Reasonable Doubt?
CH156378
Posts: 1,539
if a jurror has doubts but they are reasonable, can they still vote guilty? so it boils down to reasonable and unreasonable doubt?
i have doubts about someones guilt but they are not unreasonable doubts. how must i vote?
i have doubts about someones guilt but they are not unreasonable doubts. how must i vote?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Same thing with Reasonable Doubt you have to have EVIDENCE to back up what your saying .
You cant just go into a court room and say your guilty i know it . i cant prove it but i know it . go to jail for life . Just don't work that way .
It's the highest burden of proof that has to be met.
Prosecution had no chance from the beginning, and the defense knew it.
You got to spend it all.....
PJ
Toronto 2003 · Boston I, 2004 · Kitchener 2005 · London 2005 · Hamilton 2005 · Toronto 2005 · Toronto I, 2006 · Toronto II, 2006 · Mansfield I, 2008 · Mansfield II, 2008 · Philadelphia III, 2009 · Philadelphia IV, 2009 · Cleveland 2010 · *Buffalo 2010* · PJ20 ALPINE VALLEY 2011 · Toronto I, 2011 · Toronto II, 2011 · Hamilton 2011 · London (ON) 2013 · Buffalo 2013 · Toronto I, 2016 · Toronto II, 2016 · Chicago I, 2018 · Chicago II, 2018
EV
Montreal I, 2008 · Montreal II, 2008 · Albany 2009 · Philadelphia 2011 · Fort Lauderdale I, 2012 · Orlando I, 2012 · Orlando II, 2012
thank you just didn't know how to say it .
everyone thinks they did some magic act . its just flat out how a court room works .
1. Casey likes to party
2. She is probably, in fact, very likely mentally ill.
3. This was one screwed up family.
But that is all.
They presented no concrete evidence that tied her to killing Caylee.
No justice for that little girl.... it's really sad.
I thought the only thing prosecution proved was that Casey is a slut and the family's disfunctional. And the last few weeks with the family involved resembled more of a civil case than a criminal case.
The more I hear how shocked people are with the verdict makes me think that too many didn't really follow the court case, and only what they want to believe should happen, as well as the media hype. It was obvious days ago with the lack of evidence how it was going to turn out! She should have gotten a negligence charge though.
Did you follow the case?
want to be enlightened"
I did follow it, and there was no hard evidence, nor proof telling of how the child died. That's the way the courts work. Unfortunately everything you mentioned does not add up to hard proof. The chloroform was not enough to prove that the child actually died as a cause of it.
You must vote not guilty. You have a reasonable doubt about the person's guilt and a guilty verdict requires that you find the person guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. So you can only vote guilty if your doubt is totally unreasonable.
For instance, let's say you have a person locked alone in a room with a piece of cake and someone eats the cake. Would you find that person guilty? You could doubt his guilt. He could say, for instance, that aliens came and ate the cake and disappeared again without leaving any evidence. But that would be unreasonable. So you would vote that he is guilty of eating the cake.
Now let's say there's a big, fat dude who you don't trust in the room with a sweet, little old lady who you do trust & someone eats the cake and there's no evidence pointing to one or the other. You might believe the dude ate it, because he seems slovenly and dishonest, especially compared to the little old lady. But could the lady have eaten it? Would that be reasonably possible, if unlikely? Yes, it's possible. So then you have a reasonable doubt of the dude's guilt and would have to vote not guilty.
It was Casey.
Why did she create the nanny and a boss and job that didn't exist. Because she needed to hide the truth.
want to be enlightened"
according to the evidense presented yer honor.
Godfather.
The biggest issue is that the jury is from Florida and you probably grow numb to cases like this. If this happened in the Midwest, the hangman would be prepping his gear as we speak ... or type.
simply stated, the prosecution did not prove their case to the only 12 people that mattered, the jury.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So this jury was held to a different set of guidelines than the rest of the juries in the country? :?
But in regards to common sense and reasoning versus the "slippery slope", this quote from one of the jurors best sums it up:
Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford said today that she and the other jurors cried and were "sick to our stomachs" after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.
"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-juror-sick-stomach-guilty-verdict/story?id=14005609
I think legally, all you did was prove the following:
1. Someone conducted an internet search for a chemical that can be used as a sedative or a solvent.
2. The trunk of a car registered to Casey Anthony smelled bad, as if something dead had been in there.
3. Casey Anthony is an irresponsible parent.
4. See No. 3.
5. The item searched for in the internet search was found on the victim's body.
6. The victim's nose and mouth were duct-taped.
7. See No. 3.
8. The witnesses called by the prosecution aren't aware of anyone seeing the victim after the mother saw her.
To return a guilty verdict from the jury though, the prosecution had to prove that Casey Anthony killed Caylee Anthony deliberately. While the circumstantial evidence was fairly overwhelming, they failed to do that one key thing.
Those same eight points again:
1. Someone conducted an internet search for a chemical that can be used as a sedative or a solvent. An internet search does not prove the person conducting the search committed murder. It proves they used the internet.
2. The trunk of a car registered to Casey Anthony smelled bad, as if something dead had been in there. Did the prosecution find Caylee's DNA in the trunk of the car, and did they prove Casey was the only person who ever drove the car?
3. Casey Anthony is an irresponsible parent. However, being a shitty mother does not automatically make you a murderer. It just makes you a shitty mother.
4. See No. 3.
5. The item searched for in the internet search was found on the victim's body. This makes point No. 1 much more incriminating, but there was no evidence presented to show who administered the chloroform to the child.
6. The victim's nose and mouth were duct-taped. Again, it was never proven who applied the duct-tape.
7. See No. 3.
8. The witnesses called by the prosecution aren't aware of anyone seeing the victim after they were aware of the mother seeing her. The door is still open though for someone else they were unaware of seeing (and subsequently killing) Caylee.
Personally I think Casey probably killed Caylee (though I admit I hardly watched any of the trial - I was back home in New Zealand where it didn't make the news at all). From what I know about the trial though, it appears as if the prosecution failed to produce enough concrete (not circumstantial) evidence to erase all reasonable doubt.
Did you follow the case?[/quote]
I did follow it, and there was no hard evidence, nor proof telling of how the child died. That's the way the courts work. Unfortunately everything you mentioned does not add up to hard proof. The chloroform was not enough to prove that the child actually died as a cause of it.[/quote]
What about the duct tape? Casey was the last person seen with Caylee. She made up stories and people to cover up where she was. That doesn't seem like hard proof??
want to be enlightened"