Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Balthazar]

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?

Premeditation cannot be proven with the evidence so far released in this case, I vote no for Murder 1.

 

[lin]

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.

See, if that's the case, I don't understand why the juror's speech would be written as it was; this is what implies to me that the original intent was to mock the jurist. This is particularly true as the list was in fact directed to that end.

 

[lin]

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.

Either way it's ridiculing someone's speech, imo, and it's wrong. I don't think it's necessary to do to make the point that the juror answered with only a single piece of evidence. Nor do I find the response inadequate to the question posed.

[paraphrased] Q. What convinced you of predmeditation? A. There was all that blood.

Makes perfect sense to me. So, characterizing the accent of the speaker seems clearly meant to disparage, imo.

 

[lin]

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.

Or black. And ditto on both.

 

[lin]

“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.

SNIPPED

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.)

Thanks for the single link. Do you have links or citations for the others? We've already seen your description in your op, thanks. Looking for a bit more. TIA

 

[Muzikman]

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?

Most definitely, without a doubt. IMO

 

[lin]

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.

Ditto. Peterson is the one I vaguely recalled from tv as that being the determinative factor. The amount of blood implied an accident was impossible so the quote given merely supplied the actual valid reasoning of the jury. Nothing 'shocking' there, imo.

And ditto on the 2nd paragraph. The jury was given competent evidence and relied on it. I don't think it's fair to 2nd guess them without a thorough vetting of the facts presented to them. I can easily see myself saying similar, as you suggested. And we have no way of knowing the exact context of the quote without the source of it.

 

[lin]

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?

Without any hesitation and very, very quickly.

 

[lin]

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.)

There is no requirement in the law that each fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. IIRC, that was well established in the first thread. If you have an authority to the contrary, please post it.

 

[lin]

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.

Spent too much time in the city for it to be as noticeable to many but when I'm tired, the draaaawlll is clear. Some of the smartest people I've ever met spoke with a southern accent. But I didn't necessarily read the quote as southern, as I've suggested. It seemed racial to me.

As for the bbm, you nailed that one. Just because one doesn't agree with the jury's verdict doesn't mean the jury is wrong or that any jurist should be ridiculed. Their verdict is based on the evidence that they were given and unless we were in the jury box, and/or reviewed all the evidence, we can't know that we wouldn't have agreed.

 

[lin]

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? )

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. (Unless you have a transcript of the reporter's deposition.) You used the circumstantial evidence to infer the reporter's mindset.

The reporter may have wanted more, which is again, not a fact at this point but a conclusion drawn from circumstantial evidence, but the trier of fact did not feel a need to explain it in more detail; perhaps incorrectly assessing the reporter's ability to absorb the facts of the case and apply the reasoning necessary to create an informed query.

There were two theories of the case presented, one was premeditated murder, the other was accidental death. What made you choose premeditated? That there was too much blood for it to be an accident. Other than that fact, perhaps the evidence could have gone either way.

 

[Wudge]

There is no requirement in the law that each fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. IIRC, that was well established in the first thread. If you have an authority to the contrary, please post it.

Incorrect. I posted a jury instruction. Moreover, that jury instruction is based on granite-level applied logic -- that instruction was not favored by all.

Be that as it may, it is law that every fact necessary to prove guilt must first be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The U.S. Supreme Court so ruled in: Winship, 397 U.S. 358 1970. To wit: "Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.

(yet again, HTH)

 

[JBean]

Either way it's ridiculing someone's speech, imo, and it's wrong. I don't think it's necessary to do to make the point that the juror answered with only a single piece of evidence. Nor do I find the response inadequate to the question posed.

[paraphrased] Q. What convinced you of predmeditation? A. There was all that blood.

Makes perfect sense to me. So, characterizing the accent of the speaker seems clearly meant to disparage, imo.

I totally see your point Lin. I just read it completely differently than you did and disparaging never even entered my head.
Thanks for pointing that out, I appreciate your point.

 

[marspiter]

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? )

The juror based what he said from the evidence presented and the expert testimony giving by the coroner. It was not derived from some failed logic on the part of the juror.

Actually the jury (not just the one person that gave this statement) did determine premeditation. The jury determined that premeditation did not take hours or days before the crime but could be established in the seconds before the crime was committed.

That's not even mentioning that his wife Kathleen was a successful business executive for Nortel (motive), his marriage on the rocks (motive), or the circumstances of his first wife's death Elizabeth Ratliff. You have the expert testimony talking about Kathleen's injuries. Then toss in the fact the Micheal lied about his wife's alcohol and prescription drug use that evening. He was trying to establish his wife was intoxicated and feel down the stairs. This was proven untrue by toxicology tests. There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence in that case (not going to list it all) and I would argue there is more in this case (Casey A.).

Given the evidence in that case the jury convicted Mr. Peterson based on the evidence. The case was upheld by appeals to the NC Court of Appeals and the NC Supreme Court. The only issues raised were about search warrant's and the entrance of evidence from Ratliff's body. The warrants were deemed to not have any bearing on the verdict. The body evidence was deemed by the courts as being entered fairly.

His motion for a retrial was also denied from superior court in March of this year.

Sounds to me like the courts have upheld this conviction despite your personal feelings on the matter. In other words: Case Law v. Opinion.

I think the jury, based on the instructions for Florida will also determine the same thing in this case as well.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

The juror based what he said from the evidence presented and the expert testimony giving by the coroner. It was not derived from some failed logic on the part of the juror.


SNIP

False. No expert testified that the amount of blood in the stairwell proved premeditation.

The point has been and remains that what the juror said was not and is not, in any way, sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you still hold otherwise, provide the premises that you're relying on to force such a conclusion at the certainty level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Shear22]

False. No expert testified that the amount of blood in the stairwell proved premeditation.

The point has been and remains that what the juror said was not and is not, in any way, sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you still hold otherwise, provide the premises that you're relying on to force such a conclusion at the certainty level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What was the precise question posed to the juror?

 

[Wudge]

What was the precise question posed to the juror?

I simply watched the interview, I did not tape it. What I said in my original post is accurate; i.e., "This answer came from a juror who responded to a TV reporter’s question regarding what was the evidence that proved the defendant planned to murder (premeditated murder case) his wife -- the defense held her death was an accident."

 

[lin]

Incorrect. I posted a jury instruction. Moreover, that jury instruction is based on granite-level applied logic -- that instruction was not favored by all.

Be that as it may, it is law that every fact necessary to prove guilt must first be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The U.S. Supreme Court so ruled in: Winship, 397 U.S. 358 1970. To wit: "Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.

(yet again, HTH)

That doesn't stand for what you imply it does.

Evidence is not a fact. Fact is determined by the jury. Evidence is provided to the jury from which they are to determine the facts.

Evidence is subject to the "competent, substantial" standard, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. To suggest otherwise is patently ridiculous. If what you suggest were true, a trial would be unending, having to show each little thing beyond a reasonable doubt. How do we know this is Amy testifying? Do we spend a day analyzing her identification, put on several witnesses including the obstetrician that delivered her?

The trier of fact, the jury in the instant case, determines the weight of the evidence and whether each fact is proven. Each piece of evidence used to support the facts established in the case is subject to the "competent and substantial" standard.

When interpreting case law, one should always review other cases to fully understand the application and implication. If one memorizes every statute, they are not equipped to practice law; indeed, "the law" is the interplay between statute, precedent and rules. And context really helps.

(yet again, HTH)

To put your quote in context:
...
As we said in Speiser v. Randall, supra, at 525-526: "There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account. Where one party has at stake an interest of transcending value -- as a criminal defendant his liberty -- this margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of placing on the other party the burden of . . . persuading the factfinder at the conclusion of the trial of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of . . . convincing the factfinder of his guilt." To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it "impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in issue." Dorsen & Rezneck, In Re Gault and the Future of Juvenile Law, 1 Family Law Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 1, 26 (1967).

Moreover, use of the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty.

Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."

Please note the date of the following:

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)

 

[marspiter]

False. No expert testified that the amount of blood in the stairwell proved premeditation.

The point has been and remains that what the juror said was not and is not, in any way, sufficient to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you still hold otherwise, provide the premises that you're relying on to force such a conclusion at the certainty level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I indicated that the evidence presented in that case proved premeditation to the jurors (Which it did because they said as much in their conviction). Not just the coroners testimony. I suggest you read the coroners testimony in that case by the way as she mentions the thyroid cartilage being broke and other injuries sustained (the blood if you will) was inconsistent with an accident. Also keep in mind the jury was presented two possible options premeditated murder by the prosecution and accident by the defense. This juror decided given the coroners testimony that it wasn't an accident as presented by the defense.

I also stated that this persons comment was overly simplistic but was to the point of why he voted guilty. Keeping in mind the juror has probably never been in front of the camera. Yes his statement was as I said overly simplistic but his decision was also felt by 11 other people who voted guilty based on the evidence and affirmed by the courts.

Some people may not be able to express themselves as elegantly as others it does not mean they don't have the capacity to form a logical and reasonable decision as a juror. I would contend he did form an informed opinion as did the other jurors. He was just not able to express it in his particular situation on camera. That does not mean the verdict is invalid.

Once again I will state that this jury's verdict (this one jurors vote included) has with stood the appeals process and been affirmed by both the Appeals Court and Supreme Court of NC. Your statements saying the contrary should have happened based on some jurors perceived lack of logical reasoning based on his speech are your opinion of the case only.

I think I'll rely on the proven affirmation of the courts.

 

[lin]

The juror based what he said from the evidence presented and the expert testimony giving by the coroner. It was not derived from some failed logic on the part of the juror.

Actually the jury (not just the one person that gave this statement) did determine premeditation. The jury determined that premeditation did not take hours or days before the crime but could be established in the seconds before the crime was committed.

That's not even mentioning that his wife Kathleen was a successful business executive for Nortel (motive), his marriage on the rocks (motive), or the circumstances of his first wife's death Elizabeth Ratliff. You have the expert testimony talking about Kathleen's injuries. Then toss in the fact the Micheal lied about his wife's alcohol and prescription drug use that evening. He was trying to establish his wife was intoxicated and feel down the stairs. This was proven untrue by toxicology tests. There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence in that case (not going to list it all) and I would argue there is more in this case (Casey A.).

Given the evidence in that case the jury convicted Mr. Peterson based on the evidence. The case was upheld by appeals to the NC Court of Appeals and the NC Supreme Court. The only issues raised were about search warrant's and the entrance of evidence from Ratliff's body. The warrants were deemed to not have any bearing on the verdict. The body evidence was deemed by the courts as being entered fairly.

His motion for a retrial was also denied from superior court in March of this year.

Sounds to me like the courts have upheld this conviction despite your personal feelings on the matter. In other words: Case Law v. Opinion.

I think the jury, based on the instructions for Florida will also determine the same thing in this case as well.

HTH

It certainly helped me. Excellent analysis and added context. Thanks.