Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Marina2]

What if the defense says "Mr Jones walked by just as the sprinklers came on at Mr. Murphys lawn?

As a juror you would have to decide if it is reasonable that Mr. Jones wore a raincoat and opened an umbrella in anticipation of being caught in Mr. Murphy's sprinkler system while walking to his front door. If it seems reasonable that he would do this you have to adopt the defense version.

 

[marspiter]

Circumstantial evidence can and is used every day for convictions of crimes. There is case after case showing the use of only circumstantial evidence to acquire a conviction. I would love to see an appeals case that says otherwise.

If a jury is presented 2+2 by the prosecution they do not then need some form of irrefutable evidence that states beyond the shadow of doubt that it must equal 4. (The only evidence that would ever be 100% irrefutable would be a signed and notarized affidavit from God himself and even then I would question it being 100%)

A reasonable person on a jury is allowed to conclude by the evidence presented that 2+2 does in fact equal 4. The juror can even have a doubt in their mind that it equals 4, but using their own reasoning ability they can decided that yes I stand by the statement that 2+2=4.

 

[Manny]

As a juror you would have to decide if it is reasonable that Mr. Jones wore a raincoat and opened an umbrella in anticipation of being caught in Mr. Murphy's sprinkler system while walking to his front door. If it seems reasonable that he would do this you have to adopt the defense version.

Then I guess they would have to add that bad weather was predicted that day. You can see how any assumptions can be wrong. That is why you cannot make a blanket statement about a complicated subject like "reasonable doubt." JMHO.
That is why I love to watch trials. The law is what really interests me and also the "games" they come up with to get around it. Sort of like watching a chess game. Only problem someone's life will be changed forever in some cases.

 

[Marina2]

Then I guess they would have to add that bad weather was predicted that day. You can see how any assumptions can be wrong. That is why you cannot make a blanket statement about a complicated subject like "reasonable doubt." JMHO.
That is why I love to watch trials. The law is what really interests me and also the "games" they come up with to get around it. Sort of like watching a chess game. Only problem someone's life will be changed forever in some cases.

You are so right. It's a game. It is reasonable that it was raining. It is reasonable that he got caught in the sprinklers. Not reasonable that he anticipated this and wore a raincoat. Reasonable that rain was predicted and he just happened to be outfitted appropriately for the sprinkler mishap. All of this is reasonable and you would have to go with the defense in this situation if you follow the law. What would allow you to adopt the prosecutions theory that it was raining is if inculpatory evidence is presented by the prosecution. That is, a witness gets on the stand and testifies that Mr. Murphy doesn't even own a sprinkler system. In this case, the defense explanation is not reasonable and you can disregard it.

It does happen though that a jury will decide to go with the prosecution's theory that it was raining instead of the defense sprinkler story without any inculpatory evidence.

 

[Manny]

Someone mentioned that perhaps a computer could decided rather than a jury. I bet if they loaded every law book from every law library and every case ever heard on every subject.. whew.. the computer would spit out a 4 million page error report.

 

[Themis]

Someone mentioned that perhaps a computer could decided rather than a jury. I bet if they loaded every law book from every law library and every case ever heard on every subject.. whew.. the computer would spit out a 4 million page error report.

You know what, Manny, they have pretty much done just that ... there are online legal research companies with massive databases called Lexis.com, Westlaw.com and Findlaw.com. Findlaw.com is free! However, it still takes somebody to do the research. I dread the day, which will come, when they start trying to have the computers find the legal answer and convict. That is when the heart will fly out the window. I still think some part of the concepts of human justice should be based on the head, the heart and the soul. JMHO.

 

[Manny]

Justice tempered with mercy.

I should have added they would need to add human intelligence to that computer and then that would produce the error report. I pray that never happens.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

You are so right. It's a game. It is reasonable that it was raining. It is reasonable that he got caught in the sprinklers. Not reasonable that he anticipated this and wore a raincoat. Reasonable that rain was predicted and he just happened to be outfitted appropriately for the sprinkler mishap. All of this is reasonable and you would have to go with the defense in this situation if you follow the law. What would allow you to adopt the prosecutions theory that it was raining is if inculpatory evidence is presented by the prosecution. That is, a witness gets on the stand and testifies that Mr. Murphy doesn't even own a sprinkler system. In this case, the defense explanation is not reasonable and you can disregard it.

It does happen though that a jury will decide to go with the prosecution's theory that it was raining instead of the defense sprinkler story without any inculpatory evidence.

Dude should have walked across the street and missed the sprinklers all together but no, he chose to put on a raincoat and arm himself with an umbrella and barrel on through. Doesn't make sense.

 

[LambChop]

There are remains w/duct tape. (Forgive me GA) No "shadow of a doubt" there no matter what the evidence says....31 days as a fact....no doubt there...the employment at Universal lie, etc. etc. etc.

Jurors are normal people who pretty much don't like it when other people lie. The real danger here is the juror who feels sorry for her because she's cute.

 

[marspiter]

Quoted from Wudge,

I thought this was cleared up after I posted my hypo -- Mother out walking with her young daughter and two young nieces. However, if you do not recall the hypo, please repost to the jury instruction thread, and the mods can erase your post and mine here.


Wudge
Yes I understand your hypothetical, and that's not really the point being made. I implore you to read the jury instructions. It clearly states in the jury instructions.

Before
you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government
must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose.



According to Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.1 (2003)

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The
decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the
exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to
kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the
defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from
the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the
killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the
existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill
that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

If you don't want to read what I have here someone else in this thread basically posted the same exact thing. Those are the 3 elements according to jury instructions that must be proven. The 4 you mention are noted in most definitions of murder 1 on state statutes (I can verify they are listed in the definition of NC statute 14-17) but they are not listed as elements that must be proven by the prosecution according to the jury instructions of Florida which is what I have been saying (once again I point to the 3 that are in bold above). Florida also goes on to define premeditation. Further more if this is incorrect then please feel free to show your evidence in the legal jury instructions for Florida to refute this and clear this up. I would personally like the real answer if this is in fact wrong as I am sure everyone else would appreciate the correct elements that must be proven according to the jury instructions of Florida for statute 782.04(1)(a).

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Yeah, well, about 3 jury trials ago I was worried about jurors writing their own jury instructions based upon TV programs, etc., I requested an instruction to dispel what I thought a layperson might believe was the law. The judge said no, because nothing in the instructions he planned to give was going to suggest that idea to the jury, and nothing the opposing counsel was going to say would give them such an idea. Basically he adopted the fiction that the jurors walk in as "blank slates" regarding the law.

So...we lost, and afterward we spoke to the jury foreman, and he explained, "Well, we thought it was really weird that no one mentioned that upon the happening of [X event], of course, [Y would be the legal result]. But several of us knew about that rule from watching Court TV, etc., so we just applied the rule anyway."

Grrr. Arrrgh. :banghead:

If this even happened, it just goes to show the arrogance of those in the legal profession. We simply can't trust the lowly commoners to make decisions about law! As if the only correct answer could come from years of education in an unnecessarily convoluted, complicated field. It's about time some sense and normality was brought to the legal system. Good for them for thinking for themselves. I'm sure they did the right thing, but by your definition, they did it the wrong way.

 

[Brini]

There are remains w/duct tape. (Forgive me GA) No "shadow of a doubt" there no matter what the evidence says....31 days as a fact....no doubt there...the employment at Universal lie, etc. etc. etc.

Jurors are normal people who pretty much don't like it when other people lie. The real danger here is the juror who feels sorry for her because she's cute.

Well, that IS an issue. People have reached PRETTY far to come up with "reasons" why KC did what she did, most of which are pretty outlandish.

That didn't happen w/ SP. I don't think it happened with DD, either. UGLY mothers who kill their kids do not seem to have sympathetic apologists.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Well, that IS an issue. People have reached PRETTY far to come up with "reasons" why KC did what she did, most of which are pretty outlandish.

I don't think they're outlandish when one looks at the type of "person" she is. For a regular person yes - but Casey is in a whole other class.

 

[Wudge]

Quoted from Wudge,

I thought this was cleared up after I posted my hypo -- Mother out walking with her young daughter and two young nieces. However, if you do not recall the hypo, please repost to the jury instruction thread, and the mods can erase your post and mine here.


Wudge
Yes I understand your hypothetical, and that's not really the point being made. I implore you to read the jury instructions. It clearly states in the jury instructions.

Before
you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government
must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose.



According to Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.1 (2003)

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The
decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the
exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to
kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the
defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from
the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the
killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the
existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill
that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

If you don't want to read what I have here someone else in this thread basically posted the same exact thing. Those are the 3 elements according to jury instructions that must be proven. The 4 you mention are noted in most definitions of murder 1 on state statutes (I can verify they are listed in the definition of NC statute 14-17) but they are not listed as elements that must be proven by the prosecution according to the jury instructions of Florida which is what I have been saying (once again I point to the 3 that are in bold above). Florida also goes on to define premeditation. Further more if this is incorrect then please feel free to show your evidence in the legal jury instructions for Florida to refute this and clear this up. I would personally like the real answer if this is in fact wrong as I am sure everyone else would appreciate the correct elements that must be proven according to the jury instructions of Florida for statute 782.04(1)(a).

Each state produces model jury instructions. They are sometimes used as a starting point for an instruction issue that prosecutors, defense counsel and/or the trial judge believe should be addressed. Sometimes model instructions are quite good. Other times they are not. And a great deal of alteration often takes place before the jury is instructed by the judge on the issue or point of law. Some issues are unique and the instruction is literally built from scrath.

What you have posted as Florida's model instruction for first-degree murder contains the word "premeditation" but not planning, deliberation, intent or malice aforethought, Some states sweep both planning and deliberation (consideration) under the word premeditation, and some states equate planning to be premeditation. The model instruction you have does not cite "intent". I'm sure we can agree that proving "intent" is a necessary element to prove a murder one charge. This leaves the element of malice, which I addressed in my hypo (following link, post# 508).

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76250&page=21

I believe the hypo makes it clear that malice is a necessary element to prove a first-degree murder charge.

Other than this, I can't shed light on the Florida instruction to which you refer.

HTH

 

[marspiter]

Wudge,

I agree that there should be intent with murder one. I know the jury instructions for NC have it in there the last time I checked.

My point was is that the jury instructions for Florida do not have the 4 elements you listed verbatim. I understand that planning and deliberation fall under premeditation.

I was merely making the point that in accordance with the Florida jury instructions those are the 3 elements as I listed above in my post and not the 4 you mention.

Once again Florida defines premeditation as well. I believe planning and deliberation are purposely left out of the jury instructions because that can lead to a misconception that premeditation takes a longer length of time then Florida requires.

For example NC makes the statement that a persons blood must be cooled for premeditation to accure. Florida make no such statements.

 

[MissJames]

There are remains w/duct tape. (Forgive me GA) No "shadow of a doubt" there no matter what the evidence says....31 days as a fact....no doubt there...the employment at Universal lie, etc. etc. etc.

Jurors are normal people who pretty much don't like it when other people lie. The real danger here is the juror who feels sorry for her because she's cute.

Caylee was pretty darn cute ,too.Hope the jury gets to see her A LOT.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge,

I agree that there should be intent with murder one. I know the jury instructions for NC have it in there the last time I checked.

My point was is that the jury instructions for Florida do not have the 4 elements you listed verbatim. I understand that planning and deliberation fall under premeditation.

I was merely making the point that in accordance with the Florida jury instructions those are the 3 elements as I listed above in my post and not the 4 you mention.

Once again Florida defines premeditation as well. I believe planning and deliberation are purposely left out of the jury instructions because that can lead to a misconception that premeditation takes a longer length of time then Florida requires.

For example NC makes the statement that a persons blood must be cooled for premeditation to accure. Florida make no such statements.

The fact that you recognize "intent" (some states use willful instead of intent in their definition) should be part of a model jury instruction for murder one, should fairly give you pause as to the quality of what you have pulled up. And if intent is obvious and missing, there's no reason to think that the author of that instruction did not also miss "malice", which I think you now understand is a necessary element too.

I won't try further to be a code-breaker for what you have accessed. I'm fine with waiting to see what the judge puts forth as murder one instructions for Casey's jury.

 

[Marina2]

Wudge,
I understand your hypo and what you intended to show with it. However, I feel it may not serve it's purpose because it lacked an element of Murder 1 besides malice afrorethought; that is the criminal act. Maybe if we had a hypo that would show all the elements of murder 1 except malice aforethought and how that would equal manslaughter or another LIO, then I think it would be easier to understand how, without malice aforethought, murder 1 could not be charged.

I have read several appeals based on error in instructing the jury and agree that the standard instructions are not always the rule in the end. I think the defense would be negligent if they didn't ask for malice aforethought to be included in the instructons if it isn't standard for FL.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge,
I understand your hypo and what you intended to show with it. However, I feel it may not serve it's purpose because it lacked an element of Murder 1 besides malice afrorethought; that is the criminal act. Maybe if we had a hypo that would show all the elements of murder 1 except malice aforethought and how that would equal manslaughter or another LIO, then I think it would be easier to understand how, without malice aforethought, murder 1 could not be charged.

I have read several appeals based on error in instructing the jury and agree that the standard instructions are not always the rule in the end. I think the defense would be negligent if they didn't ask for malice aforethought to be included in the instructons if it isn't standard for FL.

The hypo does show all of the elements in murder one (three were present, one was lacking). It shows there was an "intent" to kill (some states use willful instead of intent). It shows there was a plan to kill (some states use premeditation instead of plan). It shows the plan to kill received deliberation (some states refer to consideration instead of deliberation). It shows that malice aforethought (depraved mind, evil mind) was not present and clearly demonstrates what malice represents, which was the purpose of the hypo. So the "alleged crime" of first-degree murder did not exist as charged. Hence, the killing was not a "criminal act" -- juries decide whether or not the alleged crime (criminal act) existed.

 

[Jolynna]

The hypo does show all of the elements in murder one (three were present, one was lacking). It shows there was an "intent" to kill (some states use willful instead of intent). It shows there was a plan to kill (some states use premeditation instead of plan). It shows the plan to kill received deliberation (some states refer to consideration instead of deliberation). It shows that malice aforethought (depraved mind, evil mind) was not present and clearly demonstrates what malice represents, which was the purpose of the hypo. So the "alleged crime" of first-degree murder did not exist as charged. Hence, the killing was not a "criminal act" -- juries decide whether or not the alleged crime (criminal act) existed.

Killing another human being is a criminal act barring circumstances such as self-defense, act of war or government ordered execution.

The duct tape rules out an oopsy, accident situation.

In 2004, The Florida Supreme Court, Florida vs Huck, asserted that "the only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking,screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead.

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf