I’m not going to argue what the law is (I have no knowledge of this) but IMO they should be able to convict.
As an example, if they think the accused is definitely resposible for the death, but they can’t decide (beyond reasonable doubt) if was reckless indifference or deliberate murder, it doesn’t make sense to have to let the guy beat the rap entirely.
[It’s possible that the reckless indifference law would also cover a case of murder, in which case the above is not a good example. I’m thinking of a case in which the laws as written were mutually exlusive.]
Reckless indifference isn’t a crime. It’s a level of mens rea.
Anyway, while logically your belief makes sense, it goes against one of the bedrock principles of criminal law: the prosecution must prove each and every element of an offense.
I may have misunderstood you then. If you’re saying “if the jury determines that the defendant did commit murder or manslaughter, can they convict of manslaughter?” then yes, because manslaughter is essentially just murder with a couple of elements removed.
Now, I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to this case, but what I am getting from the jurors is that the prosecutor didn’t establish why this woman would have wanted to kill her baby, (a truly horrific thing) and they couldn’t say for sure how she died.
Assume jurors are idiots, and they need everything spelled out for them. The prosecutors didn’t do this.
They didn’t have to establish why this woman wanted to kill her baby. Motive is not an element of homicide, even murder. They had to establish that she did want to kill her baby, as opposed to why, but that doesn’t seem to have been a problem for the jury.
It is better for 10 guilty to go free than one innocent to perish at the hands of big heartless big profit big government. The war on drugs is a jobs program for the justice system. It proves there is no compassion in the law. The DA messed up, but does have good political hair, by going to trial without any real evidence. Proof is the verdict. The jurist’s hands were tied by the law and all heart sick about it need to blame it on big media profiting at their expense. I purposely did not follow the details but went over them after it was over. My feelings do not matter. Injustice happens every day in our police state.
As previously stated, in most cases the jury may NOT ask any questions during the trial, but may ask questions of law to the judge and may ask for portions of the testimony to be repeated to them.
Reasonable doubt was explained to the jury I was on as “Doubt for which there is a reason.” Seems pretty simple to me.
Reasonable doubt is a stupid phrase with no consistent definition. In this case it gave the jurors an easy way out. In other cases it’s not considered at all. This is the way our system works. It works poorly. But I doubt any system works any better. Notice the comments from some jurors already. One stated that they heard no motive. I heard the prosecutors clearly state a motive, Casey wanted to live the good life and her daughter was in the way. On top of that, motive is not needed to convict. We never know what a person’s motive actually is, and it doesn’t matter. Another statement referred to the defense claim that there was no way to tell how the little girl died. Also irrelevant. We rarely know conclusively how someone died when decomposed remains are found.
The jury was charged with making the decision, and they did. I could disagree with the result, I could agree with it also. But I think they didn’t come by it through deliberative reasoning. Nothing new there.
Ayep. The case that did away with the definition was Paulson v. State of Texas, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). It’s now up to the individual juror to determine what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means to them.
I know nothing of Anthony, but reading jurors’ comments after the OJ trial leads me to conclude they made a logic error.
Prosecution presented independent guilt arguments against OJ; any adequate subset makes the others redundant. There was possibly tainted blood evidence but OJ’s guilt was certain beyond reasonable doubt even had that blood evidence never been presented. Yet jurors felt that doubt about any part of the case implies doubt. This would be true, of course, if those pieces were connected via
OJ is guilty if A is valid AND B is valid AND …
but not when the connection is
OJ is guilty if A is valid OR B is valid OR …
Reading the Geesa instruction (in effect for OJ’s trial) “[No] person may be convicted of an offense unless each element is proved beyond a reasonable doubt", one can imagine this confusing a juror to ignore the common-sense understanding of logic I argued above.