Saturday, August 12, 2006

Reasonable Doubt

REASONABLE DOUBT (from the law dictionary)- The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The definition of reasonable doubt applies specifically to the guilt-innocence phase of a trial; although the rules are not of constitutional dimension per se . . . [they] serve to implement the constitutional requirement that a criminal conviction cannot stand except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but akin to “you’d better be darned sure.” By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil trial.

To the jurors, the presiding Judge should have clarified the definition of reasonable doubt and instructed them to act upon their intelligence and common sense: did the prosecution prove that the defendant committed the crime in question, or are there gaping holes or leaps of logic that derail that conclusion? “Beyond a reasonable doubt” implies that the circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence soundly demonstrates the defendant’s guilt. It does not ask the jurors what else could have happened, but rather what probably did happen, based on the presentation of facts.

The scenario laid out by the People in Brown includes the fact that the trail from the parking lot to the top of the point was over a mile and a half long. It is not reasonable to believe a four-year-old child made that trek willingly; especially considering it would have been a three-mile round trip. If you have children, you may recall thinking on Halloween night that you could only go so far, since you had to walk back home again! Reasonable people think like that. Parents of small children defintely think like that.

The People also presented evidence (subject to a certain amount of interpretation, since nothing is absolute) to demonstrate that Lauren's injuries were incosistent with a "tumble and fall", but were consistent with a long fall. Even if there were a few injuries that resembled something that would happen during a tumbling fall, the fact that the defendant's story contradicts this possibility sort of forfeits it as "reasonable doubt".

The concept of reasonable doubt is misunderstood, misrepresented and misapplied rampantly throughout the news media, conversations, books and by the layperson who doesn't read the law. That's why it's the prosecutor and the judge's burden to make it crystal clear. Let's hope Hum and Arnold did or will before they give up on this jury.

39 comments:

loretta said...

It's an absolutely gorgeous day in Pleasantville, so I am going to be out for most of it. For some reason, half my post didn't take, so here is the rest of it.

Hope everyone has a nice weekend. Don't worry about things you can't do anything about. Let's focus on Monday when Monday comes.

Ronni said...

I'm off to my day job in a bit, so will take your advice!

CountryGirl said...

Then you have Geragos saying that CB had an "endless capacity of love for his daughter" in his closing argument, yet where was the evidence of that?

He argued to the jury that the witness Terry Hope was enough reasonable doubt because he said he saw Lauren ahead of Cameron on the trail. On cross, TH admitted he told the detectives when interviewed that he felt "something was wrong".

Hum gave the jury evidence that Brown did not want Lauren, that he was vindictive towards Sarah, that he endangered Lauren multiple times (hoping for that accident), that he lied over and over, even saying under oath that he had Lauren 50% of the time to lower his CS, that CB said it was Lauren's fault he took her to IP. He never spoke her name or said he felt responsible for her death.

The smoking gun, IMO, was Inspiration Point itself. Even factoring in safer trails leading to IP, the jury still had to walk the narrow trail to the point itself. Geragos' little stunt of walking up to the edge was just that: a stunt. Would he allow his 4 year old daughter or granddaughter to do the same? Would any member of the jury?

Ronni said...

I cannot see what they could possibly be stuck on.

Anonymous said...

Cameron should be found not-guilty and not have to endure more years in prison. This is cruel and unusual and he certainly has not been provided a speedy trial. It is quite obvious that there is reasonable doubt. Quite obvious that there is a conspiracy against him within the police and corrections communities and possibly with the family of the child's mother.

peggy said...

We will have to wait on the verdict but I know now that he is not important enough to merit his very own conspiracy.

Breezy said...

Bameron is not guilty of being a loving father He is not guilty of of being an honest or decent human being. But he IS guilty of the death of Lauren. No matter how you wish to look at this, even if you choose to believe it was some sort of accident. No responsible, loving parent would endanger their child in such a way and then blame the child for their own completely irresponsible, uncaring lack of parenting skills. No loving parent would feel NO remorse for his own stupidity resulting in the death of a child. These are things that EVERY loving parent can agree on.

loretta said...

He waived his speedy trial rights. Blame GerEgo if you want, but you can't blame the People for that.

You also can't expect anyone to believe that a nobody baggage-handler-surfer-leech like Brown would have anyone risk their career or pension over by trumping up false charges and costing the state $$$$ bou coup bucks to try him.

Nnnnope. Not gonna fly in here.

Anonymous said...

Nothing you are saying proves that this man is guilty of murder. He may be guilty of poor judgment, but there is no law against that.

As for the previous comment, the following points merit conspiracy; a loving mother fiercely avenging the tragic death of her 4 year old child (using all available resources including her family connection to the DA), at least one other controversial death at Inspiration Point, and the city avoiding blame for the lack of appropriate signage fencing warning and protecting against danger.

All that aside, we believe and so do many others, that it hasn’t been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the fall was not an accident.

loretta said...

It doesn't really matter what you believe or what I believe at this point. What matters is what the jury believes. I would venture to guess it's 10-2 for a guilty verdict. Perhaps if the hold-out jurors are misinterpreting the law, they may be convinced to change their votes.

Perhaps not. I'm confident that the People will re-try the case in the event of a hung jury and Brown will be convicted. It's obvious even his lawyer doesn't have any faith in this case or he would have tried it last year or advocated much more fiercely for a dismissal.

If GerEgo had evidence of a conspiracy, he would have had Brown out of jail long ago. So, for your theory to bear out, GerEgo has to be completely incompetent (thus, the Browns are incompetent for paying him), or there is no evidence of this conspiracy.

And if there is no evidence of this conspiracy, it's a moot point.

Barbara said...

"Nothing you are saying proves that this man is guilty of murder. He may be guilty of poor judgment, but there is no law against that."

Actually that's not true. Child neglect and child endangerment are against the law.

I think he's guilty of much more than that and I believe the evidence proves it. I believe he willfully took the life of his child.

He May be innocent said...

I have to agree with the annonomus most above. Correct that the jury has to come to a verdict, but for all you know, it is 10-2 in his favor. Speculation will get you nowhere Lorreta. You have already convicted him in your mind and now in the public blog. Either way nice job keeping everyone up to date.. so I do offer a bit of thanks to you.

There are some folks here that know Cam much better who read this and predict that he will be set free. May his day of judgement come soon, and may each family find peace after this mess.

CountryGirl said...

I just love how all of CB's so-called friends come out of the woodwork. Why weren't they on the stand under oath proclaiming what a great guy he was or how much time they saw him spend with his daughter?

Oops, I forgot, he only spent a total of 14 days with her in her 4 years of life. Only met her after she was 3 years old and twice tried to get his CS lowered for this daughter he loved so much.

Spare me please.

Dane said...

Houston v. Roe, 177 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding California jury instruction 8.81.15, addressing special circumstance lying in wait, does not require defendant to prove a gap between lying in wait and the killing and, thereby, does not unconstitutionally shift the prosecution’s burden of proof), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1159 (2000).

Supreme Court:


Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (holding constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction–identical to one in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990)–requires reversal; not subject to harmless error analysis because, unlike an erroneous presumption instruction, a deficient reasonable doubt instruction vitiates all of jury’s factual findings).

California Codes
California Penal Code
1096. A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent
until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt
whether his or her guilt is satisfactorily shown, he or she is
entitled to an acquittal, but the effect of this presumption is only
to place upon the state the burden of proving him or her guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is defined as follows:
"It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to
human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is
that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and
consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that
condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of
the truth of the charge."



1096a. In charging a jury, the court may read to the jury Section
1096, and no further instruction on the subject of the presumption of
innocence or defining reasonable doubt need be given.

The US Supreme Court upheld this instruction in the case of Victor v. Nebraska: (Quoting)
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Although this standard is an ancient and honored aspect of our criminal justice system, it defies easy explication. In these cases, we consider the constitutionality of two attempts to define "reasonable doubt."


The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process, but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course. Cf. Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430, 440-441 (1887). Indeed, so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant's guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 320, n. 14 (1979), the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof. Cf. Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485-486 (1978). Rather, "taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly conve[y] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury." Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140 (1954).



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-8894.ZO.html

However, compare to this article:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri09.htm

The Fifth Circuit has made some recent rulings upon the CA Courts on this subject:

"Let it Be. " That's what the Fifth District, citing J. Lennon & P. McCartney, recommends trial judges do with respect to the standard reasonble doubt instruction. People v. Johnson, no. F042905 (Cal.Ct.App. 5th Dist., June 23, 2004). In this case, the judge "amplified at length on the standard reasonable doubt instruction," "authorized the prospective jurors to find Johnson guilty even if they were to have “some doubt” about his guilt and characterized a juror who renders a guilty verdict with “no doubt” about his guilt as 'brain dead'," and "equated proof beyond a reasonable doubt to everyday decision-making in a juror’s life." Reversed.

February 19, 2004
Cal.Ct.App. (2d Dist., Div. 1): Jury's Deliberation on Defendant's Guilt is Not Like Planning a Vacation
In People v. Johnson, no. B167361, the California Court of Appeal (2d Dist., Div. 1) vacated a criminal conviction because the trial judge had "erred in amplifying on the reaonable doubt instruction." Here's the fatal amplification (don't try this at home):

“The burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A doubt that has reason to it, not a ridiculous doubt, not a mere possible doubt. Because we all have a possible doubt whether we will be here tomorrow. That’s certainly a possibility. We could be run over tonight. God, that would be a horrible thing, but it’s a possibility. It’s not reasonable for us to think that we will because we plan our lives around the prospect of being alive. We take vacations; we get on airplanes. We do all these things because we have a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that we will be here tomorrow or we will be here in June, in my case, to go to Hawaii on a vacation. But we wouldn’t plan our live[]s ahead if we had a reasonable doubt that we would, in fact, be alive.”

The Court of Appeal found this elaboration on the standard a little off the mark:

We are not prepared to say that people planning vacations or scheduling flights engage in a deliberative process to the depth required of jurors or that such people finalize their plans only after persuading themselves that they have an abiding conviction of the wisdom of the endeavor. Nor can we say that people make such decisions while aware of the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The background section of the opinion starts with this nice sentence: "After dating for a short while, defendant and the victim became parents of a baby girl."

http://www.crimblawg.com/jury_instructions_reasonable_doubt/index.html




More from the CA Penal Code:

1127b. When, in any criminal trial or proceeding, the opinion of
any expert witness is received in evidence, the court shall instruct
the jury substantially as follows:
Duly qualified experts may give their opinions on questions in
controversy at a trial. To assist the jury in deciding such
questions, the jury may consider the opinion with the reasons stated
therefor, if any, by the expert who gives the opinion. The jury is
not bound to accept the opinion of any expert as conclusive, but
should give to it the weight to which they shall find it to be
entitled. The jury may, however, disregard any such opinion, if it
shall be found by them to be unreasonable.
No further instruction on the subject of opinion evidence need be
given.

1164. (a) When the verdict given is receivable by the court, the
clerk shall record it in full upon the minutes, and if requested by
any party shall read it to the jury, and inquire of them whether it
is their verdict. If any juror disagrees, the fact shall be entered
upon the minutes and the jury again sent out; but if no disagreement
is expressed, the verdict is complete, and the jury shall, subject to
subdivision (b), be discharged from the case.
(b) No jury shall be discharged until the court has verified on
the record that the jury has either reached a verdict or has formally
declared its inability to reach a verdict on all issues before it,
including, but not limited to, the degree of the crime or crimes
charged, and the truth of any alleged prior conviction whether in the
same proceeding or in a bifurcated proceeding.

************************************************************

To learn about the three types of murder invoving a purpose to kill:

http://snipurl.com/uv0z

( California ) JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM:

http://snipurl.com/uv17

Dane said...

Anonymous said...
"

...[Sarah] using all available resources including her family connection to the DA),..."

Huh???? I thought she is from England? Is the DA from England?


"...at least one other controversial death at Inspiration Point..."

Completely irrelevant. The only controversy is whether that persons death was the result of a suicide (official version), or murder. No one has ever, to my knowledge, made the claim that his death was accidental or caused by any neglect of the city.


"...city avoiding blame for the lack of appropriate signage fencing warning and protecting against danger."

That's so contrary to common sense I refuse to address it.

If the above points "merit [a] conspiracy" it is a conspiracy between the claimant and claimant's better judgement to remain ignorant of what their own basic common sense would reveal to them.

How many of these 'points" was brought up at trial?

Kent Wills said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Cameron should be found not-guilty and not have to endure more years in prison."

What, exactly, makes you believe, given what we know, that Cameron is innocent?

"This is cruel and unusual and he certainly has not been provided a speedy trial."

Cameron waived his right to a speedy trial. While I don't like how long he had to wait, it is 100% CAMERON'S fault that he had to wait.

"It is quite obvious that there is reasonable doubt."

Where? Based on what we know from The Breeze and KFI, I don't see any reasonable doubt.

Quite obvious that there is a conspiracy against him within the police and corrections communities and possibly with the family of the child's mother.

What kind of bull is this? At no time did anyone provide any evidence of a conspiracy. Weak implications of one from the part of Team Cameron does not equal evidence.

Kent Wills said...

Anonymous wrote

Nothing you are saying proves that this man is guilty of murder. He may be guilty of poor judgment, but there is no law against that.

Criminal negligence.

As for the previous comment, the following points merit conspiracy; a loving mother fiercely avenging the tragic death of her 4 year old child (using all available resources including her family connection to the DA),

That rules Sarah out. She doesn't have any connections to the DA's Office. Certainly no evidence of such has been presented by anyone. Heck, not even Ted presented such a conspiracy.

at least one other controversial death at Inspiration Point,

When did this happen? There's a guy who most probably commited suicide, though his parents think he was murdered. Either way, it wasn't controversial.

and the city avoiding blame for the lack of appropriate signage fencing warning and protecting against danger.

Pictures alone show how dangerous the place is. And Ted put it best when he wrote, "NOTHING works like pictures." Being there, as Cameron was, would only serve to reinforce the idea that it's a very dangerous place.

NO loving father would allow his daughter to stay in such a place!

All that aside, we believe and so do many others, that it hasn’t been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the fall was not an accident.

I don't see how, but if you have reasonable doubt, you have reasonable doubt. Niether you nor I have any say in what the jury decides. If any memeber of the jury honestly has reasonable doubt, he/she/they MUST submit a NOT GUILTY vote.

Kent Wills said...

He May be innocent wrote:

I have to agree with the annonomus most above. Correct that the jury has to come to a verdict, but for all you know, it is 10-2 in his favor.

This is possible. It could even be 11:1 for Cameron. It could also be 11:1 for guilty. All we know is at least one member of the jury is voting differently than the others.

Speculation will get you nowhere Lorreta. You have already convicted him in your mind and now in the public blog.

Given the reports from KFI and The Breeze, it's pretty clear Cameron murdered Lauren.


Either way nice job keeping everyone up to date.. so I do offer a bit of thanks to you.
There are some folks here that know Cam much better who read this and predict that he will be set free.


If the jury has reasonable doubt, they MUST return a verdict of Not Guilty.


May his day of judgement come soon, and may each family find peace after this mess.

It's claimed that Cameron is a Christian. If he is, then he believes he will have to answer for his murdering Lauren after he dies.

loretta said...

I promised an idiot-free zone, but every once in awhile it's good to see how the idiots think.

The Brown apologists are obviously idiots. It's Dibbles II.

Dibbles was the name we gave the Peterson apologists. They were feeble-minded, too.

loretta said...

I think everyone needs to pick a nickname of some kind or your posts will be deleted.

I am not going to try and keep track of "anonymous" posts. Pick a name or be poofed.

CountryGirl said...

And using another poster's nick or a derogatory version of another person's nick will be deleted as well.

I can chew tobaccy and use a delete button at the same time. Imagine that!

& said...

Some rebuttals from "&" formerly known as "Anonymous:"

1. It is hearsay that Cameron gave-up his right to a speedy trial,

2. The step maternal grandmother has connections with county officials,

3. Cameron is only on trial for murder, not criminal negligence, etc.,

4. Blogs and media convictions happen all the time. Good thing they aren't the true judges and juries.

loretta said...

It is hearsay that Cameron gave-up his right to a speedy trial,

What? Hearsay? Puhleeze. It's documented in the motions and the court docket. Never mind the obvious fact that if Brown hadn't waived this right, his lawyer du jour would have had him sprung LONG AGO. Because this is such an ignorant thing to say, I do not feel the least bit compelled to answer any other stupid things you post.

& said...

"Courts can easily circumvent speedy trial requirments by scheduling hearings, status conferences, and other legal minutia as far apart as possible. When more time is desired, prosecutors can resort to simply filing a motion and scheduling the hearing on the motion many months in the future. This process can be repeated until years or even decades have elapsed. If the defendant responds to such motions, or otherwise participates in pre-trial legal-wrangling, the court is free to impose the opinion that the defendant has relinquished his right to a speedy trial, which removes any legal limits on further delays."

Barbara said...

It makes more sense to speculate that the jury is split in favor of a conviction considering the items requested by the jury for review during deliberations. I don't see how that 911 call could possibly sway someone to change their mind if they believed him guilty. That recording doesn't have a single hint of "innocence" in it.

Ronni said...

Good point, Barbara!

& said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
& said...

EDIT FOR CORRECTION

The man was in a state of tension. Many of us have had unexpected and maybe inappropriate reactions or expressions in tense situations. Ever have the feeling you want to laugh at a funeral? At the time Cameron chuckled, he didn't know the state of his daughter, he was faced with a crowd of naked people, he was using a borrowed telephone and he knew people would be on the way to help. People from the authorities. This call does NOT contribute to confirming guilt. If anything, it just indicates his inability to emotionally handle the situation in a manner that stereotypically is considered appropriate.

Ronni said...

Laughing at a funeral is a bit different from being totally nonchalant calling 911. And, while he did not know the condition of his daughter, unless he believes in angels and fairies throwing out a net to catch her, he had to know it wasn't good!

He could have gone down just far enough for the nudies to hear him, yelled "Call 911!" and then gone scrambling down to his daughter as fast as his hiking-booted feet could carry him.

That would be a normal reaction.

Dane said...

hmmmmm....
___________________________________


& said...
"Courts can easily circumvent speedy trial requirments by scheduling hearings, status conferences, and other legal minutia as far apart as possible. When more time is desired, prosecutors can resort to simply filing a motion and scheduling the hearing on the motion many months in the future. This process can be repeated until years or even decades have elapsed. If the defendant responds to such motions, or otherwise participates in pre-trial legal-wrangling, the court is free to impose the opinion that the defendant has relinquished his right to a speedy trial, which removes any legal limits on further delays."

___________________________________



So, all the below provided cites are incorrect?

So, all the below provided cites are incorrect?



Felonies do not usually resolve quickly. Typically, there are many court appearances, even without trial. Once charges are filed, you will have an arraignment where you are told the actual charges against you and you will enter a plea of not guilty. Typically your next court appearance will be for a readiness conference at which your attorney will negotiate with the prosecution in an attempt to resolve your case in a manner that is favorable to you. If your case does not resolve at the readiness conference, you will proceed to a preliminary hearing which, depending on the nature of the charges, will be held no later than sixty days after your arraignment. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is for the court to determine if there is probable cause to believe you committed the crimes you are charged with. The burden of proof is very low at preliminary hearings. If you are held to answer to the charges at the preliminary hearing, you will have another arraignment date, within fifteen days, in the "Superior Court" at which time you will enter a plea bargain or plead "Not Guilty" and set trial and motion dates. In California, a trial in a felony case must be held within sixty days of your "Superior Court" arraignment unless you waive your rights to a speedy trial.

http://www.stankolaw.com/CM/Custom/WHAT-TO-DO.asp


***********************************

Stages of a California Criminal Case - Misdemeanor & Felony

b. Felonies

In felony cases, the speedy trial rules are devised differently. First, you have the right to speedy "preliminary hearing" within ten court days or sixty calendar days. If your hearing is not within ten court days and you did not waive time, your case does not get dismissed. However, if your hearing is not held within sixty calendar days and you did not waive time, then your case will get dismissed.

http://www.paulpuri.com/2004/12/stages-of-california-criminal-case.html

***********************************

Statutory Speedy Trial Violation. Arroyo v. Superior Court, no. G033356 (Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist., Div. 3) June 14, 2004.)

The trial court continued Sergio Arroyo’s trial, over his objection, beyond 60 days from the date he was arraigned on the indictment in the superior court. The sole reasons for the continuance was to permit Arroyo’s joint trial with a codefendant, who was not arraigned until the day before Arroyo’s scheduled trial date. Arroyo seeks extraordinary writ relief from the superior court’s denial of his subsequent motion to dismiss. (Pen. Code, § 1382.) [Fn.] He contends the continuance was without good cause and he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. We agree and grant the petition.

http://www.crimblawg.com/speedy_trial/index.html

CountryGirl said...

Right Ronni. Unless you want to make sure (or already knew) your daughter was gone.

Breezy said...

Long ago I was faced with a situation where a man had decided to shoot my dog for barking at him. The biggest problem is that my children were in the backyard with the dog when he climbed the privacy fence with his shotgun. As the children screamed and I went out to see what was going on, I did not feel the urge to grab the phone and call 911 myself. I yelled for someone else to make the call. I was too busy trying to get my children into the safety of the house before he started firing the gun. Once I got the children in, I went after the dog. Only after we were all safely in the house and my neighbor had wrestled this man to the ground knocking his lights out did I take the phone from the person that made the call and speak to the 911 operator. It happened to be the same time the police cars arrived.

The point is, as a parent-- you feel the need to be with your child. Someone else can make a phone call but you can't trust someone else to save your child, especially if you never ask anyone too. Cameron NEVER asked anyone of the nudie sunbathers to help find his daughter. He did NOT care.

CountryGirl said...

Breezy, as a matter of fact, when you hear the 911 tape you hear someone seems to offer to go to Lauren's aid---

CB says: Yeah, well, no, you need shoes.

No urgency, thanking, urging the guy to save her, hurry, etc.

loretta said...

I really wonder how someone can impose the term "stereotype" on what a typical person (especially a parent of a small child) would expect from a 40-yr old man when his 4-yr old daughter fell from 120 foot cliff.

It's not a "stereotype." It's common sense. That's why we are a civilization based on "common law" and "common courtesy" and other expectations of each other.

Brown's behavior was bizarre. It was not some kind of deviation from the norm, it was totally outside the graph.

This defense apology about "playbooks" for grief and "everyone behaves differently" is a lot of garbage.

Breezy said...

Unbelievable! I could not listen to the tapes with dial-up here in the sticks. Nothing else is available, not even cable TV :-(

I was so beside myself when that incident happened that by the time the paramedics arrived they attended to me before the creep that had the gun and you can bet that he had some injuries after being pulled off the fence and having his gun wrestled away by the neighbor and then my husband got outside and found him. The police had safely cuffed him and let him wait. I was in a state of panic and shock. It is hard to imagine how a parent could be calm in any sense of the word.

Ronni said...

Breezy, I'd be a basket case in a situation like that.

I remember once being threatened by a dog while walking my toddler in her stroller. I just somehow found myself between the stroller and the dog, and, judging by the way my legs felt afterwards, I must have jumped over the stroller to get there. Even though I'm rather frightened of aggressive dogs, still, the instinct to protect kicked in.

Skye said...

Obviously, the sticking points for the odd Juror/s are the 911 call and the computer garaphics of the fall, as Barbara said.

I suppose there was always the chance that there could be a "Justin Faulkner" (or whatever his name is)or two, on the Cam Brown Jury. Lets hope their days are numbered!

Lauren deserves justice. Only an idiot would deny 1st degree murder in this case.

Good call there Loretta. He/she could get his/her walking papers, and soon.

Ronni said...

Sending out positive thoughts for a verdict today. I hope a weekend off has given the recalcitrant juror(s) a chance to think the matter over.

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of inmature parents that has dangerous behaviors, take risks, and they also do not know how to take care of themselves, how can you imagine he knows how to take care of a little daughter.I am sorry for Lauren may she rest in peace with the Lord.I hope none of these ideas about a crime could be real, I cannot imagine this could have happen.It is a tragedy...