Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lin]

Please cite the authorities supporting your contention my statement is "myth."

Your explaining paragraph appears legally sound, but doesn't support my understanding of your view stated view, imo. Yes, of course a prosecutor is required to prove each element of the crime and in so failing, an acquittal is appropriate. Of course, the prosecution may put forth a plethora of evidence consisting of millions of exhibits; thousands of witnesses; etc. and if the proof of each element charged is not shown beyond a reasonable doubt, an acquittal is appropriate regardless of the number of items submitted or their percentage of the total amount of evidence presented.

Perhaps the difference between your understanding of the law and mine is that by "totality" you mean who put forth more, most or all evidence. In the law, however, it's my understanding that the "totality" is everything put forth. A jury must consider the totality of the evidence to determine if each element has been proven. They are not constrained to consider only one specific "set" of evidence toward the proof of one element but not another. They are required to consider the totality, or all of the evidence, in reaching their verdict.

Admittedly not exactly on point but without extensive research I doubt I'll find anything closer to show such a fundamental concept:

See Randolph v. State, 562 So. 2d 331, 338 (Fla. 1990) (holding one improper question about lack of remorse harmless beyond reasonable doubt in light of totality of evidence)

Palmer v. McKesson Corp., No. 1D08-0516 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
"In her order, the judge rejected the testimony offered by claimant relative to the provision of TENS supplies because it was inconsistent with logic and the totality of the evidence."

Ochacher v. State, 987 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
"[T]he totality of the evidence must be reviewed in any harmless error analysis."

HTH

In fact, for your convenience, here is the post to which you responded.

1st, I asked for the authorities supporting your contentions. Your response did not include them.

2nd, I explained my position that your explaining paragraph did not support the opening sentence, in my view. Your response did not address this.

3rd, I suggested a semantical conflict. Your response did not address this.

4th, I provided some authorities to support my position. Your response did not address these.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

Here we go. This is radical imo. I understand being able to override death for LWOP, but not the other way around.

Perhaps the most controversial statutory provision in Florida's capital sentencing scheme is the provision permitting a judge to override a jury's recommendation of life imprisonment and impose the death penalty.[1] Only three other states permit jury overrides in capital sentencing;[2] for the most part, their statutes are modeled after Florida's trifurcated capital sentencing scheme.[3] For more than a decade, legal critics have asserted that the jury override violates the United States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and public policy.[4] However, the United States Supreme Court continues to uphold the validity of the jury override.[5]

http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/issues/232/lafferty.html

The Constitutional argument for such is that the defendant is supposed to receive the divinity of a sentence by his peers (the jurors). Personally, I favor the jury making but a recommendation to the judge. My prior problem with Florida's procedure (perhaps it still exists) is that the jury's recommendation did not have to be unanimous.

Overall, Florida and Texas jurisprudence and adjudication of death penalty cases usually tops the list of states that are deemed to be the worst. Since 1976, Florida has executed 67 people. During that same time, 19 defendants who had been sentenced to death and sat on death row were eventually exonerated. No matter how a person might wish to look at it, that's an incredible error rate.

Florida should follow the lead of former Governor Ryan of Illinois and halt all executions pending a complete review of its process, procedures and laws.

 

[Marina2]

Thanks and ditto on learning. Working together to understand these issues is very helpful, imo. I agree but don't see how this resolves the conflict in toto. There's still the conflict between being the jury's sole purview to determine, not to be disturbed, or subject to de novo or other review on appeal. I still have an issue in my own mind about the counter-intuitiveness of arguing one's client's innocence and conversely arguing mitigation or incriminating alternate theories. 'My client didn't do it but if he did, he did it this way and for that reason,' seems to conflict to me and almost certainly would lead to conviction under the facts of many cases.

And I'll omit the other 30 or 3000 paragraphs over-analysing this weak point and end with:

Anxiously awaiting former jurors to weigh in to help me figure this out!

The defense may not be arguing innocence of any charge but to a lesser charge than the state seeks a conviction on. As in manslaughter vs. murder 1. The theory the defense gives supports manslaughter rather than complete innocence. If they were arguing complete innocence their theory would reflect that.

I agree that it seems counter intuitive to argue a case as you suggest. How common is this? It seems that after reading about the Huck case I thought the same as you. How can he say he's innocent but if it happened, here's five or so different reasonable theories. I think a criminal defense attorney could answer this better than a former juror though. Maybe they do it because the jury has to accept a reasonable theory from the defense. If they don't, the defendant still has a chance on appeal?

 

[MissJames]

The defense may not be arguing innocence of any charge but to a lesser charge than the state seeks a conviction on. As in manslaughter vs. murder 1. The theory the defense gives supports manslaughter rather than complete innocence. If they were arguing complete innocence their theory would reflect that.

I agree that it seems counter intuitive to argue a case as you suggest. How common is this? It seems that after reading about the Huck case I thought the same as you. How can he say he's innocent but if it happened, here's five or so different reasonable theories. I think a criminal defense attorney could answer this better than a former juror though. Maybe they do it because the jury has to accept a reasonable theory from the defense. If they don't, the defendant still has a chance on appeal?

It reminds me of the arguments put forth by the first DP qualified attorney for KC.Before the body was even found IIRC his arguments for not having the DP included accidental death.I had to pick my jaw up off the floor .JB and the A's were still claiming Caylee was alive .

 

[JBean]

The Constitutional argument for such is that the defendant is supposed to receive the divinity of a sentence by his peers (the jurors). Personally, I favor the jury making but a recommendation to the judge. My prior problem with Florida's procedure (perhaps it still exists) is that the jury's recommendation did not have to be unanimous.

Overall, Florida and Texas jurisprudence and adjudication of death penalty cases usually tops the list of states that are deemed to be the worst. Since 1976, Florida has executed 67 people. During that same time, 19 defendants who had been sentenced to death and sat on death row were eventually exonerated. No matter how a person might wish to look at it, that's an incredible error rate.

Florida should follow the lead of former Governor Ryan of Illinois and halt all executions pending a complete review of its process, procedures and laws.

Well since I do not support the death penalty, you get no argument from me.
However with that said, if the DP is going to exist then it should , as you suggest,be revamped in terms of process and procedure. If we are going to implement it, let's make it as error free as possible and efficient.

 

[Marina2]

It reminds me of the arguments put forth by the first DP qualified attorney for KC.Before the body was even found IIRC his arguments for not having the DP included accidental death.I had to pick my jaw up off the floor .JB and the A's were still claiming Caylee was alive .

Lol. I attributed that to lack of communication between the attorneys rather than defense strategy. :crazy:

 

[Brini]

The Constitutional argument for such is that the defendant is supposed to receive the divinity of a sentence by his peers (the jurors). Personally, I favor the jury making but a recommendation to the judge. My prior problem with Florida's procedure (perhaps it still exists) is that the jury's recommendation did not have to be unanimous.

Overall, Florida and Texas jurisprudence and adjudication of death penalty cases usually tops the list of states that are deemed to be the worst. Since 1976, Florida has executed 67 people. During that same time, 19 defendants who had been sentenced to death and sat on death row were eventually exonerated. No matter how a person might wish to look at it, that's an incredible error rate.

Florida should follow the lead of former Governor Ryan of Illinois and halt all executions pending a complete review of its process, procedures and laws.

FL has exonerated 23.

Perhaps that is the correct number, given the parabolic advancement in DNA technology? That's more than one-third of the pre and post DNA tech convictions.

One can understand many errors in the 60s-80s. Even the early 90s. Many of those errors were based on direct evidence (eyewitnesses).

However, because of the tech advancements, we can prolly expect fewer and fewer errors, as DNA and other technologies are refined even further.

 

[Wudge]

Would you please highlight the portion(s) containing the authorities supporting your contentions regarding the totality of the evidence "myth?"

I apologize if I wasn't clear in my response to your post regarding the burden of the prosecution may not be met no matter how much evidence or what % of the evidence is presented by the prosecution. That does not support that consideration of the totality of the evidence is a myth, as your post implied.

SNIP

(No statutes are written to expose legal myths or legends.)

The hypo clearly exposes the "myth". With a 100% of the evidence by and for the People, there's no conceivable way to make the hypo more clear. If you have a problem with the hypo I posted, please explain it.

 

[Brini]

Lol. I attributed that to lack of communication between the attorneys rather than defense strategy. :crazy:

Poor JB, Esq!

We have: KC is entirely innocent, and

KC cannot tell what she knows, because of self-incriminations.

I'm waiting for: KC is entirely innocent, but if she isn't, it was an accident.

And, if it wasn't an accident. here are the mitigating factors.

And, maybe KC killed Caylee by accident, b ut the SOD out the duct tape on.

 

[lin]

The link to that thread is below -- for the most part, the discussion takes place before the linked page.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75687&page=24

(Case circumstances must support a charge of both murder one and felony murder.)

I took a few minutes and looked at the referenced thread. Themis correctly referred to and interpreted the applicable jury instructions. Her analysis totally conflicts with your stated opinion. I saw no disagreement from anyone other than you after Themis posted the authority and her analysis. I don't understand how you believe this supports your viewpoint. In fact, it supports my reference of Knight in the jury instructions and supports the opposite of your view, imo.

Did I miss something?

 

[Wudge]

I took a few minutes and looked at the referenced thread. Themis correctly referred to and interpreted the applicable jury instructions. Her analysis totally conflicts with your stated opinion. I saw no disagreement from anyone other than you after Themis posted the authority and her analysis. I don't understand how you believe this supports your viewpoint. In fact, it supports my reference of Knight in the jury instructions and supports the opposite of your view, imo.

Did I miss something?

I tried previously to refer a further discussion on felony murder to the other thread.

It took a good deal of time before most posters finally understood and agreed that Casey has not been charged with felony murder. Hence, the judge can't instruct the jury on felony murder nor can the jury deliberate on felony murder. I'm not going to rediscuss felony murder in this thread. Please use the other thread to carry on that discusson if you wish.

 

[Brini]

(No statutes are written to expose legal myths or legends.)

The hypo clearly exposes the "myth". With a 100% of the evidence by and for the People, there's no conceivable way to make the hypo more clear. If you have a problem with the hypo I posted, please explain it.

Honey, your posts would carry more weight if they included references and case law examples, as others have been doing.

Also, some of your posts reflect inaccurate jury instruction parameters, when compared with the originals.

There are also a couple of erroneous generalizations:

1) That ONLY the prosecution resorts to trying cases in the media, and other "loading" techniques, and,

2) That because there were a significant number of errors (almost a third, based on # of exonerations) that number remains significant and will continue to do (not taking into account updates on forensic sciences).

 

[lin]

(No statutes are written to expose legal myths or legends.)

The hypo clearly exposes the "myth". With a 100% of the evidence by and for the People, there's no conceivable way to make the hypo more clear. If you have a problem with the hypo I posted, please explain it.

Objection; again nonresponsive.

Cited authorities support my view that a jury must consider the totality of the evidence and my understanding of the meaning of that phrase. I see nothing to support yours. For those who are not familiar, 'authorities' include not only statute but also precedent (case law), rules of procedure and other reference sources.

Despite your blanket statement that "The hypo clearly exposes the "myth" I firmly disagree and stated so. Simply assuring me that your hypo* does support your view does nothing to resolve the conflict that I explained and is nonresponsive to that explanation.

In fact, we are in complete agreement that it doesn't matter whether the prosecution presents millions of pieces of evidence, the only thing that matters is if the elements of the crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Where we disagree is that a jury is not to consider the totality of the evidence, your position, and my opposite stance that they are required to do so.

In trying to understand your meaning, I went so far as to suggest separate interpretations and/or use of the word 'totality' to which you have not responded. Therefore, I can't know whether you use "totality" to mean quantity of evidence rather than as is more commonly meant in the law, "totality of the evidence and circumstances." Surely you cannot mean the jurors are not to consider all evidence presented, the totality of the evidence, and yet you seem to insist that is the case.

I really think we are not in disagreement other than in interpreting the word "totality" in a legal context. If you do not agree, please re-read the above in its totality.

*this is not meant to imply concession that you did supply a "hypo"

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Cited authorities support my view that a jury must consider the totality of the evidence

SNIP

"Consider the totality of the evidence" means that the jury is not to ignore evidence.

(It's an admonishment.)

 

[Wudge]

Objection

SNIP

Where we disagree is that a jury is not to consider the totality of the evidence, your position,

SNIP

Quote me.

 

[lin]

The defense may not be arguing innocence of any charge but to a lesser charge than the state seeks a conviction on. As in manslaughter vs. murder 1. The theory the defense gives supports manslaughter rather than complete innocence. If they were arguing complete innocence their theory would reflect that.

I agree that it seems counter intuitive to argue a case as you suggest. How common is this? It seems that after reading about the Huck case I thought the same as you. How can he say he's innocent but if it happened, here's five or so different reasonable theories. I think a criminal defense attorney could answer this better than a former juror though. Maybe they do it because the jury has to accept a reasonable theory from the defense. If they don't, the defendant still has a chance on appeal?

Yes, arguing for a lesser charge makes perfect sense. But what about those cases wherein the defense seeks an acquittal? Maybe we're missing some important steps in the process. Maybe the motion or whatever it is for judgment of acquittal that is almost inevitably filed plays a significant role in how these things all play out in the real world.

I swear, I get so obsessive sometimes. Maybe it's best for me to just let this side issue go in favor of discussing things applicable to the current facts/circumstances and worry about this bridge (motion, petition or other pleadings) when they're more relevant to the case. I really can't see any defense theory that is consistent with all the evidence and will result in an acquittal or a verdict less than felony murder. If I'm right, the rest is just theoretical and totally irrelevant to the case we're discussing.

But thanks so much for your input. It has been very helpful and instructive.

 

[JBean]

OKay it took is forever to determine that
1. Felony Murder is a separate charge from Premeditated murder.
2. Felony Murder is not a lesser charge of Premeditated murder.
3. By definition Premeditated Murder and Felony Murder are equal in weight and can carry the same sentence.

The debate is whether felony murder can be considered if the defendant is not specifically charged with it.

Please take that debate back to the thread where it all is hashed out for pages and pages and let's not start it all over in this one.

I love the adversarial nature of our justice system and it is well represented on this thread. but take it back to the original discussion please.

 

[lin]

It reminds me of the arguments put forth by the first DP qualified attorney for KC.Before the body was even found IIRC his arguments for not having the DP included accidental death.I had to pick my jaw up off the floor .JB and the A's were still claiming Caylee was alive .

Well done! Now here I've spent half the day and too much of last night overworking both of the functioning brain cells and you figured it out and explained it in, again, 4 sentences.

 

[Tuba]

Since direct evidence is that means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question without intervention of the proof of any other fact, it is distinct from circumstantial evidence which is often called "indirect". I think what is at issue now on this thread is whether the interlinking or connecting and building of one piece of evidence with another is valuable and important or not. This may fit with that and explain yet another piece over here in a way that makes each piece more convincing than if it stood alone. That is NOT to say that the separate pieces are flawed or unreliable but that, put together, they lend one another sense and go toward the construction of something logical, understandable and reasonable. That may be an inference derived from a number of particulars or circumstances that were established directly. To me, how this works together is ALL important.

 

[lin]

I tried previously to refer a further discussion on felony murder to the other thread.

It took a good deal of time before most posters finally understood and agreed that Casey has not been charged with felony murder. Hence, the judge can't instruct the jury on felony murder nor can the jury deliberate on felony murder. I'm not going to rediscuss felony murder in this thread. Please use the other thread to carry on that discusson if you wish.

You posted in this thread that the jury cannot be instructed on felony murder. You posted in this thread the link to the discussion you seem to believe supports your position. Therefore, the place to correct the misinformation is in this thread.

Despite your assurance that my interpretation of the plain language in the jury instructions is wrong, the facts and the thread you reference state otherwise. Nowhere in that thread was a consensus reached indicating that felony murder cannot be instructed in the Anthony case. After Themis correctly interpreted the applicable law and the jury instructions, no one so much as disputed her analysis. Perhaps it will jog your memory of same to remind you of the discussion regarding Lesser Included Offenses, or LIO's.

If you choose not to discuss the applicability of Knight in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, that is your right. But I highly recommend that you not insist that Knight does not control or that felony murder cannot be instructed in the Anthony case on this thread. Because that's not what the law says, that's not what Themis posted in the thread claimed to support your view, and that wasn't the consensus reached in that thread. To state or imply otherwise is simply incorrect.