Verdict=**Guilty** & poll

[saba]

Interesting information and you summarized it well. Re-reading it was more interesting than the prosecution closing and rebuttal. Retrospect is always better. Part of my problem following the trial was the personalities and styles of the attorneys. I didn't think Angela was that great of a prosecutor but equally or more annoying to me was Anne's "what's the use" kind of style. I still say it is an attorney's job to give any defendant the best possible representation and whether or not she had a good case or not, she did NOT represent Smith with any conviction. That said, jury took the evidence in hand, which I still think was in many ways tricky (considering everything involved) and rendered a just verdict. I'm interested in what anybody has to say about the penalty phase, what you think the Judge may decide, based on everything that has happened so far.

I have to add that I worked for more than one defense attorney. The one I referenced earlier was pretty brilliant and has been a judge himself for many years now. So I had a very unique and interesting opportunity to read legal documents, research, briefs, motions, arguments and etc., which probably accounts for my continued interest to this day.

bbm

Amen.

 

[artsy1]

snip (copied over from my own post for explanation):

"However, IF the prosecution is able to add more info about Tammi's past (her criminal convictions, her still-owing child support in LA for her OWN children, the unpaid fine and cease and desist from the state of TN for running a colonics business without a license, the $56,000+ owing to the IRS for not paying income taxes for years, etc), I could see the judge throwing the book at her, IMHO."


I wanted to explain that the reason I believe the other issues in Tammi's past are relevant to her sentencing is that, IMHO, it shows Tammi's continued defiance of the law and the court process in general.

Her criminal convictions - she broke the law.

Her child support in LA - since it's the state trying to collect, then there must have been a court order for Tammi to pay, which she disobeyed since it's still out there.

Her unpaid fine and cease & desist from the state of TN - she clearly had no intention of following the laws of the state of TN as far as being medically licensed to perform colonics. (And IMHO, it's a thumbing of the nose that they intended to open Music City Colonics last year - still without a medical license to perform colonics, and still with an outstanding fine hanging over her head. I believe that's why Jack's name was put on it and not Tammi's.)

The IRS lien - it's the law to pay income taxes. Again, she chose not to pay them, I'm sure either because the money was spent on things that made them appear to be very well-to-do, or because she simply resisted paying them. I really have to wonder about the intention since Jack lost the house in Nashville when it was sold at an unpaid property tax auction for only $28,000!

It all just goes to show the pattern that started many years ago of her disregard for the law, that continued to the present. And if what she did in Gabriel Johnson's case was her just trying to do "the Christian thing", then how do all the past breaking of laws fit in to being a Christian??? No, I think that's just her excuse this time. What's her excuse for all the other things?

 

[ChickenPants]

As far as the penalty phase goes, I think much of it will depend on how much information can be brought up by the prosecution.

We had testimony at trial about how H's adoption went down - about the dad landing in jail, etc. Having heard Tammi herself tell LE about how she planned on getting Gabriel away from Logan might make the judge wonder if that was how they got H away from her father.

We had testimony about how S's adoption isn't final, and that a home study has not been done yet, nor a guardianship paper signed. If I were the judge, after hearing that they had S in their care basically since she was born and is now almost 2, yet still don't have a guardianship paper or the home study, I would wonder if there was more about the Smith family that didn't come out at trial that have to do with those 2 steps not having been done yet.

The fact that the majority of Tammi's testimony on the stand contradicts a great deal of what she had told LE over and over (again, the audio tapes), should make the judge wonder why her story has changed - all the way back to now there is a woman at the airport with EJ, when all along it's been EJ all alone crying with a baby. Tammi can say it was the "body talk" all she wants - but that should only contribute more to the original story than changing the facts all together.

And the exaggerations! Why, the very night that the search warrant was served, was Tammi talking calmly on the phone to Det. Ramirez, and Jack falling asleep, when the way she said it 2 years later on the stand, they were all being terrorized by the SWAT team with the helicopters buzzing overhead? And since the helicopters were media, who do you think called them? Does anyone really think that LE called the media to tell them they were serving a search warrant, or that Tammi called to have new information to share on Nancy Grace?

Add in the testimony that Tammi had lost custody of her biological children when they were young (because of her husband's attorney taking a case of Jim Beam in to the judge?!?!?!), yet appeared "obsessed" at getting new children? And why did she state that 2 children was "the perfect family" and that's why she wanted a sibling for H? How do you think that would have made her THREE biological children feel hearing that?

And if the prosecution brings in SOG after all that, where now she wants to have 50 single women with their children under her control, I think the judge will need help picking his jaw up off the floor.

As far as the forgery conviction, I don't think she'll get probation because "I didn't understand what my attorney meant by putting a ficticious person on the form". Well, dear, then you ASK what it means! You don't start adding real people to the form. "Ignorance is no excuse for the law." But besides that, we have Tammi's own words to LE (again, the tapes) stating that she wanted to add several men's names as possible fathers for Gabriel to slow down the process of establishing paternity. That admission to LE, IMHO, brings that charge out of the probation possibility into jail time.

Having said that, I expect there will also be jail time for the CTCCI conviction as well. Just based on what I've laid out here, I expect it will be somewhere around mid-range jail time.

However, IF the prosecution is able to add more info about Tammi's past (her criminal convictions, her still-owing child support in LA for her OWN children, the unpaid fine and cease and desist from the state of TN for running a colonics business without a license, the $56,000+ owing to the IRS for not paying income taxes for years, etc), I could see the judge throwing the book at her, IMHO.

All great points, and they all point to my question and perhaps you can answer it. I wonder how much of it the judge will be able to use (past convictions, losing her children, etc.) since it was not allowed at the trial.

Let's assume it is NOT allowed in. The Judge then would take the evidence as jury heard it (not including anything stricken from the record) and rule based on that evidence PLUS - and here's what I think is interesting - his own personal opinion about whether she will be a problem for the State of Arizona if she's not incarcerated.

Will the penalty reflect restitution or compensation for the victim only? Here's where the Stones of Grace issue comes in. If the Judge thinks: She's been convicted, she is showing no remorse, and she's still involved in activities that show the propensity to "interfere" in the lives of mothers and babies, maybe he will decide that she should have some jail time. As I understand it judges are supposed to give "the minimum" according to the legal guidelines. But we all know this doesn't always happen. Such as cases where a judge will say something like "I'm giving you 20 years in jail but I'd lock you up and throw away the key if I had a chance, I never want to see your face again..." kind of thing, lol, kwim?

He doesn't strike me as that kind, but these days you never know, lol.

 

[ChickenPants]

I have no idea if I just made any sense, lol.

 

[artsy1]

I have no idea if I just made any sense, lol.

LOL It made sense.

I don't know how much will be able to come in at the penalty phase. If I understand correctly, I believe that the prosecution is given more latitude in what is presented during penalty than during the trial itself. (But I think I've watched too many Law & Orders, and seen Jack McCoy bring stuff up during penalty that wasn't allowed in at trial to think that. LOL)

But the other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that there IS proof out there that Tammi perjured herself on the stand more than once. I think the really interesting question will be, does the prosecution plan on pursuing new charges, OR can they bring up the possibilities during the sentencing as evidence that she STILL hasn't learned her lesson about obeying the law? :waitasec:

 

[artsy1]

And, Chicken Pants, I just wanted to thank you for allowing us all to have an intelligent conversation from various points of view. It's very encouraging to have a reasonable debate without bring God and Satan as reasons or excuses into play!

Thank you.

 

[ChickenPants]

LOL It made sense.

I don't know how much will be able to come in at the penalty phase. If I understand correctly, I believe that the prosecution is given more latitude in what is presented during penalty than during the trial itself. (But I think I've watched too many Law & Orders, and seen Jack McCoy bring stuff up during penalty that wasn't allowed in at trial to think that. LOL)

But the other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that there IS proof out there that Tammi perjured herself on the stand more than once. I think the really interesting question will be, does the prosecution plan on pursuing new charges, OR can they bring up the possibilities during the sentencing as evidence that she STILL hasn't learned her lesson about obeying the law? :waitasec:

Yes, it's the big IFFFFFF (will prosecutors be able to bring past offenses)...my instinct would be "no", because the judge is supposed to rule on the verdict, which specifically relates to THESE CHARGES. If prosecution is allowed more latitude - e.g., CURRENT evidence.....they could show that she is still involved in activities related to mothers, children, adoption and etc., the judge may decide the only way to halt those activities is to give her some jail time. But he has to weigh that against the impact jail would have on her husband and children.

Now I think is the time that any character witnesses can be brought in, as well. Keeping in mind the time frame of the crimes, up to sentencing, what, if any, witnesses do you think prosecution might bring on for aggravating argument?

You probably remember better than I....did Angela bring up Tammi perjuring herself during her closing argument? In re your question, #2 seems more likely.

Again I am not sure if I am making sense, I'm a fish out of water in this phase of the trial.

 

[ChickenPants]

And, Chicken Pants, I just wanted to thank you for allowing us all to have an intelligent conversation from various points of view. It's very encouraging to have a reasonable debate without bring God and Satan as reasons or excuses into play!

Thank you.

There is a God, but I'm not Him.

 

[artsy1]

Yes, it's the big IFFFFFF (will prosecutors be able to bring past offenses)...my instinct would be "no", because the judge is supposed to rule on the verdict, which specifically relates to THESE CHARGES. If prosecution is allowed more latitude - e.g., CURRENT evidence.....they could show that she is still involved in activities related to mothers, children, adoption and etc., the judge may decide the only way to halt those activities is to give her some jail time. But he has to weigh that against the impact jail would have on her husband and children.

Now I think is the time that any character witnesses can be brought in, as well. Keeping in mind the time frame of the crimes, up to sentencing, what, if any, witnesses do you think prosecution might bring on for aggravating argument?

You probably remember better than I....did Angela bring up Tammi perjuring herself during her closing argument? In re your question, #2 seems more likely.

Again I am not sure if I am making sense, I'm a fish out of water in this phase of the trial.

I don't think the judge will weigh his decision at all on how jail time would affect Tammi's family. It is her crimes he will be deciding on. If every judge weighed the impact on the family in deciding sentences, there would be no more death penalty in this county, IMHO.

Ms. Andrews didn't bring up the word "perjury" during closing argument - but did call Tammi a liar. Same difference - one is just a better legal term than the other. She also may not have known at the time of closing arguments some of the things that that Tammi perjured herself on.

For example, I know that someone on the internet claims they called I-ACT directly and found out that Tammi is not certified. If you look at the Healing Waters website, under hydrotherapy certification, Tammi invites the world to click on the I-ACT link and see that she is on their website as a recommended licensed colon hydrotherapist. However, if you go to the I-ACT website, you will find that she is NOT listed there. I don't think Ms. Andrews even knew about that at the time of closing arguments.

As far as prosecution character witnesses, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tammi's oldest biological daughter and H's biological father were both brought in as witnesses against Tammi.

It will be quite interesting to see what Andrews has up her sleeve!

 

[artsy1]

And, again IMHO, if Tammi had cared about how her actions (and now possible jail time) would affect her family, she could have avoided all of this by:

1) Backing off when she told Ken Schutt, her attorney, that the father was contesting the adoption, and he told her to leave it alone (his testimony).

2) Backing off when EJ's CPS worker told Tammi to butt out of the custody dispute, instead of taking EJ to the courthouse/law library a few hours later and filled out EJ's form.

3) Calling LE herself to tell them that EJ had run to San Antonio, once she talked to Logan and found out that he and EJ had JOINT legal custody of Gabriel.

4) Doing some investigating of EJ and her mental/legal problems, instead of focusing in on trying to prove Logan was evil.

5) Telling LE when they were in her house that she was texting right then with EJ, so that LE could have spoken to her.

6) Not putting EJ in touch with Janet Morris, who apparently was the one who told EJ that she could be charged with kidnapping if EJ didn't return to AZ with Gabriel.

7) Not trying to play that silly game about "phoney" adoption papers, when she didn't tell Logan it was a trick, and Schutt testified that he didn't tell Tammi to do that nor did he know about it.

8) Not trying to put EJ up in their house in TN "just so we'd know where she was". Tammi could have tried to set up a face-to-face meeting with EJ in SA, or even asked her where she was and told LE so they could go and get her. (And I'd still like to know what the point was in Tammi telling EJ to keep all her hotel receipts!)

9) Being moral support for EJ if she really cared, instead of claiming EJ had no one. EJ has a twin brother, grandparents on both sides of the family, at least one aunt and one uncle, etc.

10) Not telling EJ that Logan had issued an Amber alert and was charging her with kidnapping. Logan wasn't threatening EJ - he wasn't even talking to her. It was Tammi who was giving EJ threats, which made EJ run further.

I could go on, but what's the point. What it all boils down to is that Tammi Smith had plenty of opportunity to stop and consider what consequences her actions might have on the family, but she did not. So for the judge to consider them now in his sentencing when Tammi never gave them a second thought, is really expecting too much, IMHO.



ETA: As far as the judge not using past offenses into play when determining her sentence, I'm not too sure that he can't. Look at "three strike offenders" - if prosecution couldn't bring up past offenses when determining a current sentence, then no one would ever be able to be charged as a third strike offender. JMHO.

 

[SAgal]

It wouldn't surprise me if the Prosecutors bring perjury charges against Tammi Smith.
Often, a Prosecutor isn't aware a defendant has committed perjury during testimony; until after the case has gone to the jury, or ended.
An example: George Zimmerman's wife - Shellie Zimmerman was recently arrested and charged with perjury for her earlier testimony saying the couple had limited funds for George Zitmmerman's bail; which was a lie.

IMO Tammi Smith lied under oath when she stated she only had/has l or 2 businesses operating. IMO, she also lied when she stated she's certified through I-ACT.
It would seem reasonable IMO, that the Smith's financial records would be investigated to determine if Tammi Smith actually qualified for a free legal defense team for this trial.
It will also be interesting to find out 1) IF the Smiths have received donations for Stones of Grace; and IF SO --the amounts; and where any donation funds are being held. 2) IF any Women have been recruited for this organization, Stones of Grace?

 

[ChickenPants]

I don't think the judge will weigh his decision at all on how jail time would affect Tammi's family. It is her crimes he will be deciding on. If every judge weighed the impact on the family in deciding sentences, there would be no more death penalty in this county, IMHO.

Ms. Andrews didn't bring up the word "perjury" during closing argument - but did call Tammi a liar. Same difference - one is just a better legal term than the other. She also may not have known at the time of closing arguments some of the things that that Tammi perjured herself on.

For example, I know that someone on the internet claims they called I-ACT directly and found out that Tammi is not certified. If you look at the Healing Waters website, under hydrotherapy certification, Tammi invites the world to click on the I-ACT link and see that she is on their website as a recommended licensed colon hydrotherapist. However, if you go to the I-ACT website, you will find that she is NOT listed there. I don't think Ms. Andrews even knew about that at the time of closing arguments.

As far as prosecution character witnesses, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tammi's oldest biological daughter and H's biological father were both brought in as witnesses against Tammi.

It will be quite interesting to see what Andrews has up her sleeve!

Five point reply, five point response...

1. He's deciding on the crimes and I agree with your death penalty point. But then again families are allowed to come in and give statements about how great of a parent/wife/sibling/ etc. etc. a defendant is and so why is that allowed if it doesn't have impact....is that just character statement or is it mitigation...

2. I think the difference between Angela calling Tammi a liar (indicating that she has a lying personality) is separate from committing deliberate perjury on the witness stand. In other words, perjury being defendant is asked a specific question and gives a specific lie as an answer. IIRC, Tammi would say "I don't remember that", and was asked did she say such and such to Deanna: "NO! I NEVER said that!!!" which is one witness word against the other. KNWIM? Probably if Tammi had intentionally perjured herself, Angela would have stated that at closing and referred to an actual transcript of the specific testimony?

3. I take your point about I-ACT but can't recall how this relates to the trial....I think she was asked if she was certified and she stated she had taken courses, don't remember. In any event, that doesn't directly relate to the charges....I'd choose something more tangible. Again, I think Angela would have pulled that out of the hat if she had something.

4. I guess that depends on our prior discussion, whether events and people prior to the crimes have any bearing on the penalty for the crimes....Judge may decide in that event that their relationship was too remote from this. I don't know.

5. You bet.

...not splitting hairs here, just talking, lol Always have a lot of quesitons.

 

[ChickenPants]

It wouldn't surprise me if the Prosecutors bring perjury charges against Tammi Smith.
Often, a Prosecutor isn't aware a defendant has committed perjury during testimony; until after the case has gone to the jury, or ended.
An example: George Zimmerman's wife - Shellie Zimmerman was recently arrested and charged with perjury for her earlier testimony saying the couple had limited funds for George Zitmmerman's bail; which was a lie.

IMO Tammi Smith lied under oath when she stated she only had/has l or 2 businesses operating. IMO, she also lied when she stated she's certified through I-ACT.
It would seem reasonable IMO, that the Smith's financial records would be investigated to determine if Tammi Smith actually qualified for a free legal defense team for this trial.
It will also be interesting to find out 1) IF the Smiths have received donations for Stones of Grace; and IF SO --the amounts; and where any donation funds are being held. 2) IF any Women have been recruited for this organization, Stones of Grace?

All good and valid points, I have to wonder why Angela didn't take note of those lies....bringing proof to the contrary. I don't know if the financial records and etc. would have been approved as discovery related to the specific charges of those specific crimes. Again, if they were helpful, I think prosecution would have tried to get them in. Even at this point I don't know IMO they would speak to the point: Is the defendant taking responsibility for her actions regarding Gabriel? Do any of her actions during the trial or at this point indicate she is inclined to change her behavior? Or does she intend, in spite of her conviction, to keep participating in activities related to adopting children or involving herself in the lives of prospective adoptive mothers?

In that area, I think information about Stones of Grace would be pertinent. That was why I asked why pros. had not brought it out at trial. Also, it's been alleged that Tammi (and who else we don't know) used the premises of Healing Waters to either recruit prospective mothers and/or undertake insemination procedures? I don't remember the specifics of that. If that is true, as a prosecutor I would definitely nail that because isn't one of their facilities still operating?

The bottom line is The State of Arizona brought charges against her for custodial interference and forgery...so since she has been convicted, every effort should logically be made to ensure that she can't "interfere" with mothers and their unborn or born babies, and that all business activities should be well-documented and above board. A rehabilitated defendant would ideally be honest, willing to abide by rules of probation, etc., and be totally transparent about her activities.

 

[ChickenPants]

Here's what I think (also, lol). Supposing Tammi Smith still believes she is NOT GUILTY of doing anything wrong (it was inspired by God, etc., she just wanted to save the baby, etc., etc.) If she REALLY believes that, she's going to have a hard time expressing regret or remorse.

But if you have been convicted of a crime, even if it is "unfair" in your mind, does it make sense that you would continue pursuing the same activities that got you into the mess in the first place?

 

[artsy1]

Here's what I think (also, lol). Supposing Tammi Smith still believes she is NOT GUILTY of doing anything wrong (it was inspired by God, etc., she just wanted to save the baby, etc., etc.) If she REALLY believes that, she's going to have a hard time expressing regret or remorse.

But if you have been convicted of a crime, even if it is "unfair" in your mind, does it make sense that you would continue pursuing the same activities that got you into the mess in the first place?

I think so.... :waitasec:

 

[ChickenPants]

I think so.... :waitasec:

I'm not sure about the Three Strikes law, but for some reason I think that pertains to an individual committing the same type of crime three times, i.e., not different crimes at different times and places?

 

[artsy1]

I'm not sure about the Three Strikes law, but for some reason I think that pertains to an individual committing the same type of crime three times, i.e., not different crimes at different times and places?

It's 3 felonies - not necessarily the same crime. I remember a number of years ago hearing about the case of a man who was convicted for life as a three strike offender - when one of the felonies was for stealing pizza! IIRC, one of the strikes was a drug charge, and I forget what the other one was.

So I don't think it has anything to do with the type of crime - just that they are felonies. Which means, that Tammi is already 2/3 of the way there just based on this case. Perjury is also a felony, so should the prosecutors decide to prosecute her and she is found guilty, then she would join the 3 strikes club.



ETA: Ok, so AZ 3 strikes law is narrowed down to the felonies either being of a violent nature or an aggravated crime. Since the CTCCI crime WAS an aggravated crime, that should make her 1/3 of the way there then, if I'm reading the law correctly.

 

[ChickenPants]

@ ARTSY: Wow! We'll have to wait and see what is coming down the pike.

 

[artsy1]

Five point reply, five point response...

1. He's deciding on the crimes and I agree with your death penalty point. But then again families are allowed to come in and give statements about how great of a parent/wife/sibling/ etc. etc. a defendant is and so why is that allowed if it doesn't have impact....is that just character statement or is it mitigation...
2. I think the difference between Angela calling Tammi a liar (indicating that she has a lying personality) is separate from committing deliberate perjury on the witness stand. In other words, perjury being defendant is asked a specific question and gives a specific lie as an answer. IIRC, Tammi would say "I don't remember that", and was asked did she say such and such to Deanna: "NO! I NEVER said that!!!" which is one witness word against the other. KNWIM? Probably if Tammi had intentionally perjured herself, Angela would have stated that at closing and referred to an actual transcript of the specific testimony?

3. I take your point about I-ACT but can't recall how this relates to the trial....I think she was asked if she was certified and she stated she had taken courses, don't remember. In any event, that doesn't directly relate to the charges....I'd choose something more tangible. Again, I think Angela would have pulled that out of the hat if she had something.

4. I guess that depends on our prior discussion, whether events and people prior to the crimes have any bearing on the penalty for the crimes....Judge may decide in that event that their relationship was too remote from this. I don't know.

5. You bet.

...not splitting hairs here, just talking, lol Always have a lot of quesitons.

BBM

The family statements are purely for character reference - not mitigating circumstances.

And I have to wonder how many "real people" are vouching for her - not FB friends who have never met her, don't know her personally, don't know her past or real character, etc... I don't think new FB friends would be taken seriously by the court, because it's hard to say what someone is really like based on "knowing" them online just 2 months. And other than DeeAnn, I don't believe I've ever heard her talk about any other "real" friends. JMHO

 

[ChickenPants]

BBM

The family statements are purely for character reference - not mitigating circumstances.

And I have to wonder how many "real people" are vouching for her - not FB friends who have never met her, don't know her personally, don't know her past or real character, etc... I don't think new FB friends would be taken seriously by the court, because it's hard to say what someone is really like based on "knowing" them online just 2 months. And other than DeeAnn, I don't believe I've ever heard her talk about any other "real" friends. JMHO

AGREE. Can't think of any enterprises where peers are going to volunteer character testimony that she has impacted their lives in any significant way that will outweigh the aggravation aspects of the case. It's interesting that the one person who testified for the prosecution was someone who Tammi had wanted to testify on HER behalf. I wondered why nobody else did, such as caseworkers from Hannah's adoption or other clients she had befriended, etc.