I’ve been reading this thread since my ill advised post - and I want to thank the different posters for some viewpoints I had not considered before hand - I had a difficult time with the concept of “we all think she was guilty but couldn’t convict” - since, IMHO, the entire point was to prove her guilt or doubt thereof - I see now the difference in part of that - not being entirely sure what she was guilty of, or even that the actual crime itself was the one committed.
at the end of this trial we only know a couple of things for sure - that Caylee was dead and that Casey was a liar - how those two things were intertwined we were not shown to the degree needed for a conviction.
Thank you to the members of this thread that helped to highlight that difference.
Thank you for a fresh perspective on the blood. Now that DNA analysis is possible, rather than simply blood-typing, I suppose that a large blood stain could be considered part of the victim’s body. In a way, a blood stain of that type would be more conclusive evidence of death than would a foot or hand should one turn up somewhere, and they are almost always considered evidence of death.
That’s correct. As I said in one of these threads, a conviction might also be obtained by virtue of the testimony of a third party to whom the murderer confessed.
To clarify, you want a legal citation or a logic citation or either?
I will presume legal and will begin to look. This may take some time. The specific instance I know of is in closing arguments. You can object to the other side stacking inferences, and I will endeavor to find it.
To further clairfy, this is the law at least in my state, Kansas. If you wish me to prove for certain that it is the law in Anthony’s state (what is this, N. Carolina?) I would admit I do not know for sure this is also the law there.
I do not think accessory after the fact is lesser included. The elements of murder may all be proven without any question of what happened afterwards to cover it up or otherwise further obstruction of justice, or hiding a fugitive, or any other of the ways that accessory after the fact can occur.
for a start, the issue is discussed at this link as for the state of Vermont. Please note that another commenter took issue with the analysis. It could be the idea is evolving, and I admit to not having analyzed case law on a serious basis for ten years now. I am still looking for something better, But haven’t tried looking at these Vermont cases yet. I’m not suggesting the blogger’s opinion is conclusiveof the question, but that here are some cases which may answer the question.
Of course I am more interested in a N. Carolina or U.S. supreme court ruling that applies to the states. Still looking–
I find your explanation of the res ipsa doctrine to be lacking.
To create res ipsa, the act must occur within the sphere of defendant’s exclusive control. There must be an act which cannot occur without a breach of duty. With those factors present, the duty of care and the breach of that duty can be inferred from the circumstances.
The typical example is a patient who has the wrong leg amputated while under anasthesia. Plaintiff is excused, under res ipsa, of proving anything beyond the fact of the injury and the nature of the damages. In fact, the patient doesn’t even have to prove who did the negligent act because only a few specific people could possibly have been the cause. If proven that the surgical room is a zone of exclusive control, everyone in the operating room can be charged with commission of the negligent act for the Plaintiff’s purposes (they can sue each other to sort it out after).
By contrast, if a homeless man stumbles int the ER waiting area and 2 minutes later suddenly dies, it does not follow that you look at the charge nurse and automatically find her negligent, because she was closest and had the duty of care. First of all, it’s a thing which can happen without breach of a duty, and second, the area was never under her exclusive control. She might be ordinarily negligent, we don’t know, but Res Ipsa does not apply.
Even if res ipsa could be applied to criminal matters – which it can’t unless the charge is criminal negligence --the key thing here is there is no set of facts in which it can be proven that Casey had exclusive control over Caylee at the time of death. To know that, they would have to know a time and place of death, which are two things they did not know.
It appears here that the Supreme Court of Texas disagrees with me, at least as a hardline rule. They may be saying that the issue may better be aproached from another angle, rather than stacking inferences. They do conced the problem but also illustrate an instance where it is in fact.
I was thinking it was in the Kansas rules of evidence somewhere but that didn’t pan out. Perhaps it was and they’ve repealed it.
Still no idea on how N. Carolina views it.
After finding several more states not agreeing with my approach, I’m not interested in looking any further–I acknowledge the law has evolved without me.
I did once argue this to the court of appeals of Kansas–its an unpublished decision–and they agreed, but this was something like 15 years ago. They said my instance was harmless however, so I didn’t win the appeal on the issue. Even if Kansas hasn’t addressed this issue, its not really relevant if my state and my state alone holds out. I’m not offering this experience as the cite you ask for, just assuring my good faith in the statement to begin with.
None of these opinions I have read tonight claim that stacking inferences is a good thing in all cases, but examples have been shown that it is not a perfect rule. Apparently, as I mentioned, a preferable way to analyze this sort of problem is being embraced. I don’t have an opinion on that yet since I don’t know what the new doctrine is.
At any rate, it is still a valid principle that stacked inferences ought to be avoided if possible, because they can lead to illogical results frequently, but apparently not always. Budding and experienced debaters should be very careful at the least if they think stacked inferences help their position.
It’s still something to look out for–even if the legal analysis has evolved.
But I concede I cannot show a current cite that stacked inferences are strictly forbidden in either Florida statutes or caselaw ir Supreme Court caselaw applicable to the states.
You know, you made a comment in a thread in IMHO, or MPSIMS, or the Pit, encouraging vigilantism in this case, far more explicitly. I passed that by. I shan’t now.
The US criminal system is a rule of law, not of popular opinion. Your support of the latter is despicable.
It’s not irrational; it’s abhorrent and despicable. Irrational is a nice word–too nice for what you’re urging and supporting. Your stance completely stands against everything the justice system in the US has attempted to stand for and to fight against.