Trial - Ross Harris #5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a question for all the sluethers on this case.

Now my question is; If you was a juror on this case

Would you rather the state had simply filed a negligence homicide case while the state was easily able to prove it?

Or would you rather hear the state stretch things for their premeditated murder or felony capital murder agenda?

 
gitana1 said:
If the lies were presented on direct, then they should've been able to impeach Stoddard with inconsistent statements or facts. But if the lies were in the search warrants which were not presented to the jury, then the search warrants don't come in during the defense's case. Stoddard testified at length. He's the one I recall people were surprised the cross was short on. Did he lie on direct?
Click to expand...

IIRC the Def has held him to be recalled as they did the ME. IIRC, may be mistaken about that have to go back later and review. And as far as lie on direct ;)
 
When Evans was doing Direct with Shumpert, I thought it odd that he showed and pointed out the photos of the house.. pointing out the 3 light bulbs burnt out. Or someone pointed them out I thinking was Evans.

NOW I realzie why that photo was shown. It proved that RH was telling the truth in a way.. the light bulbs were needed why he purchased them. But it also was done without having to say anything about the False statements that were used to get the SW. jmho

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 3h3 hours ago
#RossHarris - Murphy testifies the master bathroom in Harris' home needed light bulbs (vanity/bathroom fixture bulbs) #hotcardeath

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 3h3 hours ago
#RossHarris - The light bulbs Harris bought that day were for a "Bathroom fixture", I'm assuming vanity bulbs.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 3h3 hours ago
#RossHarris - Det. Murphy went to Harris's home and found a need for the light bulbs Harris had purchased that day.
 
Zoobiegirl said:
I have been wondering so maybe you know? Everything he said BEFORE they read him his rights.......is that admissible? Did someone read him his rights when he was handcuffed? If so I missed that.
Click to expand...


I don't believe Piper read him his rights while he was being detained. That whole process was ...curious.

As Staley has written, Harris COULD have been charged with the misdeamor offense of obstructing an officer of the law. But he wasn't. No charges, and legally and technically , he wasn't under suspicion (lol). He was just cuffed and detained in the back seat of a police cruiser.

Then comes Staley's reasoning for why the seizure of his phone at the scene wasn't illegal. After all, he hadn't been charged with anything at the scene . How could LE legally take his phone?

Because, said Staley, Piper COULD have charged him with obstruction, and if she had, she would have had the right to seize his phone , because the phone was the "instrumentality" of the arrest that didn't happen, as well as the reason why he was detained.

Then, there came the Stoddard related contamination, which was, it was legal to seize the phone because RH was talking on it (lie) to someone who might have been involved (lie), so it was reasonable to seize the phone out of an abundance of caution.

And yes, Piper's video of RH (she put him in car, then turned the camera to record him)was played in court, and I think 3 LE testified as to what was said and done before ,during, and after being cuffed and put in Piper's car (as she buttdialed HD/Little Aprons).
 
JerseyGirl said:
Jesse Evans rises to argue against the defense request that the judge reconsider her ruling on Murphy's testimony.

The jury comes back into the courtroom for brief re-cross by Evans. Lumpkin does an even briefer re-direct, and the witness is excused.

There is a brief conference at the bench. "We have accomplished what is available to be accomplished for today," Staley Clark says. "It is Friday after all."

She dismisses the jury and hears additional arguments about the motion to exclude testimony by Det. Shawn Murphy.

Lumpkin asks the judge to declare a mistrial, saying the prosecution has sought to shift the burden of proof from the state to the defense.

Prosecutor Evans strongly denies that the state understands which side has the burden of proof and hasn't engaged in "burden-shifting."

Staley Clark, apparently without ruling on the motion for a mistrial, declares the court in recess.

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/minute-minute-the-justin-ross-harris-trial-oct/hxhLRIbpQMr4wj0AW6dk5N/
Click to expand...

JerseyGirl,
Thanks for keeping us up on the case this week.
Very much appreciated!
 
DexterMorgan said:
Imo. Most Felony murder charges have a higher standard.

Like if someone dies while you are robbing a bank or kidnapping or home robbery or malicious intent for your gain.

But imo. Sexting whomever while supposedly forgetting about your child is not a felony murder. Jmo
Click to expand...

Those are the typical cases. Yes. But felony murder is not limited to those scenarios. Now I can't say if sexting underage persons or obsessively sexting while driving around and caring for a kid who is strapped in your car, to the point you forget his existence in 40 seconds, is criminal negligence. The jury will have to decide. (Btw, I think the facts point to intent but the evidence isn't as strong probably as it needs to be to proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Cars and texting in general come up in criminal negligence homicide cases. Usually involving a car wreck though. The question is whether his conduct, which occurred while he had his vulnerable toddler in his care, in his car, totally dependent and strapped tightly down, rises to the level of the following:


(b) Criminal negligence is an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby.


I don't think they overcharged this guy.

And remember, involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included of felony murder in Georgia. So if they don't find felony murder, they can find involuntary manslaughter.
 
thinking out loud.. be back later.

So they got RH password for his phone from him. After Miranda but before he invoked.
SW gotten after looked in phone, but the SW had false information used, wanted to look to see if iPhone 5 was used to search for for hot car deaths and temp animals or children deaths (paraphrasing)
While in the phone prior to getting SW, they see the texts and so forth for the day... see the pics that RH has sent and the times.
That is not what the SW of the phone were for. And they would have known about those text messages prior to getting. I have to look back but was the KiK app hidden too or just the Whisper? I need to refresh what texts were sent that day that could have been seen by LEO.

Also on the recording in the interview room. Murphy said anyone could have typed in the code and started recording in the interview room. Why was the previous interviews, with RH then RH & LH recorded but not the last one with Stoddard going in and telling RH what his charges were (the last one with murder and the cruelty) That is odd to me. Especially since they had recorded the other earlier and deemed them suspicious. Then Raisse record on the sly? Why would they not record that one knowing he had gave them "the reasons" they had stated prior to get the SW? Was it because he had involked earlier? If that was reason then wouldn't the video Raisse took be wrong? I don't get that one not being recorded just as a cya if nothing else. :waitasec: Be back later.
 
gitana1 said:
Those are the typical cases. Yes. But felony murder is not limited to those scenarios. Now I can't say if sexting underage persons or obsessively sexting while driving around and caring for a kid who is strapped in your car, to the point you forget his existence in 40 seconds, is criminal negligence. The jury will have to decide. (Btw, I think the facts point to intent but the evidence isn't as strong probably as it needs to be to proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Cars and texting in general come up in criminal negligence homicide cases. Usually involving a car wreck though. The question is whether his conduct, which occurred while he had his vulnerable toddler in his care, in his car, totally dependent and strapped tightly down, rises to the level of the following:


(b) Criminal negligence is an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby.


I don't think they overcharged this guy.

And remember, involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included of felony murder in Georgia. So if they don't find felony murder, they can find involuntary manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Involuntary manslaughter in Georgia is not a lesser included. This is why they're charging him with felony murder - there's no other homicide offense that even conceivably fits the circumstances of this case.
 
DexterMorgan said:
Agree. Nothing is guaranteed. But his defense does have some claims to why an appeal should be granted if their client is found guilty.
Click to expand...

Yes. That doesn't really matter. Appeals are super hard to win even when you have solid claims.

Hope4More said:
The DT impeached the bejeebers out of Stoddard on direct, on individual pieces of evidence, and certainly called into question his credibility and "confirmation bias."

I know this relates to probable cause, already litigated, etc. But, as an example of how Staley's rulings on hearsay are restricting the DT's ability to show how pervasive that bias was, and it's source.

The DT couldn't cross Stoddard on what was written in SW affadsvits, because he didn't write them himself. Hearsay.

But Murphy won't be allowed to be examined on what was in the search warrants because though he wrote them, he didn't receive the info in them firsthand. Stoddard interrogated RH, Murphy didn't. Hearsay, no exceptions .
Click to expand...

If the search warrants weren't presented then the ruling is correct. They can only go by what the state presents to the jury. They won't be able to make wild claims of a quickly cobbled together conspiracy to frame ross harris with lies. If Stoddard lied on the stand and was impeached with his own statements or conduct than that's fair and will allow the jury to determine his credibility.

DexterMorgan said:
But. You are only right if the cruelty to the child was proven intentional.

So if it was actually an accident; Then that is wrong. Jmo
Click to expand...

That's not what the code says though:

(c) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the second degree when such person with criminal negligence causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain. http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-5/16-5-70
 
Zoobiegirl said:
I have been wondering so maybe you know? Everything he said BEFORE they read him his rights.......is that admissible? Did someone read him his rights when he was handcuffed? If so I missed that.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge they didn't. Why? because he wasn't being arrested..but only knew this guy pacing around with phone at ear identified as father of child on ground found dead in his car. He was combative and uncooperative, so removed him from the scene. It's also my understanding they didn't actually interrogate him either. Ross may have asked questions and they may have answered..but whatever was said would still be considered "Excited Utterance" statements.

Then once at the station...the initial discourse, then right to the advising about the waiver to wanting an attorney ..and they knew ( since Ross advised them of his experience as dispatching in Police Department in another State. Ross signed it with no coercion whatsoever..Ross knew exactly what he was signing and why! Ross gambled he could explain it all away..and his answers, as well as his presentation to the detectives in the room ended up getting him charged with Cruelty to a child causing death. His actions or lack there of caused his death.

The warrants may have contained mis-informations..but then again Ross did give some rather misleading information too. Detectives can't read minds ..so have to take his words given initially and their interpretation of what he presented in answer to their questions. Hearings pre-trial dealt with all the SW that Def. complained about and the information obtained.

It's also in my recollection, that the probable cause info they use is to the best of their knowledge whatever information they were given by Ross, or any other's for that matter. No illegal..but Judge decided just what informations obtained thru these SW's CAN or CANNOT come in. It's not like the error's brought out actually allowed any fabrication of evidence, planting of evidence to get presented to the jury.

Sorry, got a bit wordy here, :facepalm: but, I've spent the last 2days just reading here..and many do type their beliefs . I just don't necessarily buy into everything I have read. Implicit biases are however apparent...based on their viewpoint. That's the extent I'll do on critiquing ..

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend :happydance:
 
gitana1 said:
Yes. That doesn't really matter. Appeals are super hard to win even when you have solid claims.



If the search warrants weren't presented then the ruling is correct. They can only go by what the state presents to the jury. They won't be able to make wild claims of a quickly cobbled together conspiracy to frame ross harris with lies. If Stoddard lied on the stand and was impeached with his own statements or conduct than that's fair and will allow the jury to determine his credibility.



That's not what the code says though:

(c) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the second degree when such person with criminal negligence causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain. http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-5/16-5-70
Click to expand...


" Wild claims of a quickly cobbled together conspiracy?" Have you been watching the same trial? :D
 
DexterMorgan said:
Agree. Nothing is guaranteed. But his defense does have some claims to why an appeal should be granted if their client is found guilty.
Click to expand...

Hope4More said:
The DT impeached the bejeebers out of Stoddard on direct, on individual pieces of evidence, and certainly called into question his credibility and "confirmation bias."

I know this relates to probable cause, already litigated, etc. But, as an example of how Staley's rulings on hearsay are restricting the DT's ability to show how pervasive that bias was, and it's source.

The DT couldn't cross Stoddard on what was written in SW affadsvits, because he didn't write them himself. Hearsay.

But Murphy won't be allowed to be examined on what was in the search warrants because though he wrote them, he didn't receive the info in them firsthand. Stoddard interrogated RH, Murphy didn't. Hearsay, no exceptions .
Click to expand...

LyndyLoo said:
To my knowledge they didn't. Why? because he wasn't being arrested..but only knew this guy pacing around with phone at ear identified as father of child on ground found dead in his car. He was combative and uncooperative, so removed him from the scene. It's also my understanding they didn't actually interrogate him either. Ross may have asked questions and they may have answered..but whatever was said would still be considered "Excited Utterance" statements.

Then once at the station...the initial discourse, then right to the advising about the waiver to wanting an attorney ..and they knew ( since Ross advised them of his experience as dispatching in Police Department in another State. Ross signed it with no coercion whatsoever..Ross knew exactly what he was signing and why! Ross gambled he could explain it all away..and his answers, as well as his presentation to the detectives in the room ended up getting him charged with Cruelty to a child causing death. His actions or lack there of caused his death.

The warrants may have contained mis-informations..but then again Ross did give some rather misleading information too. Detectives can't read minds ..so have to take his words given initially and their interpretation of what he presented in answer to their questions. Hearings pre-trial dealt with all the SW that Def. complained about and the information obtained.

It's also in my recollection, that the probable cause info they use is to the best of their knowledge whatever information they were given by Ross, or any other's for that matter. No illegal..but Judge decided just what informations obtained thru these SW's CAN or CANNOT come in. It's not like the error's brought out actually allowed any fabrication of evidence, planting of evidence to get presented to the jury.

Sorry, got a bit wordy here, :facepalm: but, I've spent the last 2days just reading here..and many do type their believes . I just don't necessarily buy into everything I have read. Implicit biases are however apparent...based on their viewpoint. That's the extent I'll do on critiquing ..

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend :happydance:
Click to expand...

Excited utterances are hearsay exceptions but his statements aren't hearsay because they're considered admissions by a party to the case.

You don't need to read a person their rights when you roll up to scene usually. And are just trying to find out what happened. Even if a person is detained and interrogated rights don't always have to be read for the statements to come in. Remember casey anthony?
 
One moral of the story, imo, is to never say "f_ck you" to a police officer. ;)
 
gitana1 said:
Yes. That doesn't really matter. Appeals are super hard to win even when you have solid claims.



If the search warrants weren't presented then the ruling is correct. They can only go by what the state presents to the jury. They won't be able to make wild claims of a quickly cobbled together conspiracy to frame ross harris with lies. If Stoddard lied on the stand and was impeached with his own statements or conduct than that's fair and will allow the jury to determine his credibility.



That's not what the code says though:

(c) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the second degree when such person with criminal negligence causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain. http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-5/16-5-70
Click to expand...

"With criminal negligence" being the sticky part of that statute as far as proof goes and as the predicate for felony murder.

Is a child dying of hyperthermia in a car a proximate cause of texting? Is that a foreseeable risk of death that most reasonable people would take measures to prevent? Is texting an inherently dangerous activity by its nature or by the circumstances of the texting that morning?

Personally, I don't think there's a case for criminal negligence here ---> felony murder; especially when the Ga. Supreme Court has ruled that a felon possessing a firearm is not an inherently dangerous felony when that person accidentally shoots and kills someone - and couldn't be the predicate felony for a felony murder charge.

But as I said before, we'll have to see how the jury is charged - and you never know with a jury.
 
Hope4More said:
" Wild claims of a quickly cobbled together conspiracy?" Have you been watching the same trial? :D
Click to expand...

I actually haven't watched much at all. I've been tracking via tweets and the news. I assume if there was solid evidence that members of LE quickly got together around a table on the day Cooper died and said, we need to frame this SOB, let's fabricate evidence real quick so we can get search warrants." That would be explosive news.
 
There was really no Miranda violation in this case IMO. There was nothing to suppress based on the info on its face.

I do think it's possible/probable that the police accessed Ross' phone before they had a warrant, but they aren't admitting to it and it can't really be proved.
 
minor4th said:
"With criminal negligence" being the sticky part of that statute as far as proof goes and as the predicate for felony murder.

Is a child dying of hyperthermia in a car a proximate cause of texting? Is that a foreseeable risk of death that most reasonable people would take measures to prevent? Is texting an inherently dangerous activity by its nature or by the circumstances of the texting that morning?

Personally, I don't think there's a case for criminal negligence here ---> felony murder; especially when the Ga. Supreme Court has ruled that a felon possessing a firearm is not an inherently dangerous felony when that person accidentally shoots and kills someone - and couldn't be the predicate felony for a felony murder charge.

But as I said before, we'll have to see how the jury is charged - and you never know with a jury.
Click to expand...

Huh? A felon can possess a gun and accidentally kill someone and that's not considered felony murder in GA?
 
Hope4More said:
Huh? A felon can possess a gun and accidentally kill someone and that's not considered felony murder in GA?
Click to expand...

Correct. It actually depends on the circumstances of each case, but if the felon in possession of a firearm accidentally shoots someone in the apartment below while his is cleaning his firearm - then no. Also, if a felon accidentally shoots someone while hunting, then no.
 
minor4th said:
Correct. It actually depends on the circumstances of each case, but if the felon in possession of a firearm accidentally shoots someone in the apartment below while his is cleaning his firearm - then no. Also, if a felon accidentally shoots someone while hunting, then no.
Click to expand...

Oh my ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 225 more.
Total: 2,601 (members: 226, guests: 2,375)

Online statistics

Members online
226
Guests online
2,375
Total visitors
2,601
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,695
Messages
18,098,187
Members
230,901
Latest member
IamNobody
Back
Top