3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteIs there a federal jurisdiction?Originally Posted by Traveler
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Administrator
Juries are instructed not to engage in ornery doubts. This jury instruction from CT contains the standard of review that US jurisdictions use. They might phrase them differently in each jurisdiction, but it's all there as such in substance in each jurisdiction:
Criminal Jury Instructions 2.2-32.2-3 Reasonable Doubt
Revised to December 1, 2007
The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is not a surmise, a guess or mere conjecture.1 It is not a doubt raised by anyone simply for the sake of raising a doubt. It is such a doubt as, in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance.2 It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity or sympathy for the accused or any other person who might be affected by your decision. It is, in other words, a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the evidence or lack of evidence.3 It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable in light of the evidence after a fair comparison and careful examination of the entire evidence.4
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns a verdict of guilty.5 The law requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is something in the evidence or lack of evidence that leaves in your minds, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt and acquitted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.6
But for reasons stated above, in capital cases, as a general rule, jurors will scrutinise a case hard core and far more favourably to a defendant in search of any reasonable doubts they can conger and find to be reasonable--and with a charitable licence as to reasonableness--than in more routine cases given the ultimate seriousness of what they are considering and for which they will be the dispensers.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Secretary of Defense
Is there a federal jurisdiction?
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so." John Stossel quoting some guy.
Forum Administrator
Hmmm...good question, Pete? I would say yes, but not sure if there's anymore likelyhood of a conviction.
Btw in response to your question about who would play Casie in a film, i am thinking but atm nobody stands out...i'm thinking.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Administrator
Yes, in the majority of cases, that's the better defence approach when assessing them.Ahh i see, thanks for the explanation.And yeah that makes a lot of sense, you hardly want to make your client go in with a ton of convictions already under their belt and what not.
As to your other statement/question, I predict without much hesitation that the judge will give her time served for the lying to authority charges given her lack of a significant and serious prior record plus the time she's already served in prison that presumably already exceeds whatever FL's sentencing ranges are when considering the grading of those crimes along with prior record.
In no manner whatsoever can the judge exceed such sentencing guidelines by having her 'max out' here on those charges based upon any private belief she had a hand in her daughter's death...she was acquitted of those charges and the court must accept those verdicts. The prosecution also cannot properly ask the court to 'read guilt' into what she was just acquitted. In short, there can be no legal backhanded way of 'punishing her' for her 'getting away with murder' in the judge's and/or the prosecution's opinion.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
U.S. Senator
I sat on a jury some years ago in an arson case. I was a bit surprised to see how seriously they took their unpaid job and, yes, we did tend to favor the defendant.
In the end there simply was no other explanation of the evidence than he burned down his business for the insurance. But the guilty verdict did not come without a lot of examination, argument and effort.
In the end I found it rather strange from a sociological perspective. There was no one in the room who WANTED to convict....
Forum Administrator
I didn't realize there were sentencing guidlines - i guess that makes the point moot, which is probably a good thing. Given Casie has said its an accident and there isn't an actual murderer they're on the look for, i think Casie's biggest issue would be some of the court costs in regards to the false statements and what the law enforcement officials likely had to put in as far as effort and resources.
You may also have a better idea as to who would play Casie in a film version of all this...
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Vice President
I think you've just convicted Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, maybe T.E. Lawrence and certainly Arthur (oops, Henry) Miller (at least in his day). Thank god I'm neither glib nor charming or even intelligent enough to lie well or you'd have me too.
Besides, so what if she is a sociopath? How does that necessarily convict her of murdering her child? Some people don't show their feelings or even sometimes have inappropriate ones, is that a crime now?
Last edited by John Drake; 07-05-2011 at 06:11 PM.
Secretary of Defense
To be honest, without a direct link to the crime I would have had a hard time finding her guilty. Yeah I think she did it but thinking and knowing for absolute certain are not the same.
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so." John Stossel quoting some guy.
Administrator
Likely not IMO unless some kind of conduct can be found that would trigger a statute that encompasses federal jurisdiction, e.g., she killed the child because of civil rights related reasons (race, sex, etc) and therefore get a civil rights violation prosecution, but that's not likely existing or provable here. I'm pretty sure they could hunt to find some kind of federal crimes relating to use of the mail or Internet for example or others of a more routine nature if the statutes of limitations haven't expired yet, etc, but that's not worth their time or of much interest I presume to the public...they want guilt for her death for any subsequent prosecution or forget it. Another state could charge her with murder or any other offences if she crossed state lines in such conduct but again, I haven't heard of evidence of that happening in this case.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Forum Administrator
I was thinking for the use of the net for the searches but also the fact that she could be hit with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice/perjury as well if it turns out Cindy was in fact impeached on the stand...but there'd likely be difficult to prove as she was incarcarated at the time etc. Texas Equisearch has also said she did mislead them and send them looking all over the place...but i doubt that'd be worth anything. I think this is such a horrible situation that the Feds shouldn't step in. Nobody wins in this either way - had Casie been convicted it may have led to another life being taken and either way there is still a 2 year old that died/was killed. Plus the father's suicide attempt, accusations of molestation, affair with woman who later also has a direputable past and on and on.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Secretary of State
They really didn't have enough solid forensic evidence to go after murder 1. They should have gone for manslaughter or 2nd degree murder and I bet they would have gotten a conviction out of that.
I think that she killed her daughter. After all she continually lied about her where-a-bouts--making up so many stories this woman is crazier than a loon.
Another O.J. Simpson case gone bad.
Secretary of State
It's the "reasonable doubt"--that will take a case like this down to innocent. The prosecutors should have gone for a lesser charge.
Secretary of Defense
If she had help in committing the crime she could be hit with conspiracy charges could she not? Of if someone else commited the crime and she helped could she be charged with accessory?
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so." John Stossel quoting some guy.
Forum Administrator
But for that they'd likely have to accept it was in fact an accident and George etc would have to be tried as well as it seems unlikely either woul co-operate with authorities. But it would give a more likely and reasonable conviction with a more fitting sentence. Now that nothing came of the charges with Casie, a lot of questions before hand, were wondering (that if on the off chance she beat the rap) as to whether Cindy would be charged with perjury.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Administrator
(bolding added) What you said there in the end is how it should be even as directed by the court with the presumption of innocence. A person wanting to be on a jury with a decided bias of guilt seeking punishment from the git-go has no business on a jury even legally if you remember your juror questionnaires and jury instructions. The jury also followed the instructions to listen and debate all the evidence fairly and squarely between the parties, and you all did that, so my compliments to all of you...you gave them their fair day in court based on the evidence, and that's what was expected.
Besides, common decency ought to be wishing for an accused to be not guilty of a crime and be disappointed by evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What decent person actually wishes a person like Casey killed her child? If the evidence says so beyond a reasonable doubt then the jury is instructed to convict, but that's not what one should hope happened because it means the defendant did a very awful thing to someone.
For 5 little cents per day, you can view the forums w/o advertising, search the forums endlessly, feel good about keeping this place up and running, among the other benefits that are offered to contributing members.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks