Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lin]

I started to write something similar two minutes ago.I typed it out,then squashed it,so I'm glad you said something.
The bottom line is ,we have not seen everything the SA has . I believe she is one bright cookie and is well aware of what she needs to prove premeditation.I think she has it.We just haven't seen it yet.
The defense keeps pushing the trial date back so the prosecution has plenty of time to release what is left.
It was the SA who pushed to get a DP qualified attorney on record for the defense. They intend to stick with the charge and to prove it.

I have a lot of confidence in and respect for LDB too. But remember, according the the jury instructions, the judge can instruct on felony murder under a murder 1 indictment. So even if the defense is able to raise reasonable doubt as to premeditation, which I highly doubt, I can't see any possible way of getting around a felony murder conviction.

Excellent point on the state pushing for qualified counsel; raising the conflict issue; and making KC come to hearings, etc. They don't want to try this twice and I believe they're very confident in the evidence.

 

[Wudge]

the judge can instruct on felony murder under a murder 1 indictment. So even if the defense is able to raise reasonable doubt as to premeditation, which I highly doubt, I can't see any possible way of getting around a felony murder conviction.

Casey has not been charge with felony murder. Moreover, felony murder is not a lesser charge of first-degree murder. Prosecutors would have to amend their currect charges and charge Casey with felony murder before the judge could instruct the jury on felony murder.

ETA: There is a thread that covers this in detail.

 

[lin]

Respectfully snipped:

Bold is mine.

Well, I never meant to give the impression that I felt "any other story is bullet proof" and is the law of the land. If I did, I certainly want to clear that up. The law as I understand it is that in a circumstantial case, any "reasonable" hypothesis put out by the defense should result in an acquital of the defendant.

You know I respect your opinions and seek them out, as now. So, to add further clarification, I've not seen you suggest anything but concern, certainly not the 'bullet proof' thing. That being said, I'm still kind of stuck on the conflict between what is the law as stated in your post, the cases you referenced and others v. Barber and other cases that state:

"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)."

"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."

I'm having a difficult time resolving this conflict in my mind and maybe you (and others) can help me to understand.

Maybe part of the answer lies in this, also from Barber:

"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)."

This is in keeping with Themis' excellent explanation of the limit to the expectation from the prosecution. It also kind of goes with what I've been working toward with the inconsistent theories it would take to explain away all the evidence. If the defense theory is SONDI, imo, the state's introduction of the car trunk evidence is inconsistent. If the defense theory is accident, imo, the duct tape evidence is inconsistent with that theory and so on.

 

[lin]

Casey has not been charge with felony murder. Moreover, felony murder is not a lesser charge of first-degree murder. Prosecutors would have to amend their currect charges and charge Casey with felony murder before the judge could instruct the jury on felony murder.

ETA: There is a thread that covers this in detail.

I missed the thread you reference. Can you explain the conflict with Knight in the jury instructions? It sure seems to me to indicate a judge may so instruct.

"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."

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...ers/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

One may open the full document in pdf or Word and do a word search for "Knight" to verify this reference and the context in which it is presented.

 

[lin]

You used the words: "seemed to overwhemingly indicate premeditation". Those words are very representative of a vast number of people who mistakingly believe that if they were seated on the jury, they could validly and legally convict a defendant on a murder one charge by using the totality of evidence or the weight of evidence. Totality of evidence or weight of evidence can certainly create a false impression -- to say nothing of the fact that we have yet to hear Casey's defense.

(I believe much of this misplaced belief stems from the fact that preponderance (more likely than not) of the evidence is a standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff in a civil trial. The standard in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a far cry from "more likely than not".)

Jurors are required to consider the totality of the evidence and either acquit or convict based thereupon. It's not a mistake; it's the law.

 

[Wudge]

I missed the thread you reference.

SNIP

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.)

 

[Wudge]

Jurors are required to consider the totality of the evidence and either acquit or convict based thereupon. It's not a mistake; it's the law.

Your statement is not true and that's not the law. I have often addressed this mythology -- most recently in yesterday's post# 669.

The law requires prosecutors to produce evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt -- in this case we are discussing the premeditated murder charge against Casey. All the evidence could accrue to the People, but if that evidence is insufficient to support a guilty verdict, juries cannot then use a totality of the evidence measure or a weight of the evidence measure to convict the defendant.

HTH

 

[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 didn't read the thread. I searched the thread for "Knight" and it returned zero matches. I'm confident the reasoning in the thread was sound for whatever conclusion was reached by individual posters. However, as it appears Knight was not discussed, I don't think the thread disputes that Knight is included in the Florida standard jury instructions as cited in my post.

Unless and until we see something that disputes the reference, I think those of us inexpert in criminal law must conclude that Knight controls.

 

[JBean]

Is Fl a state where the judge can override the jury and impose death even if the jurors do not?

TIA

 

[Wudge]

I didn't read the thread.

SNIP

Felony murder is a very misunderstood concept and topic, and Florida's approach and felony murder statute creates still more complexity compared to most other states where felony murder exists. I highly recommend you read through the discussion in that thread. If you want to discuss another case that had a felony murder charge (you referred to "Knight") that thread is almost assuredly the proper place.

 

[Wudge]

Is Fl a state where the judge can override the jury and impose death even if the jurors do not?

TIA

As of a few years ago, the jury made a sentencing "recommendation" -- jurors did not have to be unanimous -- to the trial judge. The judge was not required to follow the jury's recommendation. A review by the Florida Supreme Court was automatic.

However, during the last few years, I haven't followed appeals and rulings regarding issues with Florida's death penalty sentencing procedure. Death penalty sentencing appeals are plentiful in most any state that imposes the death penalty. Things might well have changed in Florida.

 

[Marina2]

You know I respect your opinions and seek them out, as now. So, to add further clarification, I've not seen you suggest anything but concern, certainly not the 'bullet proof' thing. That being said, I'm still kind of stuck on the conflict between what is the law as stated in your post, the cases you referenced and others v. Barber and other cases that state:

"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)."

"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."

I'm having a difficult time resolving this conflict in my mind and maybe you (and others) can help me to understand.

Maybe part of the answer lies in this, also from Barber:

"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)."

This is in keeping with Themis' excellent explanation of the limit to the expectation from the prosecution. It also kind of goes with what I've been working toward with the inconsistent theories it would take to explain away all the evidence. If the defense theory is SONDI, imo, the state's introduction of the car trunk evidence is inconsistent. If the defense theory is accident, imo, the duct tape evidence is inconsistent with that theory and so on.

That which I bolded in red is the answer. If the evidence in a circumstantial case is inconsistent with the defense theory, the theory is deemed unreasonable. The defense won't have a reasonable theory to offer. If it's consistent with the evidence, then the state will have to produce evidence that it's not consistent. The jury will decide if the evidence is inconsistent or consistent with the defense theory to determine if it's a reasonable theory or not. If the jury finds that the theory is reasonable, an acquital is required. This is my understanding of the law. I'm learning too so any clarification is appreciated.

 

[lin]

Your statement is not true and that's not the law. I have often addressed this mythology -- most recently in yesterday's post# 669.

The law requires prosecutors to produce evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt -- in this case we are discussing the premeditated murder charge against Casey. All the evidence could accrue to the People, but if that evidence is insufficient to support a guilty verdict, juries cannot then use a totality of the evidence measure or a weight of the evidence measure to convict the defendant.

HTH

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

 

[lin]

...

Felony murder is a very misunderstood concept and topic, and Florida's approach and felony murder statute creates still more complexity compared to most other states where felony murder exists. I highly recommend you read through the discussion in that thread. If you want to discuss another case that had a felony murder charge (you referred to "Knight") that thread is almost assuredly the proper place.

And I have repeatedly suggested you read the Florida jury instructions which indicate that Knight controls. You have so far shown nothing to indicate the jury instructions approved by the Florida Supreme Court that hold Knight controls are wrong. A post you made in a thread on an internet forum is not more persuasive to me than the inclusion of Knight in the Florida standard jury instructions and I find it difficult to believe it would be more persuasive to anyone, especially a court.

I have no doubt your logic was sound in your theories and understanding of the law. Such is the case when one enters a courtroom to litigate an issue. However, when opposing counsel brings up precedent, statute, rules or other information that conflicts with one's formerly rock-solid case to the contrary, one must overcome that precedent, statute, rule or other information.

Simply repeating the same thing over and over will not sway a court nor most reasonable people. See CA for proof of this.

 

[JBean]

As of a few years ago, the jury made a sentencing "recommendation" -- jurors did not have to be unanimous -- to the trial judge. The judge was not required to follow the jury's recommendation. A review by the Florida Supreme Court was automatic.

However, during the last few years, I haven't followed appeals and rulings regarding issues with Florida's death penalty sentencing procedure. Death penalty sentencing appeals are plentiful in most any state that imposes the death penalty. Things might well have changed in Florida.

I know in some states the judge can uphold a death sentence or not. But I think there are less states that allow the judge to give death even if the jury has recommended LWOP. I am just not sure if FL is one of them. I will look it up, but I was hoping someone might know offhand, plus I know things change.

 

[Wudge]

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

Statutes are not written to identify legal myths or legends. I'll repost my prior post (#669) in this thread, which was in response to a post MissJames made.


[REPOST]

"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."

[END OF REPOST]


The above repost reflects a theoretical case where the total evidence (100%) is presented by the People and is 100% for the People. The defense presented no evidence (0%). The totality of the evidence is 100% by and for the People. Thus, the weight of evidence must necessarily be 100% for the people.

However, despite the 100% to 0% evidence distribution in both total and weight, the jury found the evidence did not prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. By law, they must acquit the defendant.

What this hypothetical case demonstrates is that the People bear the entire burden of proof and if the evidence presented by the People is not sufficient to prove the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt, then all of the evidence they did present (the total amount) cannot be used to convict the defendant nor can the weight of evidence.

Net, insufficiency of evidence is paramount.


(The top law schools have used comparative examples for many a decade.)

 

[lin]

That which I bolded in red is the answer. If the evidence in a circumstantial case is inconsistent with the defense theory, the theory is deemed unreasonable. The defense won't have a reasonable theory to offer. If it's consistent with the evidence, then the state will have to produce evidence that it's not consistent. The jury will decide if the evidence is inconsistent or consistent with the defense theory to determine if it's a reasonable theory or not. If the jury finds that the theory is reasonable, an acquital is required. This is my understanding of the law. I'm learning too so any clarification is appreciated.

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!

 

[JBean]

As of a few years ago, the jury made a sentencing "recommendation" -- jurors did not have to be unanimous -- to the trial judge. The judge was not required to follow the jury's recommendation. A review by the Florida Supreme Court was automatic.

However, during the last few years, I haven't followed appeals and rulings regarding issues with Florida's death penalty sentencing procedure. Death penalty sentencing appeals are plentiful in most any state that imposes the death penalty. Things might well have changed in Florida.

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

 

[JBean]

Statutes are not written to identify legal myths or legends. I'll repost my prior post (#669) in this thread, which was in response to a post MissJames made.


[REPOST]

"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."

[END OF REPOST]


The above repost reflects a theoretical case where the total evidence (100%) is presented by the People and is 100% for the People. The defense presented no evidence (0%). The totality of the evidence is 100% by and for the People. Thus, the weight of evidence must necessarily be 100% for the people.

However, despite the 100% to 0% evidence distribution in both total and weight, the jury found the evidence did not prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. By law, they must acquit the defendant.

What this hypothetical case demonstrates is that the People bear the entire burden of proof and if the evidence presented by the People is not sufficient to prove the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt, then all of the evidence they did present (the total amount) cannot be used to convict the defendant nor can the weight of evidence.

Net, insufficiency of evidence is paramount.


(The top law schools have used comparative examples for many a decade.)

can we summarize that with quantity not quality? or is that an oversimplification?

 

[lin]

Statutes are not written to identify legal myths or legends. I'll repost my prior post (#669) in this thread, which was in response to a post MissJames made.


[REPOST]

"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."

[END OF REPOST]


The above repost reflects a theoretical case where the total evidence (100%) is presented by the People and is 100% for the People. The defense presented no evidence (0%). The totality of the evidence is 100% by and for the People. Thus, the weight of evidence must necessarily be 100% for the people.

However, despite the 100% to 0% evidence distribution in both total and weight, the jury found the evidence did not prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. By law, they must acquit the defendant.

What this hypothetical case demonstrates is that the People bear the entire burden of proof and if the evidence presented by the People is not sufficient to prove the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt, then all of the evidence they did present (the total amount) cannot be used to convict the defendant nor can the weight of evidence.

Net, insufficiency of evidence is paramount.


(The top law schools have used comparative examples for many a decade.)

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.

I can't speak for others but for my part, it is not necessary to repeatedly repost your posts in the same thread. If I'm following a thread, I read it the first time and probably the second. I'm not going to infer a different meaning no matter how many times the exact same words are reposted, and this is almost 100% certain. Repeating/reposting the same thing doesn't make your point any clearer. Perhaps if you rephrase, I (and maybe others) will come to a different understanding than what your first choice of words indicated to me.