts to explain there was too much blood for it to have been an accident like the defense claimed. I've heard of that, although can't cite a specific case off the top of my head. Just things I've seen on tv. Maybe the same thing Wudge saw but with clearly a very different interpretation, once some details are added.

Just because someone's grammar or speaking style is not the same as one's own doesn't mean they can't be a good juror and come to a reasonable conclusion based solely on the totality of the evidence presented. The jury system is predicated on the "common sense" of the juror, not their diction. Apparently this person survived voir dire so their intelligence level must have been found sufficient by both sides and the judge.

Maybe I'm just taking offense at what I perceive to be mocking the language patterns of the speaker/juror. I can't imagine mocking someone in this context ever being appropriate. jmho
 
I really don't know the law at all, but it seems to me if a jury member made statements such as some Wudge quoted that would be grounds for a mistrial or appeal,would it not?Isn't that why checks and balances,even after a trial ends,are in place?
 
(but a few of many)


spipped

Please post the citations so we can have an intelligent discussion of your interpretation of these cases. I can think of a reasonable alternate explanation in each one of the references you listed wherein what the juror said that seems to amuse you would make perfect sense in context. But I could be way off, without knowing the actual facts of these case. TIA
 
I really don't know the law at all, but it seems to me if a jury member made statements such as some Wudge quoted that would be grounds for a mistrial or appeal,would it not?Isn't that why checks and balances,even after a trial ends,are in place?

No way to know if Wudge doesn't cite the cases so we can examine the facts of the case. You pick one of those references and I can make up a set of circumstances that would make it not "shocking" but very reasonable.

ETA: For example, that last one doesn't make sense on the face of it, without having the facts of the case to review, it's absolutely meaningless.
 
No way to know if Wudge doesn't cite the cases so we can examine the facts of the case. You pick one of those references and I can make up a set of circumstances that would make it not "shocking" but very reasonable.

Yeah just taking quotes from a juror with out any other reference doesn't really tell me much. Other then maybe hold some entertainment value...Being from the southern US I do know allot of people that talk the way the juror did in Wudges comment, and it doesn't mean they are uneducated. I graduated from high school with a guy that scored a 1600 (perfect) on his SAT and is highly intelligent who talks that way. He's now a preacher for his church and didn't go to college, but has memorized every passage of the bible word for word and can apply it to situations he finds his parishioners in. I would hardly call him uneducated or unintelligent. He just used his skill for a different purpose and his speech matches those around him and is not an indicator of his education or "intelligence" level.

That's not to say jurors don't make mistakes or allow personal feelings and the like sway their decision. I'd believe jurors have said sillier things then the ones mentioned. However maybe the guy who answered about the blood evidence thought there was clearly to much to be an accident given the circumstance of the case. Who honestly knows with out knowing the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
1,130
Total visitors
1,272

Forum statistics

Threads
589,161
Messages
17,915,000
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top