Cameron Brown retrial's fate still to be seen

Excellent summation of what transpired this morning Denise. Well done.

If I'm ever charged with a crime, I hope to have this jury.

Unless the Internet definition of "malice" was materially misleading, it's probably not prejudicial error, if established precedent can be relied on:

The People did not dispute the claim that misconduct occurred below. They now argue that use of a dictionary is not necessarily misconduct, suggesting that this is permissible when the purpose is to validate the jurors' understanding of commonly used words. This argument confuses the question of whether misconduct occurred with the question of whether the jury's resort to the dictionary might be prejudicial. Resort to outside sources for amplification of instructions is not permitted.*fn22 Jurors are not allowed to obtain information from outside sources either as to factual matters or for guidance on the law. (In re Stankewitz (1985)40 Cal. 3d 391, 402 [220 Cal. Rptr. 382, 708, P.2d 1260]; People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 199, 207-209 [155 Cal. Rptr. 657, 595 P.2d 91]; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 150, 157 [141 Cal. Rptr. 698, 570 P.2d 1050]. ) Use of a dictionary to obtain further understanding of the court's instructions poses a risk that the jury will misunderstand the meaning of terms which have a technical or unique usage in the law. ...

We also find no basis for prejudice to defendant in the jury's consideration of the dictionary definition of mitigating. That definition stated: " mitigate ([pronunciation]) vt., vi. - ga'ted, gat'ing [etymology] to make or become milder, less severe, less rigorous, or less painful; moderate miti-ga-ble ([pronunciation]) adj. miti-ga'tion. mit'i-ga'tive adj. mit'i-ga-tor n. mit'iga-to'ry ([pronunciation]) adj." (Webster's New World Dict. (2d college ed. 1982) p. 911.) We assume therefore, as does defendant, that the definition considered by the jury was that mitigation means "to make mild, soft, or tender, and "to make or become milder, less severe, less rigorous, or less painful; moderate." ...

While the dictionary definition of "mitigating" may not have been particularly helpful to the jury in understanding the use of the term in this context, defendant offers no persuasive argument to support a conclusion that the jury might have been misled. He suggests that if the jury had believed it could consider as mitigating evidence that did not pertain directly to the crime, notwithstanding the instruction, consideration of that definition would lead them to conclude that to be considered mitigating the factors had to make the crimes themselves "mild, soft, or tender," or "less severe, less rigorous, less painful, moderate."

As is so often the case in criminal procedure, the adage "no harm, no foul" tends to dominate. While Cameron Brown is entitled to a fair trial, he has no intrinsic right to a perfect one.

The one who needs "legal schooling" is Denise Nix. If you check both CALJIC and CALCRIM jury instructions you will find that the "omission or failure to act where you have a legal duty to act" is NEGLIGENCE and has no connection to MALICE.

Denise is correct in saying that "implied malice has three parts" but that is where her knowledge ends. She got the rest of it all wrong.

The amusing part is in how Team Cam is whining that virtually everyone involved in this saga is part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself. From the Kaldis clan's blog:

Anonymous (probably Patty Brown herself, as she posts there frequently): The verbage "omission or failure to act where you have a legal duty to act" is found in NEGLIGENCE. It has nothing to do with MALICE.

In the case of depraved heart murder, the two concepts merge, as an act or omission can be so recklessly negligent that it is construed as implied malice. This is why it is such a subtle concept, as there is and can be no bright line as to where that line is crossed. In law school, the "reasonable man" was accurately described as Poindexter; here, it is more like Billy Joel in the song, riding through Bedford-Sty alone (or for the locals, certain parts of South Central).

"Case Insider" (who appears to be close to the defense team): I am more than a little bit curious as to where this (Denise's) definition comes from.

Anonymous (again, probably Patty): She is Hum's mouthpiece, so it must have come from Hum. The question is what is Hum trying to accomplish in the court of public opinion by having Denise confuse implied malice with negligence?

For all we know, Denise might have gotten it from Black's: "Extremely negligent conduct, which creates what a reasonable man would realize to be not only an unjustifiable but also a very high risk of death or serious bodily injury [to others] -- though unaccompanied by any intent to kill or do serious bodily injury -- which actually causes the death of another." Black's Law Dictionary 1019 (6th ed. 1990). Examples include leaving a loaded gun in a room of five-year-olds dressed up as cowboys and Indians, or letting a little girl throw rocks on the edge of a dangerous ledge.

The sideshow is more intriguing than the trial itself.