Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Brini]

Doesn't tell ANYONE, she is gone, kidnapped or otherwise
Borrows a shovel to remove bamboo in the back yard for a child that has been kidnapped

AND the heart-shaped sticker residue on the duct tape.

For Lin's list: KC didn't offer to cooperate with LE after Caylee's body was found. Protective silence no longer applied, as KC was in protective custody and Caylee was dead. I can't come up with a reasonable explanation why it would be safer to expose a perp at trial than it was in December.

Yes. The A family theme, prior to the discover of the remains was, "KC is sacrificing her freedom to protect Caylee."

I remember CA saying the KC had, "Shown her an apartment complex where Caylee was being held, but would not point out the specific apartment."

Then, GA's statements, "We have the people who took Caylee under surveillance."

 

[JBean]

why don't you start a facts in evidence thread? if you want to keep a running list with no discussion or with discussion not sure? of the proven facts. There may be one started if you want to check first.

I think we have wandered away from reasonable doubt and jury instructions by this time.

 

[lin]

why don't you start a facts in evidence thread? if you want to keep a running list with no discussion or with discussion not sure? of the proven facts. There may be one started if you want to check first.

I think we have wandered away from reasonable doubt and jury instructions by this time.

Ok, I'll start it and if anyone remembers an old thread it should be merged with, please let the mods know. If there was a thread like this, set up in this way, I don't remember it.

Again, thanks to everyone for helping to continue what Imbackon started. And I'm totally stealing Imbackon's posts for the new thread. When we're done, we can reference those lists here and see if anyone is left with reasonable doubt. Sound right?

ETA: This is link to new thread.

 

[Devon]

Wow! Thanks for this! Ok, so we agree that Caylee died and that she was aware and likely present; Caylee was in car trunk prior to KC disposing of her.

This isn't a private discussion, so these questions are meant for all:

As a juror, does it sway you that the reason there is no proven COD is because she hid the body, preventing a lot of evidence from being collected? I think some will be swayed by this; it's kind of like the logic behind no body case: Because someone is so clever or lucky as to be able to destroy or hide a body, should they get away with the crime?

As a juror, what evidence would JB have to show and how could he show it to rebut the state's contention it was premeditated murder? I could be very wrong, knowing so little about criminal law, but my position is JB would have to provide something to show his theory of the case. He can't merely suggest that the boogeyman did it without anything to support it. There has to be a foundation. Make sense?

I think it needs emphasising that my opinion is based upon having read every single bit of evidence that's been released, backwards, forwards, inside out and upside down, several times over and then some more! I've had the benefit of many months to consider the implications of each piece of evidence, lots of time to muse over all the possible explanations and to assess strengths, weaknesses and inconsistencies. I've also had the benefit of the excellent analytical, statistical and investigatory work that's taken place on some of the threads here, which has both tested and validated my reasoning in roughly equal measure. BUT - a fair proportion of what we've seen may never be admitted at trial and a jury doesn't get months of unpressured deliberation and discussion time before they have to bring a verdict. It's possible that if I were a juror in this case and had not had the benefit of this extensive 'preview', my conclusions on some issues might be different.

I doubt whether KC had any conscious thought of the benefit of allowing evidence to deteriorate - I think she initially was more intent on concealment of the truth from her parents and friends than anything else.

As I understand it, the defence is not required to put forward any theory or explanation of the evidence at all. The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, but for any proposition the prosecutor might want to put forward as to the inferences to be drawn from any testimony, fact or circumstance etc., the defence only has to show that the relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does. If the jury finds that alternative explanation to be reasonable (not necessarily more reasonable - just reasonable) they must weigh that evidence in favour of the defence.

 

[Devon]

PS: To Devon, what are your thoughts on the duct tape? That because it's not proven to be the mechanism of death it is to not be considered? I am in complete agreement with Huck, there is no reasonable purpose for duct tape to be placed on a body. And I do believe the jury will have to consider it.

I guess part of what I'm getting at is, so far, the defense has indicated they're going for acquittal. That means they're not going to offer an explanation for the duct tape other than their client didn't put it there. Do you agree that KC did put the duct tape on Caylee?

I think the issue of the duct tape will be a hot potato at trial and will take up hour upon hour of questioning, expert testimony and forceful argument. Dr G. will feel like an over-grilled McDonalds value meal by the time both sides have finished with her and the jury will probably wish they had some duct tape to hand!

At the end of that fact-finding frenzy, the jury will be roused from their involuntary state of temporary partial-euthanasia and will be none the wiser. Although they'll definitely have to consider it, my prediction is that at the end of the day, they'll have to resort to speculation and conjecture, since there'll be no answers to be gleaned from the courtroom.

 

[MissJames]

I think it needs emphasising that my opinion is based upon having read every single bit of evidence that's been released, backwards, forwards, inside out and upside down, several times over and then some more! I've had the benefit of many months to consider the implications of each piece of evidence, lots of time to muse over all the possible explanations and to assess strengths, weaknesses and inconsistencies. I've also had the benefit of the excellent analytical, statistical and investigatory work that's taken place on some of the threads here, which has both tested and validated my reasoning in roughly equal measure. BUT - a fair proportion of what we've seen may never be admitted at trial and a jury doesn't get months of unpressured deliberation and discussion time before they have to bring a verdict. It's possible that if I were a juror in this case and had not had the benefit of this extensive 'preview', my conclusions on some issues might be different.

I doubt whether KC had any conscious thought of the benefit of allowing evidence to deteriorate - I think she initially was more intent on concealment of the truth from her parents and friends than anything else.

As I understand it, the defence is not required to put forward any theory or explanation of the evidence at all. The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, but for any proposition the prosecutor might want to put forward as to the inferences to be drawn from any testimony, fact or circumstance etc., the defence only has to show that the relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does. If the jury finds that alternative explanation to be reasonable (not necessarily more reasonable - just reasonable) they must weigh that evidence in favour of the defence.

That's an awful lot of evidence to put reasonable doubt on.They would have to have a story that fits all of it .I realise they aren't required to,but the word here is reasonable.It will have to make sense to the jury.

 

[Themis]

I think it needs emphasising that my opinion is based upon having read every single bit of evidence that's been released, backwards, forwards, inside out and upside down, several times over and then some more! I've had the benefit of many months to consider the implications of each piece of evidence, lots of time to muse over all the possible explanations and to assess strengths, weaknesses and inconsistencies. I've also had the benefit of the excellent analytical, statistical and investigatory work that's taken place on some of the threads here, which has both tested and validated my reasoning in roughly equal measure. BUT - a fair proportion of what we've seen may never be admitted at trial and a jury doesn't get months of unpressured deliberation and discussion time before they have to bring a verdict. It's possible that if I were a juror in this case and had not had the benefit of this extensive 'preview', my conclusions on some issues might be different.

I doubt whether KC had any conscious thought of the benefit of allowing evidence to deteriorate - I think she initially was more intent on concealment of the truth from her parents and friends than anything else.

As I understand it, the defence is not required to put forward any theory or explanation of the evidence at all. The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, but for any proposition the prosecutor might want to put forward as to the inferences to be drawn from any testimony, fact or circumstance etc., the defence only has to show that the relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does. If the jury finds that alternative explanation to be reasonable (not necessarily more reasonable - just reasonable) they must weigh that evidence in favour of the defence.

I bolded two parts of your post for discussion.

As to the first part, I couldn't agree more that the jury won't have the luxury of time and a chance to view everything that WSers have been able to see. That alone could make a big difference.

As to the second part, IMHO, it is a bit skewed. Defense has no burden to produce any evidence. Said another way, the Defendant has a right to remain silent. We start with a presumption of innocence. Then, the prosecution presents its case-in-chief. As each piece of evidence is offered and as each witness testifies, certain "facts" are offered into evidence and witness testimony is subject to cross examination. Certain objections may be made. If the evidence meets the requirements of the Rules of Evidence, it will generally be admitted as "competent" evidence. Thus, the jury will have the right to determine its credibility, reliability and value in proving the elements of the charged offenses. Each element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for a charge to stand.

IF THE JURY IS DEALING WITH CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence as opposed to direct evidence, and there are two reasonable conclusions or facts that may be drawn from that evidence, then the "BEYOND" a reasonable doubt has not been met and the conclusion favoring acquittal must be drawn. However, a piece of evidence may be both direct and circumstantial. For example, if a truthful witness testifies under oath that it is raining outside, that is direct evidence that it is raining. If that witness testifies that he/she saw someone come in with a wet raincoat and umbrella, then it is circumstantial evidence that it is raining. However, it is direct evidence that the person entering the building had a wet raincoat and umbrella. So the facts and evidence do not have to be "thrown out" but they do have to be used properly.

I disagree that defense only has to show that "relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does." This is what the courts warn of as "pie in the sky" theories. The universe of "possibly theories" like this would be endless. It would have prosecution trying to dream up all alternative realities and having the burden to stamp those out in order to obtain convictions even where the defendant's guilt was obvious to them. This is not the law. It is up to the jury to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges based on a totality of the evidence. In other words, defense can put on a defense by attacking the prosecution's case, but if they have alternative scenarios that would point to an acquittal, the defense needs to have evidence to back up that alternative scenario or it is just pie in the sky.

 

[Themis]

I think the issue of the duct tape will be a hot potato at trial and will take up hour upon hour of questioning, expert testimony and forceful argument. Dr G. will feel like an over-grilled McDonalds value meal by the time both sides have finished with her and the jury will probably wish they had some duct tape to hand!

At the end of that fact-finding frenzy, the jury will be roused from their involuntary state of temporary partial-euthanasia and will be none the wiser. Although they'll definitely have to consider it, my prediction is that at the end of the day, they'll have to resort to speculation and conjecture, since there'll be no answers to be gleaned from the courtroom.

In a jury deliberation room, one man's speculation and conjecture is another man's reasoned analysis and wise conclusion founded on competent evidence. For all they may disagree on how they got there, in the end it comes down to a ballot. One juror may think another juror made the right decision for a wrong reason. The important thing is they do not have to reach consensus, as the posters at WS try so hard to do. That's the way it works.

 

[Wudge]

That's an awful lot of evidence to put reasonable doubt on.They would have to have a story that fits all of it .I realise they aren't required to,but the word here is reasonable.It will have to make sense to the jury.

The evidence has to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. The amount of People's evidence matters not. Prosecutors could have and present 10,000 items of evidence on behalf of the People, it matters not.

The defense is not required to produce a shred of evidence or put on a defense. In a murder one trial, the jury could enter deliberations with the total evidence presented at trial having come from the prosecution. Under those circumstances, the total evidence would be 100% presented by the prosecution. That evidence could also be 100% in favor of the prosecution. This would mean that the evidence weights out at 100% for the prosecution and 0% for the defense.

The jury examines the evidence and finds that it does not prove premeditation. That's insufficient evidence. In turn, it means the verdict must be "not guilty".

The jury can't say that despite the insufficiency of evidence to support the murder one charge, they can and will use the totality of the evidence (100% by and for the People) or the weight of the evidence (100% for the People) to convict the defendant.

As I said, the amount of evidence matters not.

 

[Devon]

I disagree that defense only has to show that "relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does." This is what the courts warn of as "pie in the sky" theories. The universe of "possibly theories" like this would be endless. It would have prosecution trying to dream up all alternative realities and having the burden to stamp those out in order to obtain convictions even where the defendant's guilt was obvious to them. This is not the law. It is up to the jury to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges based on a totality of the evidence. In other words, defense can put on a defense by attacking the prosecution's case, but if they have alternative scenarios that would point to an acquittal, the defense needs to have evidence to back up that alternative scenario or it is just pie in the sky.

Snipped and bolded by me.

I think the key is the 'reasonableness' of any alternate explanation but forward by the defence in the circumstances of the case and that is what I meant.

However, if the defence is putting forward an alternative explanation for any piece of circumstantial evidence then they are merely offering a different interpretation of the same evidence that the prosecution has offered their interpretation of. Both sides need to explain why their interpretation of any piece of evidence is more reasonable, but I don't see why the defence would have to 'back up' their interpretation with further evidence when the prosecution does not. To illustrate what I mean, the prosecution might say 'the defendant's father has testified that he last saw Caylee at around xx time on June 16. She was in the care of the defendant and left the house with her. That is the last time Caylee was seen alive. The witness clearly recalls the time of day, the clothes the victim was wearing, the conversation with the defendant and the hugs he gave to his daughter and granddaughter before they left the house. This is reliable evidence that the defendant was the last person seen with Caylee'. The defence might counter with 'the witness's recollection of the events of that morning is unreliable. He has stated that he can remember precisely what the victim was wearing and carrying when she left, and the conversation he had with the defendant, but is unclear about what TV programme he was watching at the relevant time. How likely is it that a person can remember such precise details about what someone was wearing on a date that was a month prior? Can any members of the jury remember what clothes a family member or close friend were wearing on a date a month ago? If it is not likely to you that the witness's recollections about the victim's clothing on June 16 are reliable, what reliance should you place on his other testimony about the events of that day? This is not reliable evidence of the fact the prosecution is attempting to prove.'

Both sides are using the same evidence (GA's testimony) but putting forward different arguments as to the inferences that may be drawn from it. IMO, the defence is no more required to back up their version of this evidence with further evidence than the prosecution is.

 

[Marina2]

I read quite a few appeals brought in Florida where a first degree murder conviction was overturned because the state failed to show premeditation. I understand what it takes to convict of premeditated murder better from reading these appeals than from instructions that may or may not be given, statutes, or examples of prior convictions.

It was actually shocking to see death penalty sentences vacated and judgements for second degree murder entered in cases where the evidence seemed to overwhelmingly indicate premeditation. The justice's opinions were very helpful in understanding the elements required for premeditation.

 

[Devon]

I read quite a few appeals brought in Florida where a first degree murder conviction was overturned because the state failed to show premeditation. I understand what it takes to convict of premeditated murder better from reading these appeals than from instructions that may or may not be given, statutes, or examples of prior convictions.

It was actually shocking to see death penalty sentences vacated and judgements for second degree murder entered in cases where the evidence seemed to overwhelmingly indicate premeditation. The justice's opinions were very helpful in understanding the elements required for premeditation.

Can you give links to any of them, or clues as to where they might be found, as they might help with our discussions on this thread. TIA.

 

[Marina2]

Can you give links to any of them, or clues as to where they might be found, as they might help with our discussions on this thread. TIA.

Here's a few. Plenty more out there. I googled -state fails to show premeditation +florida

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc90977/op-sc90977.pdf

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc00-1688/00-1688rep.pdf

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc05-245.pdf

 

[Themis]

Snipped and bolded by me.

I think the key is the 'reasonableness' of any alternate explanation but forward by the defence in the circumstances of the case and that is what I meant.

However, if the defence is putting forward an alternative explanation for any piece of circumstantial evidence then they are merely offering a different interpretation of the same evidence that the prosecution has offered their interpretation of. Both sides need to explain why their interpretation of any piece of evidence is more reasonable, but I don't see why the defence would have to 'back up' their interpretation with further evidence when the prosecution does not. To illustrate what I mean, the prosecution might say 'the defendant's father has testified that he last saw Caylee at around xx time on June 16. She was in the care of the defendant and left the house with her. That is the last time Caylee was seen alive. The witness clearly recalls the time of day, the clothes the victim was wearing, the conversation with the defendant and the hugs he gave to his daughter and granddaughter before they left the house. This is reliable evidence that the defendant was the last person seen with Caylee'. The defence might counter with 'the witness's recollection of the events of that morning is unreliable. He has stated that he can remember precisely what the victim was wearing and carrying when she left, and the conversation he had with the defendant, but is unclear about what TV programme he was watching at the relevant time. How likely is it that a person can remember such precise details about what someone was wearing on a date that was a month prior? Can any members of the jury remember what clothes a family member or close friend were wearing on a date a month ago? If it is not likely to you that the witness's recollections about the victim's clothing on June 16 are reliable, what reliance should you place on his other testimony about the events of that day? This is not reliable evidence of the fact the prosecution is attempting to prove.'

Both sides are using the same evidence (GA's testimony) but putting forward different arguments as to the inferences that may be drawn from it. IMO, the defence is no more required to back up their version of this evidence with further evidence than the prosecution is.

We're good. We're on the same page here. The trick for defense usually is trying to make all the pieces fit. The truth has its own power to make it all fit. That is what a jury (should) look for in determining the truth.

 

[lin]

I think it needs emphasising that my opinion is based upon having read every single bit of evidence that's been released, backwards, forwards, inside out and upside down, several times over and then some more! I've had the benefit of many months to consider the implications of each piece of evidence, lots of time to muse over all the possible explanations and to assess strengths, weaknesses and inconsistencies. I've also had the benefit of the excellent analytical, statistical and investigatory work that's taken place on some of the threads here, which has both tested and validated my reasoning in roughly equal measure. BUT - a fair proportion of what we've seen may never be admitted at trial and a jury doesn't get months of unpressured deliberation and discussion time before they have to bring a verdict. It's possible that if I were a juror in this case and had not had the benefit of this extensive 'preview', my conclusions on some issues might be different.

I doubt whether KC had any conscious thought of the benefit of allowing evidence to deteriorate - I think she initially was more intent on concealment of the truth from her parents and friends than anything else.

As I understand it, the defence is not required to put forward any theory or explanation of the evidence at all. The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, but for any proposition the prosecutor might want to put forward as to the inferences to be drawn from any testimony, fact or circumstance etc., the defence only has to show that the relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does. If the jury finds that alternative explanation to be reasonable (not necessarily more reasonable - just reasonable) they must weigh that evidence in favour of the defence.

Thanks for your response. I don't write as succinctly (one of the reasons not as well either) as do you, so I'll address your points in separate posts.

You make a great point about having months to study the evidence and access to evidence and theories that the jurors won't. I don't see any way to accurately predict whether that would be more helpful to the prosecution or the defense. My best guess would be that it would be more helpful to the prosecution but if you disagree, I hope you'll explain why.

This is my reasoning: One of the problems here, as I've repeated many times, is that we're getting evidence in bits and pieces and some of us become jaded. Things just don't have the same impact on us now that they did the day we first learned them. And with the many separate threads, necessary to have any meaningful discussion, we generally look at the evidence one or two issues at a time, in more depth. The jurors, however, will be confronted with everything sort of all at once. Yes, over a month or more, likely but still much closer to all at once than we experienced over this last year or so. They'll also have court approved experts explaining the evidence to them, rather than us trying to figure things out with little expert guidance for the most part.

One more thing the jurors will have that we don't is the arguments of counsel. That's one of my goals with trying to create the lists; getting bullet points and putting together a cohesive case by the community and for the community to examine to see if it ends doubts or creates them.

Who knows? If we don't get a doc dump soon, maybe we can even do a mock trial here and you can be... well, I don't think anyone would volunteer for JB, so let's say you and a team you select can play the role of a real attorney representing KC; poking holes in the WS team prosecutor's evidence; creating other theories. Anyone not on one team or the other would be the jurors. Hopefully way more than 12. But now I'm rambling.

So anyway, while you have had all this time to muse and theorize, the jury isn't going to do that. They're going to be stuck with whatever is handed to them as far as evidence and theory. Not sure but fairly confident the jury isn't supposed to come up with their own theories of the crime. If JB doesn't present an accidental death theory to them, I don't think they can come to that on their own. And that's going to be a great big hurdle at WS; not knowing what the defense theory is going to be. We can suggest accident here and maybe make a good case for it but if he doesn't, they can't.

If you were on the jury and: i. the defense went with the SONDI defense, some other nanny did it; ii. you had to choose between that and murder 1 or one of the lesser included offenses, which according to the jury instructions if I understood correctly also includes felony murder; iii. acquitting on all charges due to failure of the state to prove all elements, which would you choose, based on what you know now?

 

[Brini]

Wow! Thanks for this! Ok, so we agree that Caylee died and that she was aware and likely present; Caylee was in car trunk prior to KC disposing of her.

This isn't a private discussion, so these questions are meant for all:

As a juror, does it sway you that the reason there is no proven COD is because she hid the body, preventing a lot of evidence from being collected? I think some will be swayed by this; it's kind of like the logic behind no body case: Because someone is so clever or lucky as to be able to destroy or hide a body, should they get away with the crime?

As a juror, what evidence would JB have to show and how could he show it to rebut the state's contention it was premeditated murder? I could be very wrong, knowing so little about criminal law, but my position is JB would have to provide something to show his theory of the case. He can't merely suggest that the boogeyman did it without anything to support it. There has to be a foundation. Make sense?

I think he'll have to do something convincing about the duct tape.

I beleived the killing to be an accident, until then.

 

[lin]

...

I doubt whether KC had any conscious thought of the benefit of allowing evidence to deteriorate - I think she initially was more intent on concealment of the truth from her parents and friends than anything else.

As I understand it, the defence is not required to put forward any theory or explanation of the evidence at all. The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, but for any proposition the prosecutor might want to put forward as to the inferences to be drawn from any testimony, fact or circumstance etc., the defence only has to show that the relevant evidence could 'reasonably' have a different meaning entirely (in the particular circumstances of the case), not that it actually does. If the jury finds that alternative explanation to be reasonable (not necessarily more reasonable - just reasonable) they must weigh that evidence in favour of the defence.

Ya' know... as I was trying to find some instruction for us to include in this post, it occurred to me and I wonder if anyone has given much thought to this:

Isn't KC going to be tried for obstruction and/or false statements to police? How is that going to factor into the murder trial? Any thoughts?

Now back to your regularly scheduled post.

I agree it's unlikely that KC thought outside of her ten minute span or beyond hiding the truth from her parents and friends. But the result is the same: She successfully concealed Caylee's remains preventing discovery of at least a cause of death and who knows what else? I think this means the jury is going to have to sort of come up with the cause on their own, or at least can make some inferences and assumptions based on the evidence.

As for what the defense has to show, I agree to a point. The defense can make some headway in presenting their theory or poking holes in the prosecution's case with their questioning of the state's witnesses. 'So, Dr. G, can you tell us to a medical degree of certainty that the nanny didn't do it or that it wasn't an accidental death?' But I don't think they can make things up out of wholecloth without any foundation or facts in evidence. They can't expect the juror to accept the SONDI defense just because they offer it and the law doesn't say the jury must.

I'm not sure and I hope someone else is but I don't think the jury must accept any explanation put forth by defense. I agree with your emphasis on 'reasonable' explanation. I'm just not yet convinced it's as bullet proof as some others seem to think. Again, I could be wrong but here's something to think on:

Excerpted from Barber v. State, Case No. 5D06-3529 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009):

"Because this is a purely circumstantial evidence case, a special standard of review applies to our analysis.
...

The question of whether the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for the jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the jury verdict, we will not reverse." Darling v. State, 808 So. 2d 145, 155 (Fla.) (quoting State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 848 (2002). In meeting its burden, the State is not required to "rebut conclusively, every possible variation of events" which could be inferred from the evidence, but must introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events. Darling, 808 So. 2d at 156 (quoting Law, 559 So. 2d at 189).

Once the State meets this threshold burden, it becomes the jury's duty to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

This Court does not have to determine that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded in this case. The sole determination we must make is whether there was competent, substantial evidence for the jury to make such a determination. See Darling, 808 So. 2d at 156 (citing Law, 559 So. 2d at 188-89)."

(emphasis added)

Excerpted from Jenkins v. State, No. 3D07-1211 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2009)

"[This] special standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence applies where a conviction is wholly based on circumstantial evidence. Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The question of whether the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for the jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the jury verdict, we will not reverse."

(emphasis added)

 

[lin]

Ok, so that indicates to me that once again, we're looking at the jury as the wildcard that has the sole duty to determine reasonable. But this somewhat conflicts with the case Jolynna found last night, so I looked further but found no help in jury instructions. But then I thought, maybe I'm really overthinking this because how on earth is the defense going to be able to explain away everything with a single theory?

What defense theory explains the body in the car? Accident, maybe but not SONDI and not innocence. I'm not betting my farm on the defense trying to claim an accident until I see some signal from them other than what they've done all along. So far, it appears they're going for an acquital.

What defense theory explains the duct tape on the face? SONDI but not accident, imo. I just can't believe any reasonable person is going to accept that as a response to an accidental death. And they can't switch off defenses for each piece of evidence; they have to have a cohesive theory that explains all of it. They can't say SONDI to the car and accident to the duct tape. Those theories are inconsistent.

What defense theory explains 31 days of avoiding detection which can legally be inferred as consciousness of guilt? Neither SONDI nor accident, imo, particularly when KC makes statements such as 'she's never been happier' in a text with a friend and 'I love my nanny' and all the rest of it. How is that consistent with a grieving mother that just lost her child to a horrible accident?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I think rage killing is also inconsistent with the 31 days and don't know that it's even a defense for murder; passion, somewhat but even so, what did this 34 month old baby do to provoke her mother?

You've said you're not on the premeditated train but even so, if she tries to claim a 'heat of passion' or rage killing, it's still felony murder, imo.

Under Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976), felony murder is included within a single indictment count of premeditated murder. Therefore, first degree felony murder should be given if requested by the state and if supported by the evidence, although it is not a lesser included offense.

I'm happily anticipating you and others attacking all of the above. This may be fun and will certainly be interesting and hopefully educational!

 

[lin]

I think the issue of the duct tape will be a hot potato at trial and will take up hour upon hour of questioning, expert testimony and forceful argument. Dr G. will feel like an over-grilled McDonalds value meal by the time both sides have finished with her and the jury will probably wish they had some duct tape to hand!

At the end of that fact-finding frenzy, the jury will be roused from their involuntary state of temporary partial-euthanasia and will be none the wiser. Although they'll definitely have to consider it, my prediction is that at the end of the day, they'll have to resort to speculation and conjecture, since there'll be no answers to be gleaned from the courtroom.

You may be right but I think the duct tape alone, without experts explaining to me, is pretty compelling and the jury can infer a lot from it.

Do you think KC placed the duct tape on Caylee's face? And if you have already been convinced KC placed it there then what could the reasoning be? Remember Huck and remember too it wasn't just over her mouth as in staging a kidnapping.

 

[lin]

That's an awful lot of evidence to put reasonable doubt on.They would have to have a story that fits all of it .I realise they aren't required to,but the word here is reasonable.It will have to make sense to the jury.

Wow! Took you 4 sentences; took me a page and a half. lol