Bugs: The Best Witnesses? (Westerfield's Son Neal Forced To Testify By Desperate D.A. Dusek!!)

Court TV ^ | July 25, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[Henrietta]

I posted this on an earlier thread. You might find it instructive or interesting:

Re: reasonable doubt

We've all speculated as to what the term 'reasonable doubt' means. Here, from pp 52-53 of "Criminal Law," Professor LaFave's hornbook (not to be confused with "horndog") is what "reasonable doubt" means:

"There must be an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge." Reasonable doubt is "that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge."

LaFave is the expert's expert on criminal law in this country.

[Freedom2specul8]

I was incorrect yesterday when I thought the kid on court tv was neal westerfield. It was a friend of his....(just saw it on CTV) Don't know the name..

[Henrietta]

Sorry, running a little behind this morning!!

[VRWC_minion]

. I think those who think the state has not met its burden of proof are indeed using common season to form reasonable speculations.

I don't disagree in general but there are many instances of the use of speculation to deny the evidence.

[spectre]

Everyone is in the court room.

Talk on the streets is that one of the Juror's may be tainted. We'll soon know.

BTW, if they listen to Rick Roberts on the way home, they can't help but be "tainted"...all of them!

sw

[It's me]

Oh not again! Kim you're not starting again, are you? Can you just close your eyes to stupid posts? Lets discuss the trial here okay?

I'd really like to stay today and not have to wade through stupidity!

[VRWC_minion]

LaFave is the expert's expert on criminal law in this country.

I don't disagree but you might find the link to the SC cases I provided interesting. (Wouldn't the SC be an expert?)

Apparently, reasonable doubt has evolved to mean a lower standard since the 1800's and the SC has given some instructions on how to clarify.

One of the above posts is an example given to jury in CA that was constitutional. It may or may not agree with your interpretation.

[wimpycat]

(Westerfield's Son Neal Forced To Testify By Desperate D.A. Dusek!!)

LOL! How objective! How about "Westerfield's son takes stand against him", or even more innocuously, "Westerfield's son testifies as prosecution witness". Desperate? Hardly. If the defense suggests the porn belonged to the son, the prosecution is hardly "desperate" by calling the son himself to refute the suggestion.

[paix]

The thing that bugs me about this CD is that if you think about Westerfield saying he found his side door open, somebody could have planted the CD in his home.

[Henrietta]

Good find! I enjoyed reading that article.

Your selective posting of the first paragraph, however, may tend to confuse; the Court did not say that the "to a moral certainty" instruction could not be used, they said that it might tend to be confusing.

Another definition was suggested:
"Several Federal appellate circuits have dealt with the problem of defining reasonable doubt by instructing trial judges not to provide any definition at all, a trend Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a concurring opinion. She said that a preferable course would be to arrive at a better definition, and she cited one suggested in 1987 by the Federal Judicial Center, a research arm of the Federal judiciary. Making no reference to moral certainty, that definition says in part, "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt." Justice Ginsburg said that this instruction "surpasses others I have seen in stating the reasonable doubt standard succinctly and comprehensibly."

[Henrietta]

Lots of things are possible. When I hear hoofbeats, I think horses and not zebras, you know?

[spectre]

Me too!

Now, I hear that Judge Mudd has finished questioning all the Jurors and alternates in the presense of the Attorneys and Westerfield.

Nancy Graceless (major Barf alert) is wondering what a Juror may have done? Sign a book deal, whatever?

sw

[Freedom2specul8]

Ok..maybe this will help..(*pinging JJ cuz he's had the question about blood tests too*)

http://video.uniontrib.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/020624_am1.html

Q ALL RIGHT. WE WILL RETURN LATER TO WHERE THOSE LOCATIONS WERE.BUT DID YOU TEST THOSE THREE AREAS TO DETERMINE IF THEY COULD BE BLOOD?

A YES, I DID.

Q HOW DID YOU DO THAT?

A WHEN I IDENTIFIED THE BLOOD-LIKE STAINS WHICH HAD THE COLORS OF THE REDDISH-BROWN AND LIGHT REDDISH-BROWN COLORING, I THEN, AFTER DOCUMENTING THEM, PERFORMED A CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THEM.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?

A WITH OUT OF THE FOUR STAINS THAT GAVE THE REDDISH-BROWN AND LIGHT REDDISH-BROWN STAIN APPEARANCE OR COLOR, OUT OF THE FOUR, THREE CAME OUT POSITIVE FOR THE CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.

[Henrietta]

one of the Juror's may be tainted.

Oh! I hate it when that happens!

[VRWC_minion]

I wasn't being selective, I just chose the first paragraph. I was going to post whole thing but thought better of it.

If you keep reading they give a jury instruction in CA that was held to be constitutional. I posted the full wording above. I think the introduction sentence as follows

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

Might not be exactly what some expect.

[spectre]

Well, wimpy. The son DID look at the porn. In fact, it brought down the house with laughter, when he said there was a particular Porn site on the computer, but he didn't look at it at the time.

When asked "why not"? He said "because my Dad was there with me"...OK? He looked at the porn, he's got raging hormones.

sw

[Henrietta]

One of the above posts is an example given to jury in CA that was constitutional. It may or may not agree with your interpretation.

Read 'em side by side; they're exactly the same!

Thanks for posting those; it was interesting.

[spectre]

Me too, especially when there are 6 alternates! Darn.

sw

[the Deejay]

"Sign a book deal, whatever?"


omg, I hope not. That (jurors making book deals) is getting so boring!