The Charges, Statutes - What Must Be Proven

[Searchfortruth]

Yep- I can pull some of the cases back up but they are bookmarked on my other PC. I was shocked by that claim made somewhere else in the forum so I went digging. There are four states that allow this thus far. The supreme court in that state basically said there is the basis of common law and that the crime and punishment are really one in the same (ie one is not a max sentence of 30 years and the other is executable) so if the jury is 100% in agreement that the defendant killed the victim either with premeditation of murder, or premeditation of commission of a felony they did not have to be an agreement which had actually occured. If they have a hold out that says they think it was manslaughter or negligence or none of the above it would be a hung jury of course.

Florida has been among the first in a few things like this. They led the way on DNA testing. They have now added that the JURY is entitled to ask questions of the witnesses though how that will be handled procedurally is still being determined. I *believe* currently a note is given to the judge to decide if the question can be asked legally and then it is addressed.

Thank you for answering this question Impatient !

Now, lets say the jury comes back with a guilty on the Agg child abuse and manslaughter charge, but not guilty on the 1st degree murder charge...I seriously doubt this will happen, BUT if it did, wouldn't the agg child abuse plus the manslaughter charge equal felony murder in the state of FL ?

I am not sure this question even makes sense, but I think I know what I am asking...LOL.

Also, the state does not have to provide their theory, to the jury, regarding a premeditated murder vs. a felony murder, as a result of child abuse ? Can they just present the evidence and let the jury decide ? I don't see the state doing this, but I guess anything is possible.

 

[Friday]

Resp snip

They have now added that the JURY is entitled to ask questions of the witnesses though how that will be handled procedurally is still being determined. I *believe* currently a note is given to the judge to decide if the question can be asked legally and then it is addressed.

Thank you again for stepping in and sharing your legal expertise, and thank you also for the desire you've shown to clarify and untangle legal issues for us. The ability to acquire and understand highly complex data is a gift; the desire to share that knowledge with others is a virtue; but the ability to translate that knowledge into terms that others can understand and benefit from.... Well, that requires a whole new set of skills.

I'm a little ashamed to admit this but I'm so confused by all the legalese and conflicting info in the G/NG topic, that I've not only failed to understand the answers, I no longer remember why they mattered in the first place. Seriously. LOL

Anyway, relative to Florida juries being allowed to ask questions of a witness (with the judge's approval, of course), I wish to say this: Hallelujah! This makes perfect sense! In fact, this should have been standard court procedure all along. Since day 1.

And here at last is my question: Although I've never been selected as a juror, (nuts!) I've somehow gotten the impression that jurors are admonished not to discuss the trial with each other until their formal deliberation begins. If that's correct, (and I've never really understood why it should be so), then I can foresee individual (inattentive?) jurors taking up a lot of court time trying to ask questions of a witness that other jurors could easily have answered for them.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it would nice if the jurors had the opportunity to arrive at some sort of consensus before submitting questions to the judge.

 

[Themis]

Anyway, relative to Florida juries being allowed to ask questions of a witness (with the judge's approval, of course), I wish to say this: Hallelujah! This makes perfect sense! In fact, this should have been standard court procedure all along. Since day 1.

And here at last is my question: Although I've never been selected as a juror, (nuts!) I've somehow gotten the impression that jurors are admonished not to discuss the trial with each other until their formal deliberation begins. If that's correct, (and I've never really understood why it should be so), then I can foresee individual (inattentive?) jurors taking up a lot of court time trying to ask questions of a witness that other jurors could easily have answered for them.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it would nice if the jurors had the opportunity to arrive at some sort of consensus before submitting questions to the judge.

First, other jurisdictions have a long history of allowing jurors to ask questions once they get into deliberations. They can write a question and present it to the judge to ask on their behalf. It requires the court to re-open to do it so it is time consuming.

Other jurors have their own memories to rely on and those recollections may or may not be accurate. Jurors may differ among themselves as to what the testimony or evidence was that formed the basis for the question.

Jury decisions are not necessarily driven by consensus. They can discuss the evidence, but as individuals, they don't have to agree on the weight or credibility to give any particular item of evidence. What needs to happen is that each individual juror has to decide for themselves whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the necessary elements of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have big differences as to why they found those elements based on the same evidentiary presentation. Remember, the jury system is not about a perfect search for the truth, but a search for a resolution.

 

[JSR]

First, other jurisdictions have a long history of allowing jurors to ask questions once they get into deliberations. They can write a question and present it to the judge to ask on their behalf. It requires the court to re-open to do it so it is time consuming.

Other jurors have their own memories to rely on and those recollections may or may not be accurate. Jurors may differ among themselves as to what the testimony or evidence was that formed the basis for the question.

Jury decisions are not necessarily driven by consensus. They can discuss the evidence, but as individuals, they don't have to agree on the weight or credibility to give any particular item of evidence. What needs to happen is that each individual juror has to decide for themselves whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the necessary elements of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have big differences as to why they found those elements based on the same evidentiary presentation. Remember, the jury system is not about a perfect search for the truth, but a search for a resolution.

Re: the bolded line above. Could not have said it better myself. Spot on.

 

[Friday]

First, other jurisdictions have a long history of allowing jurors to ask questions once they get into deliberations. They can write a question and present it to the judge to ask on their behalf. It requires the court to re-open to do it so it is time consuming.

Now, I understand. I thought (incorrectly) that questions from jurors were going to be asked of witnesses during the trial itself, rather than after deliberations began.

Other jurors have their own memories to rely on and those recollections may or may not be accurate. Jurors may differ among themselves as to what the testimony or evidence was that formed the basis for the question.

Jury decisions are not necessarily driven by consensus. They can discuss the evidence, but as individuals, they don't have to agree on the weight or credibility to give any particular item of evidence. What needs to happen is that each individual juror has to decide for themselves whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the necessary elements of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have big differences as to why they found those elements based on the same evidentiary presentation. Remember, the jury system is not about a perfect search for the truth, but a search for a resolution.

 

[Just Jayla]

If convicted of aggravated child abuse resulting in the death of a child, your question is:

"Isn't it a felony to duct tape a child and kill her, so that felony murder would come into play?"

Or, are you asking if felony murder is a LIO of aggravated child abuse?

I am wondering if the state can argue premeditation, and still get a conviction on the felony homicide....Wudge had made a good point that this would be difficult for the state to do, as they would have to give up the felony homicide (unplanned death in the midst of a felonious act) in order to argue premeditation....I was trying my best to work around that and determine if it could be done, if a jury could still convict on felony homicide thought the state argued premeditation.

 

[Just Jayla]

Thank you for answering this question Impatient !

Now, lets say the jury comes back with a guilty on the Agg child abuse and manslaughter charge, but not guilty on the 1st degree murder charge...I seriously doubt this will happen, BUT if it did, wouldn't the agg child abuse plus the manslaughter charge equal felony murder in the state of FL ?

I am not sure this question even makes sense, but I think I know what I am asking...LOL.

Also, the state does not have to provide their theory, to the jury, regarding a premeditated murder vs. a felony murder, as a result of child abuse ? Can they just present the evidence and let the jury decide ? I don't see the state doing this, but I guess anything is possible.

Thanks, this goes to what I was asking, too, if the jury can ultimately decide, even if the state is going for 1st degree, and if felony homicide can be settled upon by the jury at that point.

 

[AZlawyer]

Now, I understand. I thought (incorrectly) that questions from jurors were going to be asked of witnesses during the trial itself, rather than after deliberations began.

In Arizona, the juror questions are asked during the trial. The jurors write down their questions as the questioning is going on, then at the end of each witness the judge says, "Are there any questions from the jury?" and the foreman collects and hands in the questions. Then the attorneys and judge have an intense whispered conversation at the bar, and the judge tells the jury that all their questions violate the rules of evidence or "prior orders of the court" (i.e., orders granting motions to exclude evidence). Well, OK, not always. Sometimes they actually get answered.

I don't know if this is how it works in Florida or not.

 

[impatientredhead]

In Arizona, the juror questions are asked during the trial. The jurors write down their questions as the questioning is going on, then at the end of each witness the judge says, "Are there any questions from the jury?" and the foreman collects and hands in the questions. Then the attorneys and judge have an intense whispered conversation at the bar, and the judge tells the jury that all their questions violate the rules of evidence or "prior orders of the court" (i.e., orders granting motions to exclude evidence). Well, OK, not always. Sometimes they actually get answered.

I don't know if this is how it works in Florida or not.

To my understanding this is what it is suppose to change to in Florida. Not just questions after deliberations have begun, but during the trial as the witness is available. I too assumed once the question gets to the judge he or she will say it is not a question that can be asked in the vast majority of cases, but the people interested in such things seemed quite anxious to see how it progressed in the Florida arena. Sounds like a major appeal area as the next round of lawyers argue that the judge should or should not have allowed the question and it changed the outcome, colored the jury, blah blah blah blah

 

[impatientredhead]

Thanks, this goes to what I was asking, too, if the jury can ultimately decide, even if the state is going for 1st degree, and if felony homicide can be settled upon by the jury at that point.

Okay here are the dots (I just typed dogs instead of dots, that would have been a great typo) as close as I can get them at this point:

The state of Florida allows the jury and the appellate courts to find a defendant guilty of a lesser charge as outlined in their "Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses". This is based on case law from 1968, Brown vs State, and is modified into a more streamlined form in 1981, updated in 1998, and under current updating again. I have included a link to the table. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml (Section 33)

Felony murder versus Premeditated murder is not a lesser charge due to it carrying the same penalty. However:

1.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.

The jury will only have to come back with a guilty of capital murder, they don't have to agree whether it was premeditated or felony. They may or may not be polled by they judge via a questionaire of which they personally are convicting her of, what they consider to be aggravating and mitigating factors. That is not required, but most judges do seem to ask that they be completed.

The aggravated child abuse charge is including in the indictment so the jury will have the felony option. If the aggravating felony is not included then it limits the state to the premeditated only because it impacts her defense. That has been the deciding factor for the appeals courts in these cases when they try to argue the felony vs premeditated issue as grounds for a new trial. If it was included it holds up, it was not included and the jury didn't come back 100% premeditated it does not hold up.

The new death penalty instructions that have recently been posted here clarify to the jury that do not have recommend a death sentence if they convict of a capital charge. Apparantly that was a large area of confusion for jurors.....

 

[jon_burrows]

Thinking about it more, and remember, I am not an attorney, but maybe it could be done, going with premeditation while at the same time demonstrating the elements for felony murder:

If the state can make the case that KC taped Caylee's face, this may prompt a jury to felony murder conviction. They will have proven the lesser charge of aggravated child abuse, and the victim of that abuse is now dead. Caylee may have died due to the tape (suffocation), and Dr. G may contribute to that line of thought...

But if while having proven the above, they do not adequately link the computer searches, ZFG references, etc. to premeditative thoughts or, for example, cannot link chloroform to the death, the jury should be able to take premeditation out of the equation, no?

I guess what I am saying is that, while in deliberation, if the jury decides that the evidence likely shows Caylee died ultimately as a result of being duct taped (guilty on the child abuse charge), but that none of the premeditative elements quite fit, can't they come back with felony murder?

ETA: If the evidence points towards one thing, though the state goes on a skewed tangent related to this, can't the jury deliberate on the evidence, not just the state's theory?

BBM - I think premeditation can happen in mere seconds. It doesn't have to take days or even hours of planning in advance. If the jury feels that Casey suffocated Caylee with duct tape, that would be considered premeditated murder. It takes time to pull the tape off the roll, place it on the child, then wait for the child to die (I hate to type that). That's just my understanding of premeditated murder though, I could be wrong.

 

[ZsaZsa]

BBM - I think premeditation can happen in mere seconds. It doesn't have to take days or even hours of planning in advance. If the jury feels that Casey suffocated Caylee with duct tape, that would be considered premeditated murder. It takes time to pull the tape off the roll, place it on the child, then wait for the child to die (I hate to type that). That's just my understanding of premeditated murder though, I could be wrong.

And a horrible panic-filled death, too. Plenty of time to stop the whole thing before she finally dies.

 

[impatientredhead]

Thank you for answering this question Impatient !

Now, lets say the jury comes back with a guilty on the Agg child abuse and manslaughter charge, but not guilty on the 1st degree murder charge...I seriously doubt this will happen, BUT if it did, wouldn't the agg child abuse plus the manslaughter charge equal felony murder in the state of FL ?

I am not sure this question even makes sense, but I think I know what I am asking...LOL.

Also, the state does not have to provide their theory, to the jury, regarding a premeditated murder vs. a felony murder, as a result of child abuse ? Can they just present the evidence and let the jury decide ? I don't see the state doing this, but I guess anything is possible.

I think I understand your question regarding the agg child abuse and manslaughter but not guilty of murder-

Manslaughter would be death by negligence, ie Casey on the computer and Caylee drown, it would be aggravated by the fact that Casey is the caretaker (ie responsible for victim, not just a casual bystander) and by Caylee's age. The aggravating portion can make the sentence harsher.

Aggravated Child Abuse involves willful intent, assumption by a reasonable person that those actions could result in serious harm or death. If the child lives or there is a documented incident where the child lived, then you could be convicted of that charge in and of itself.

If the child dies as a result of said aggravated child abuse- that automatically rolls up to felony murder, not down to to manslaughter based on the jurors interpretation. Manslaughter doesn't allow for the intent to harm, it allows for bad judgement at a criminal level based on the outcome and your role (or training, ie a paramedic or nurse is held to a different standard than your average person could foresee).

As far as presenting their case I *think* the state will go down the Casey willfully and with intent harmed her child resulting in her death. They can go down the willful, calculated, only Casey knows exactly what happened because she let Caylee rot in the woods like garbage, without ever saying in this moment she intended to kill her, or in this moment she intended to shut her up.... they can focus on in either circumstance it was Casey taking those intentional actions.

Or they may march right down the she intended to kill her and did so. At that point a juror can decide for themselves that she was in a rage and hadn't planned it per se, but the outcome is the same, and in this state the statute includes both scenarios.

 

[Wudge]

Thanks, this goes to what I was asking, too, if the jury can ultimately decide, even if the state is going for 1st degree, and if felony homicide can be settled upon by the jury at that point.

Jurors can only consider charges they receive instructions on from the Judge-- including instructions on non-included lesser offenses.

 

[JBean]

This is an interesting change to the jury instructions:
>>changing the definition of mitigating circumstances including that the burden of proof is the greater weight of the evidence rather than being &#8220;reasonably convinced;&#8221; <<

 

[Just Jayla]

Okay here are the dots (I just typed dogs instead of dots, that would have been a great typo) as close as I can get them at this point:

The state of Florida allows the jury and the appellate courts to find a defendant guilty of a lesser charge as outlined in their "Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses". This is based on case law from 1968, Brown vs State, and is modified into a more streamlined form in 1981, updated in 1998, and under current updating again. I have included a link to the table. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml (Section 33)

Felony murder versus Premeditated murder is not a lesser charge due to it carrying the same penalty. However:

1.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.

The jury will only have to come back with a guilty of capital murder, they don't have to agree whether it was premeditated or felony. They may or may not be polled by they judge via a questionaire of which they personally are convicting her of, what they consider to be aggravating and mitigating factors. That is not required, but most judges do seem to ask that they be completed.

The aggravated child abuse charge is including in the indictment so the jury will have the felony option. If the aggravating felony is not included then it limits the state to the premeditated only because it impacts her defense. That has been the deciding factor for the appeals courts in these cases when they try to argue the felony vs premeditated issue as grounds for a new trial. If it was included it holds up, it was not included and the jury didn't come back 100% premeditated it does not hold up.

The new death penalty instructions that have recently been posted here clarify to the jury that do not have recommend a death sentence if they convict of a capital charge. Apparantly that was a large area of confusion for jurors.....

Thank you, that ends my curiosity, perfecto!

 

[Themis]

In Arizona, the juror questions are asked during the trial. The jurors write down their questions as the questioning is going on, then at the end of each witness the judge says, "Are there any questions from the jury?" and the foreman collects and hands in the questions. Then the attorneys and judge have an intense whispered conversation at the bar, and the judge tells the jury that all their questions violate the rules of evidence or "prior orders of the court" (i.e., orders granting motions to exclude evidence). Well, OK, not always. Sometimes they actually get answered.

I don't know if this is how it works in Florida or not.

Not a small amount of light sarcasm in that description! :floorlaugh: That's one of the problems with waiting until deliberations to give the jury a chance to ask questions -- if the request is granted by the judge, a witness, who has previously been present under subpoena and released, may have to be subpoenaed again and recalled! It gets tricky logistically. Hence, the scrambling on the part of lawyers and judges to avoid the logistics morass. This is a matter of procedure and as long as it meets due process and any standard court rules for the jurisdiction, the local tribunals can adopt their own rules. Therefore, there will be many variations.

 

[Themis]

Okay here are the dots (I just typed dogs instead of dots, that would have been a great typo) as close as I can get them at this point:

The state of Florida allows the jury and the appellate courts to find a defendant guilty of a lesser charge as outlined in their "Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses". This is based on case law from 1968, Brown vs State, and is modified into a more streamlined form in 1981, updated in 1998, and under current updating again. I have included a link to the table. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml (Section 33)

Felony murder versus Premeditated murder is not a lesser charge due to it carrying the same penalty. However:

1.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.

The jury will only have to come back with a guilty of capital murder, they don't have to agree whether it was premeditated or felony. They may or may not be polled by they judge via a questionaire of which they personally are convicting her of, what they consider to be aggravating and mitigating factors. That is not required, but most judges do seem to ask that they be completed.

The aggravated child abuse charge is including in the indictment so the jury will have the felony option. If the aggravating felony is not included then it limits the state to the premeditated only because it impacts her defense. That has been the deciding factor for the appeals courts in these cases when they try to argue the felony vs premeditated issue as grounds for a new trial. If it was included it holds up, it was not included and the jury didn't come back 100% premeditated it does not hold up.

The new death penalty instructions that have recently been posted here clarify to the jury that do not have recommend a death sentence if they convict of a capital charge. Apparantly that was a large area of confusion for jurors.....

I was under the understanding that both the murder charge and the felony charge had to be on the charge sheet. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that understanding. I don't presently have the time to research.

 

[AZlawyer]

I was under the understanding that both the murder charge and the felony charge had to be on the charge sheet. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that understanding. I don't presently have the time to research.

IIRC from our lengthy exchanges with Wudge months back, in order for the jury to be instructed on felony murder, the indictment must include the murder charge and also must include the felony charge that would provide the basis for a felony murder charge, but doesn't actually have to include the felony murder charge.

I think impatientredhead agrees with this. (crossing fingers and awaiting her response)

 

[impatientredhead]

IIRC from our lengthy exchanges with Wudge months back, in order for the jury to be instructed on felony murder, the indictment must include the murder charge and also must include the felony charge that would provide the basis for a felony murder charge, but doesn't actually have to include the felony murder charge.

I think impatientredhead agrees with this. (crossing fingers and awaiting her response)

I completely agree.

1.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.

The above is the case law that is used by the state of Florida to allow the state to prosecute either felony or premeditated under the same indictment.