Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Brini]

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.

Well, also what was the methodology? Was a randomized sample, and were significant degrees of freedom re: the courts and the number of jurors used?

The study is no good without the methodology. That's why the methodologies are always published in referreed journals.

If no particular methodology, other than standing outside of courtroom doors, you aren't going to get any validity, at all.

BTW-- HATED methodology class!

 

[Marina2]

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

Respectfully, I didn't correlate his intelligence level with his diction and, as you point out, neither did anyone during voir dire. That's a generalization that you make. What I found funny was the reporter waiting for "the rest of the story" when none was forthcoming.

 

[Themis]

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?

:clap::clap::clap: You are right on the money again, Miss James.

 

[AZlawyer]

Standard Florida jury instruction for manslaughter, including only those parts relevant to Casey's manslaughter charge ("aggravated manslaughter of a child"):

7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally caused the death of (victim).

b. ....

c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).

However, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide as I have previously explained those terms.

In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act which caused death. See Hall v. State, 951 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

§ 782.07(2)-(4), Fla. Stat. Enhanced penalty if 2c alleged and proved. Give a, b, or c, as applicable.
If you find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. ....

b. (Victim) was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of (defendant), a caregiver.

c. ....

Definitions.
Child@ means any person under the age of 18 years.

As applied to a Child.
ACaregiver@ means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child=s welfare.

827.03(3)(a), Fla. Stat.
“Neglect of [a child”] .... means:

1. A caregiver=s failure or omission to provide [a child] ... with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain [a child’s] ... physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the [child] ...;

or

2. A caregiver’s failure to make reasonable effort to protect [a child] .... from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person.

Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of [a child] .... may be considered in determining neglect.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

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 agree. Are we to believe that the only way to have a correct outcome, a just outcome is through the arbitrary, often baseless, and easily manipulated legal system? It's not.Let's get real!

 

[JBean]

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

Now I assumed that perhaps the juror was German or something and it was a verbatim quote. LOL, I read it with a german accent.I didn't get the issue being the grammar but rather the inadequate answer to the question.
I better go re read it.

 

[MissJames]

Now I assumed that perhaps the juror was German or something and it was a verbatim quote. LOL, I read it with a german accent.I didn't get the issue being the grammar but rather the inadequate answer to the question.
I better go re read it.

Being from the South I assumed it was an attempt to sound/spell hillbilly,not German.Funny how we all see it in a different way.
Around here if you assume someone that talks like that is ignorant or uneducated you would be making a serious mistake.

 

[Wudge]

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

“Little children don’t lie”, was made by a member of the jury in the child molestation trial of Robert Kelly -- the Little Rascal's Daycare Center child-abuse case in North Carolina. He was convicted on 99 of the 100 counts and sentenced to twelve consecutive life sentences. He spent around 6 to 7 years (my unconfirmed recollection) in prison before an Appellate Court set aside the verdict, and he was released from prison in or around 1996. Three years then passed before the D.A. finally decided that they would not hold a second trial.

Note: my recollection is that four to five other people related to the operation of the Little Rascals Daycare Center were also tried and convicted -- allegedly children were taken out on a boat and babies were fed to sharks.
.
.
.

"They tortured and killed a baby for God sake", came from a juror (the question was against that juror's holding of "guilty") who was a member of the jury in one of the two McMartin Daycare Center trials -- Bakersfield, CA, Kern County infamy. The defendants were Ray and Peggy Buckley. Like their first trial, their second trial also ended in a hung jury.

Note: the first McMartin trial took around three years to complete, and the jury deliberated for months before declaring they were hung. The first jury was largely in favor of acquittal though they also largely believed that the children had been molested.
.
.
.

“There were hundreds of charges. De must be guilty of something,”, came from a juror in one of child molestation trials of Edward Gallup Sr. (a Nazarene minister), Mary Lou Gallup (his wife) and their son, Ed Gallup, Jr.. Together, they ran three separate Gallup Christian Daycare centers in Roseburg, Oregon.

Over a hundred children -- the basis for: there were hundreds of charges -- told typically insane stories of satanic and/or ritual sexual abuse and molestation.
.
.
.

“The prosecutor didn’t prove they did it. That’s why we needed to solve what happened.", came from a juror in a case that Earl Stanley Gardener's famed consortium of experts, "The Court of Last Resort", took on over fifty years ago as one of their likely wrongful conviction cases.
.
.
.

“Der wud all dat blud”, came from a member of the jury in the 2003 high-profile murder trial of Michael Peterson, which took place in Durham, North Carolina. He was convicted of murdering his wife, Kathleen Peterson.
.
.
.

“She did it. We just needed to find the evidence”, came from a juror in the 2001 Pima County, Arizona murder trial of Carolyn Peak. She was accused of murdering her husband in his sleep. The jury found her guilty of second-degree murder (implied malice), but not of first-degree murder or the still lesser charge of manslaughter.

The trial judge, acting as the 13th juror, did not find the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict (confusion surrounded this point on appeal), but she did rule that the jury's verdict was against the weight of evidence and so ordered a new trial. The State appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the order of the trial judge.

The State then appealed to Arizona's Supreme Court, which supported the court of appeals but also noted that the trial record did not make it absolutely clear that the trial judge did not also find there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict -- double jeopardy would have foreclosed a second trial. Hence, Arizona's Supreme Court referred the matter back to the trial judge for proper disposition.

In turn, the trial judge confirmed that her original order for a second trial was indeed the proper and correct order. Correspondingly, that put the D.A.'s office into high-gear preparation for a second trial.

(Carolyn Peak's trial and the State's subsequent appeals serve as a truly marvelous case for law students -- Arizona's Supreme Court opinion and the granting of relief can be read on the following link.

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2002/CV020147SA.pdf

However, as superb as the Peak case is for a criminal law classroom, the final and simply stunning real-life outcome of the Carolyn Peak murder case is still far better, but that would be well O/T.)

 

[JBean]

Being from the South I assumed it was an attempt to sound/spell hillbilly,not German.Funny how we all see it in a different way.
Around here if you assume someone that talks like that is ignorant or uneducated you would be making a serious mistake.

Okay in thinking about it, I actually read it with an Ahnold Schwartzenagger thing goin on, so that would be Austrian not German.

 

[JBean]

This is one of my favorites

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/07/lawyer-disbarred-for-misconduct-as-a-juror.html
The California Supreme Court today officially disbarred the former San Francisco solo by a 6-0 vote.
snip
After 10 days of deliberations and a month of trial in a medical malpractice case in the spring of 2004, Fahy changed his vote to break a deadlock, clearing the defendant doctor of any liability. But he only did it so he could get back to his law practice.

 

[strach304]

In the Michael Peterson case I remember there being expert testimony that refuted it being an accident because of all the blood. The infamous ketchup spitting Henry Lee that testified for the defense in that case. Knowing the evidence presented in that trial I can understand the context meant by the juror.

There's been a lot presented as evidence in all of those 80's child care cases were there was "professional testimony " given by child psychologists. It has been proven since that the questioning to the children was guided by these "professionals. So the juror that said children don't lie mo0st likely based her opinion on that expert testimony.

 

[Brini]

In the Michael Peterson case I remember there being expert testimony that refuted it being an accident because of all the blood. The infamous ketchup spitting Henry Lee that testified for the defense in that case. Knowing the evidence presented in that trial I can understand the context meant by the juror.

There's been a lot presented as evidence in all of those 80's child care cases were there was "professional testimony " given by child psychologists. It has been proven since that the questioning to the children was guided by these "professionals. So the juror that said children don't lie mo0st likely based her opinion on that expert testimony.

I remember the 80s cases well.

Non-forensic social workers were used to question the kids. So the actual questioners weren't even what one could call "experts."

The social workers importuned the kids endlessly to tell them, "yucky secrets." The kids were rewarded for "secrets" and punished for not complying with stories of the "yucky" stuff.

As the kids' prompted testimony got wilder and wilder, the whole thing went reducto ad absurdum. But, not until some people were ruined and incarcerated.

The kids were telling the social workers about an underground tunnel that led from the child care center to a "circus house," (not found), where they were raped by clowns and elephants... stuff like that. Lots of stuff about satanic ritual abuse, as well. But, the FBI couldn't find a trace of these "huge multistate satanic networks."

Meanwhile, a passel of shrinks jumped on the band wagon, and started convincing borderlines that they were third-generation satanic priestesses who had been programmed to "forget" the ritual abuse, and who suffered from MPD, as a result. They were often convinced through sodium amytal interviews. That's the part of the problem I was having to deal with.

So.. there were reasons OTHER than polyester leisure suits and disco to not feel nostalgis about the 80s.

Please forgive if I strayed OT. It was a dark time in Californian, at least, jurisprudence.

 

[RR0004]

Perhaps OT, but throughout history there have been trials that were a "sign of the times"...many were more or less "witch hunts".

Back on topic, IMO this case is not one of them.

 

[Brini]

Perhaps OT, but throughout history there have been trials that were a "sign of the times"...many were more or less "witch hunts".

Back on topic, IMO this case is not one of them.

Nope! It sure isn't!

 

[DotsEyes]

Pretend we are the jury, the trial is over. We have heard and seen everything we are allowed to see and hear and it is time for a vote. The information we, as jurors, is nothing more than what we, as posters, have learned. Who here would vote for Murder 1. ?

I would.

I can infer premeditation from the cirumstances. Don't you think jurors can as well?

 

[Themis]

I remember the 80s cases well.

Non-forensic social workers were used to question the kids. So the actual questioners weren't even what one could call "experts."

The social workers importuned the kids endlessly to tell them, "yucky secrets." The kids were rewarded for "secrets" and punished for not complying with stories of the "yucky" stuff.

As the kids' prompted testimony got wilder and wilder, the whole thing went reducto ad absurdum. But, not until some people were ruined and incarcerated.

The kids were telling the social workers about an underground tunnel that led from the child care center to a "circus house," (not found), where they were raped by clowns and elephants... stuff like that. Lots of stuff about satanic ritual abuse, as well. But, the FBI couldn't find a trace of these "huge multistate satanic networks."

Meanwhile, a passel of shrinks jumped on the band wagon, and started convincing borderlines that they were third-generation satanic priestesses who had been programmed to "forget" the ritual abuse, and who suffered from MPD, as a result. They were often convinced through sodium amytal interviews. That's the part of the problem I was having to deal with.

So.. there were reasons OTHER than polyester leisure suits and disco to not feel nostalgis about the 80s.

Please forgive if I strayed OT. It was a dark time in Californian, at least, jurisprudence.

The leading questions were astounding too. The social workers questioning the child witnesses were essentially just writing the story for them and getting the kids to nod yes or no. There were no boundaries between fiction and fantsy. By the time the attorneys interviewed the kids as potential witnesses some had already been interviewed nearly a couple dozen times and didn't know fact from fiction anymore. Kids who had been traumatized or even if they weren't they were more traumatized by the process of being interviewed than by the event itself.

 

[Wudge]

Pretend we are the jury, the trial is over. We have heard and seen everything we are allowed to see and hear and it is time for a vote. The information we, as jurors, is nothing more than what we, as posters, have learned. Who here would vote for Murder 1. ?

I would.

I can infer premeditation from the cirumstances. Don't you think jurors can as well?

As regards this being a premediated murder proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the answer is: No.

If you hold otherwise, please, first, cite the fact (or facts) that your inferred conclusion of "guilty" relies on that has been proved to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, using that fact (or facts), layout the premises that are the basis for your, necessarily, highly reliable conclusion of "guilty".

(The certainty of an inferred conclusion can be no greater than the certainty of the facts in the premises.)

 

[marspiter]

In the Michael Peterson case I remember there being expert testimony that refuted it being an accident because of all the blood. The infamous ketchup spitting Henry Lee that testified for the defense in that case. Knowing the evidence presented in that trial I can understand the context meant by the juror.

Ahh yes the Micheal Peterson case. He also had a wife in Germany that mysteriously died the same way Kathleen did. Now that we know that is the case in question here. I can say that jurors assessment might be a bit simplistic but other then that is pretty much spot on. Someone doesn't lose that much blood while falling down stairs or get that many lacerations to the head.

So to me the juror was giving his impression of why he voted for a conviction. His assessment is spot on for that case (if not a bit over simplified), so to me the quote just seems like poking fun at his speech. Sorry to say it but some people down here just talk that way in NC. I guess when I type on here my NC hillbilly accent just doesn't transfer. However knowing the case that jurors comment to me seems as clear as day. I'm sure the juror was just as dumb founded by the reporter. Who was more then likely "not from round here or these parts".

I might also add that Micheal Peterson's conviction was upheld by both the NC Court of Appeals and the NC Supreme Court. I guess that "Country Bumpkin" juror wasn't to far off the mark in his vote of guilty. Just because we live in Mayberry doesn't mean all of us are Otis or one of the Pyles.

 

[MissJames]

I remember the 80s cases well.

Non-forensic social workers were used to question the kids. So the actual questioners weren't even what one could call "experts."

The social workers importuned the kids endlessly to tell them, "yucky secrets." The kids were rewarded for "secrets" and punished for not complying with stories of the "yucky" stuff.

As the kids' prompted testimony got wilder and wilder, the whole thing went reducto ad absurdum. But, not until some people were ruined and incarcerated.

The kids were telling the social workers about an underground tunnel that led from the child care center to a "circus house," (not found), where they were raped by clowns and elephants... stuff like that. Lots of stuff about satanic ritual abuse, as well. But, the FBI couldn't find a trace of these "huge multistate satanic networks."

Meanwhile, a passel of shrinks jumped on the band wagon, and started convincing borderlines that they were third-generation satanic priestesses who had been programmed to "forget" the ritual abuse, and who suffered from MPD, as a result. They were often convinced through sodium amytal interviews. That's the part of the problem I was having to deal with.

So.. there were reasons OTHER than polyester leisure suits and disco to not feel nostalgis about the 80s.

Please forgive if I strayed OT. It was a dark time in Californian, at least, jurisprudence.

I think that case ,and others like it ,changed the way kids are questioned.We are all much more aware that kids can be "led" to certain answers ,if not handled properly.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

so to me the quote just seems like poking fun at his speech.

SNIP

Kathleen Peterson bled to death. My original post referred to the juror's obvious logic failure; i.e., from the amount of blood in the stairwell, premeditation could not be inferred to the certainty level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, the reporter immediately recognized this to be true too. That is why they kept the mic in front of the juror waiting to hear more from them -- and they waited and they waited and they waited -- but the juror said no more. The juror was satisfied with the sufficiency of the amount of blood proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

(I have seen far, far more than a few members of juries who had serious reasoning deficiences. And when assessing circumstantial evidence, such deficiences can be deadly. Moreover, in a circumstantial evidence case -- like this case and the Michael Peterson case -- that deficieny is in the most needed skill. That being, the ability to form valid and reliable conclusions from true premises.

Major premise: Jim always wears a cowboy hat.

Minor premise: Cowboys wear cowboy hats.

Inferred conclusion: Jim is a cowboy.


Is the inferred conclusion valid and reliable? )