Verdict=**Guilty** & poll

[CarolinaMoon]

Prior bad acts are only brought into trials when the judge decides they are relevant to show a pattern of behavior similar to the crime that is being alleged.

(Side note: Phil Spector appealed his conviction, for among other things, that Judge Fidler allowed PBA's in at both trials. It was the testimony of women who had had him threaten them with guns. Fidler didn't allow other examples of Spector's gun-toting ways.)

Here, Tammi showed a propensity for getting over-involved in other people's children and her earlier attempts were allowed at trial to establish a pattern of behavior.

When it comes to sentencing, issues not allowed at trial come into play. There will kmost likely be a pre-sentencing report which will rank her for sentencing purposes.

(If you watched Steve Powell's sentencing yesterday, you will notice that his previous squeaky-clean record, level of education, and solid employment record helped get him just 30 months and 3 years community control. He would have faced more time is he had previous convictions on his record.)

In Tammi's case, her record will score against her. Likewise, her disdain for following the rules of society will come in as well. Her character will be on trial more here than in the actual trial.

That's what makes tomorrow's hearing so important. I don't claim to understand the fine points of the arguments that will take place, but the judge's decision will decide if she is eligible for straight probation or jail time.

 

[ChickenPants]

Prior bad acts are only brought into trials when the judge decides they are relevant to show a pattern of behavior similar to the crime that is being alleged.

(Side note: Phil Spector appealed his conviction, for among other things, that Judge Fidler allowed PBA's in at both trials. It was the testimony of women who had had him threaten them with guns. Fidler didn't allow other examples of Spector's gun-toting ways.)

Here, Tammi showed a propensity for getting over-involved in other people's children and her earlier attempts were allowed at trial to establish a pattern of behavior.

When it comes to sentencing, issues not allowed at trial come into play. There will kmost likely be a pre-sentencing report which will rank her for sentencing purposes.

(If you watched Steve Powell's sentencing yesterday, you will notice that his previous squeaky-clean record, level of education, and solid employment record helped get him just 30 months and 3 years community control. He would have faced more time is he had previous convictions on his record.)

In Tammi's case, her record will score against her. Likewise, her disdain for following the rules of society will come in as well. Her character will be on trial more here than in the actual trial.

That's what makes tomorrow's hearing so important. I don't claim to understand the fine points of the arguments that will take place, but the judge's decision will decide if she is eligible for straight probation or jail time.

Thanks. What is your opinion of what the judge will decide? Or, if you were the judge, how would you decide? What do you think is the appropriate sentencing? I'd like to know what everybody thinks and why.

 

[daisynae]

Thanks. What is your opinion of what the judge will decide? Or, if you were the judge, how would you decide? What do you think is the appropriate sentencing? I'd like to know what everybody thinks and why.

Hi, is it mandatory that Tammi will have to be in court on Monday
June 18th? Can she waive her right to be there?
I am enjoying reading all of the post yall really haVE SO MUCH INSIGHT. tHANKS SO MUCH

 

[artsy1]

Does anyone know where In Session got this info? I have trouble believing they would have posted that if they didn't have the proof in front of them.


snip

In Session McQueary took a paternity test. He is the father to missing Baby Gabriel.
April 18 at 11:38am


www.facebook.com/InSession/posts/425540667474559




ETA: And no, I still don't have Facebook - you can find this in Google cache....

 

[ChickenPants]

Hi, is it mandatory that Tammi will have to be in court on Monday
June 18th? Can she waive her right to be there?
I am enjoying reading all of the post yall really haVE SO MUCH INSIGHT. tHANKS SO MUCH

I don't think (don't know) she has to be there, but I doubt from what we've seen that wild horses could drag her away.

 

[Marigold]

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?

Here in Arizona, we have (or had) a set of laws since the 90s called "Hannah Priors" that allows someone to be considered a repeat offender "if the person is convicted of two felony offenses that were not committed on the same occasion but that either are consolidated for trial purposes or are not historical prior felony convictions."

I'm not sure how much of the original Hannah Priors laws are still valid, or how much has been struck by appeal. I wish I had time to decipher the law, but I have a ton of homework that's overdue. I would greatly appreciate anyone else wants to read this and clarify it for me:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00703.htm

I hope I'm making sense. I probably shouldn't post here while I'm working on my school stuff, but the Hannah Priors stuff has been in the back of my mind all day.

 

[ChickenPants]

Here in Arizona, we have (or had) a set of laws since the 90s called "Hannah Priors" that allows someone to be considered a repeat offender "if the person is convicted of two felony offenses that were not committed on the same occasion but that either are consolidated for trial purposes or are not historical prior felony convictions."

I'm not sure how much of the original Hannah Priors laws are still valid, or how much has been struck by appeal. I wish I had time to decipher the law, but I have a ton of homework that's overdue. I would greatly appreciate anyone else wants to read this and clarify it for me:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00703.htm

I hope I'm making sense. I probably shouldn't post here while I'm working on my school stuff, but the Hannah Priors stuff has been in the back of my mind all day.

One thing that has not been discussed is how much value Tammi may have as a potential witness at the EJ trial. Prosecution may want to go so far but leave wiggle room to work with her in regard to probation and a willingness to testify. It wouldn't be the first or last time deals were cut. Outrageous, but too true.

 

[artsy1]

One thing that has not been discussed is how much value Tammi may have as a potential witness at the EJ trial. Prosecution may want to go so far but leave wiggle room to work with her in regard to probation and a willingness to testify. It wouldn't be the first or last time deals were cut. Outrageous, but too true.

IMHO, I don't think they need Tammi for EJ's trial at all. The only charge they had in common was the conspiracy charge, and I believe the prosecution can just bring in the fact that EJ's co-conspirator was already found guilty. The rest of the charges don't involve Tammi, so I really don't think they need her.

 

[daisynae]

One thing that has not been discussed is how much value Tammi may have as a potential witness at the EJ trial. Prosecution may want to go so far but leave wiggle room to work with her in regard to probation and a willingness to testify. It wouldn't be the first or last time deals were cut. Outrageous, but too true.

They could use the tapes made that E.J & T.P.S. were on that they played at Tammi's trial.
It helped in convicting Tammi.

 

[ChickenPants]

IMHs, I don't think they need Tammi for EJ's trial at all. The only charge they had in common was the conspiracy charge, and I believe the prosecution can just bring in the fact that EJ's co-conspirator was already found guilty. The rest of the charges don't involve Tammi, so I really don't think they need her.

I was talking about this with somebody and it's interesting, because you see it on t.v. or in the movies how people in jail are offered deals such as reduction of their sentences for their testimony. That opens up a whole world of "what if".

The conspiracy charge - if that is what they are going to use - will have to be re-applied in full in Elizabeth's case. I would think it would be harder to effectively prosecute a case against Elizabeth if one of the key players in the timeline of the baby's life in the weeks prior to his disappearance isn't available. They'd have to rely on regurgitating prior testimony and as "Daisy Nae" says, those taped phone calls.

More focus is going to be on the baby in this case, and they are most likely going to revisit everything in detail relating to the baby this time. The fact that the baby was with Tammi for so long. The conversations with EJ and what she (Tammi) was up to during all of that time...in light of the motives and intentions of Elizabeth... things they couldn't delve into in Tammi's case because they weren't considered relevant to HER. I don't know if I'm making sense, it's complicated...

I wonder how much either side would have to gain or to lose by having her testify. Like the possibility that she'd get on the stand and "remember" or "forget" certain things (we know she'd try to embellish them) and eventually end up perjuring herself somehow. In a way that would be a double victory for the state if they wanted to prove a case against Elizabeth AND Tammi Smith. Although Tammi would have already have been convicted, it would just be a way of saying "told you so".

 

[ChickenPants]

They could use the tapes made that E.J & T.P.S. were on that they played at Tammi's trial.
It helped in convicting Tammi.

That's true, but it was Tammi's motives that were on trial in Tammi's case. This time, it's going to be Elizabeth's motives and activities AND her "state of mind". Especially since in Tammi's trial, references were made to Elizabeth being "unstable" (by Logan) and now in jail she's already been deemed incompetent at least once.

How much Tammi had to do with Elizabeth's so-called state of mind in the time leading up to the baby's disappearance right through her running off to Texas - the texts while she was on the run, the law enforcement activity, and etc. is going to be brought up again...only from a totally different perspective.

Tammi has been convicted for conspiracy, and that itself requires more than one participant. So the prosecution can go from there, and use Tammi's conviction to bolster their case about Elizabeth, but they can also put Tammi up there to try to show that it was more Elizabeth's idea than Tammi's....they would want Tammi to reinforce that. But then you'd have the problem of whether a jury would believe her. It seems like a gamble.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I'm going to have to watch the hearing tomorrow and hear the lawyers argue Hannah's law (ironic name, isn't it?) I'll read over the law if I have time today, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be arguments based on case law we can't get access to.

If Tammi is sentenced to jail time, I doubt it will be over-long. I would hope she gets a lengthly probation with lots of restrictions to tie her hands in terms of getting at mothers-to-be or distressed mothers. I would also like to see an extensive psych evaluation as well as alcohol/drug testing. YKWIM?

 

[ChickenPants]

I'm going to have to watch the hearing tomorrow and hear the lawyers argue Hannah's law (ironic name, isn't it?) I'll read over the law if I have time today, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be arguments based on case law we can't get access to.

If Tammi is sentenced to jail time, I doubt it will be over-long. I would hope she gets a lengthly probation with lots of restrictions to tie her hands in terms of getting at mothers-to-be or distressed mothers. I would also like to see an extensive psych evaluation as well as alcohol/drug testing. YKWIM?

IDK if In Session will air the hearing as defense is going forward now in Sandusky trial. So if you have access to it, can you post the link here on WS? Thanks.

Interesting...I have never heard of psych. evals ordered after a conviction as a component of sentencing or probation. Do you know of any cases where this was done? Neither psychiatric or substance abuse issues were brought out at the trial, so I am wondering if there would be a basis.

I'm thinking that probation probably won't even include extensive monitoring, how will they be able to track her activities? If she goes on contacting "distressed mothers" (good term, by the way)....the only way they could know would be tapping her phone or monitoring her social media activities, following her around, etc., I don't see the state having the manpower or funds to do this. It seems disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. One thing they could do would prohibit her from following through with things she has already started, such as Stones of Grace. But that's the proverbial tip of the iceberg when you consider all of the things that were brought out at the trial, not to mention the things that have been brought out on places like WS. There is definitely a marked trend of VERY BAD CHOICES. How do you deal with that?

IMO the only way she is going to be deterred from interfering further would be SOME jail time which includes SOME kind of regular counseling right there, to try to influence the thought processes that got her to this point.

 

[saba]

Does anyone know where In Session got this info? I have trouble believing they would have posted that if they didn't have the proof in front of them.


snip

In Session McQueary took a paternity test. He is the father to missing Baby Gabriel.
April 18 at 11:38am


www.facebook.com/InSession/posts/425540667474559




ETA: And no, I still don't have Facebook - you can find this in Google cache....

bbm

Artsy, thank you for taking the time to go and find this. I hope that the people who have attacked Logan McQueary by insinuating that he is not Gabe's dad can now move on to reality-based issues and discussions.

moo

 

[artsy1]

I was talking about this with somebody and it's interesting, because you see it on t.v. or in the movies how people in jail are offered deals such as reduction of their sentences for their testimony. That opens up a whole world of "what if".

The conspiracy charge - if that is what they are going to use - will have to be re-applied in full in Elizabeth's case. I would think it would be harder to effectively prosecute a case against Elizabeth if one of the key players in the timeline of the baby's life in the weeks prior to his disappearance isn't available. They'd have to rely on regurgitating prior testimony and as "Daisy Nae" says, those taped phone calls.

More focus is going to be on the baby in this case, and they are most likely going to revisit everything in detail relating to the baby this time. The fact that the baby was with Tammi for so long. The conversations with EJ and what she (Tammi) was up to during all of that time...in light of the motives and intentions of Elizabeth... things they couldn't delve into in Tammi's case because they weren't considered relevant to HER. I don't know if I'm making sense, it's complicated...

I wonder how much either side would have to gain or to lose by having her testify. Like the possibility that she'd get on the stand and "remember" or "forget" certain things (we know she'd try to embellish them) and eventually end up perjuring herself somehow. In a way that would be a double victory for the state if they wanted to prove a case against Elizabeth AND Tammi Smith. Although Tammi would have already have been convicted, it would just be a way of saying "told you so".

I suspect that the prosecution will work EJ's trial the way they did with Tammi's - just using audio tapes, instead of co-conspirators testifying against each other. Tammi is just such a loose cannon to get her on the stand for either side.

There was just SOOOO much evidence of Tammi's involvement and controlling the situation without even using the phone call recording between the two, but I think the only reason they used it was because it showed the two were in co-hoots. Tammi got herself convicted on all of her actions that had nothing to do with that phone call (see my earlier posts on the past few pages of this thread that spell them out).

IMHO, I think a lot of EJ's trial is going to center around what she says and does when she is angry (and they have plenty of in-jail behavior to back it up). My guess is that they will show that EJ makes rash decisions when she is angry and trying to "get back at someone", and then play Tammi's interviews with LE to show that Tammi manipulated EJ's situation to her benefit (to try and get Gabriel).

I think the biggest "tell" in all those taped interviews between Tammi and LE, for BOTH trials, is that fact that I don't recall one instance where Tammi tells LE "ELIZABETH asked me to look into changing jurisdictions" or "ELIZABETH wanted to drag out the paternity issue by adding more potential fathers to the court documents", etc. She NEVER mentioned EJ asking her to do any of the things that got Tammi convicted - in fact, Tammi almost sounds bragging of the things she did - trying to change jurisdictions, planning on stressing out Logan into giving up his rights, etc.

How can Tammi say that EJ manipulated her, when the proof is in Tammi's own voice - TAMMI is the one who orchestrated everything Tammi and Elizabeth did.

And I guess if you make an assumption based on all the other evidence (again, leaving the tape of the phone call between Tammi and EJ out of the equation), since Tammi was pulling the strings, then did she set up for EJ to go to TX, and did she arrange for someone to come and pick up Gabriel????

 

[CarolinaMoon]

IDK if In Session will air the hearing as defense is going forward now in Sandusky trial. So if you have access to it, can you post the link here on WS? Thanks.

Interesting...I have never heard of psych. evals ordered after a conviction as a component of sentencing or probation. Do you know of any cases where this was done? Neither psychiatric or substance abuse issues were brought out at the trial, so I am wondering if there would be a basis.

I'm thinking that probation probably won't even include extensive monitoring, how will they be able to track her activities? If she goes on contacting "distressed mothers" (good term, by the way)....the only way they could know would be tapping her phone or monitoring her social media activities, following her around, etc., I don't see the state having the manpower or funds to do this. It seems disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. One thing they could do would prohibit her from following through with things she has already started, such as Stones of Grace. But that's the proverbial tip of the iceberg when you consider all of the things that were brought out at the trial, not to mention the things that have been brought out on places like WS. There is definitely a marked trend of VERY BAD CHOICES. How do you deal with that?

IMO the only way she is going to be deterred from interfering further would be SOME jail time which includes SOME kind of regular counseling right there, to try to influence the thought processes that got her to this point.

For any period of probation, there can be any number of stipulations and hoops she can be made to jump through. I'm thinking that she may be limited in her use of a computer to pure business ads. It would be up to her probation officer to monitor this.

Also, if the court decides that her behavior may be due to a psychological or psychiatiric situation, they can order an evaluation. In the case of Steve Powell, who was just sentenced, he has to undergo a psycho-sexual evaluation based on the nature of his conviction as a term of his probation, which, in his case, is referred to as community control.

 

[artsy1]

Well, I don't know if the hearing will be on In Session, but I would suspect that it will be aired, gavel to gavel - just like the trial was, online at KPHO or AZ Family. Since it's Court TV, not In Session, that provides the cameras, they may do it for KPHO & AZ Family - especially knowing that there is continued interest in the case.

 

[ChickenPants]

For any period of probation, there can be any number of stipulations and hoops she can be made to jump through. I'm thinking that she may be limited in her use of a computer to pure business ads. It would be up to her probation officer to monitor this.

Also, if the court decides that her behavior may be due to a psychological or psychiatiric situation, they can order an evaluation. In the case of Steve Powell, who was just sentenced, he has to undergo a psycho-sexual evaluation based on the nature of his conviction as a term of his probation, which, in his case, is referred to as community control.

The computer issue makes sense, I wonder to what extent that's applied in most probations. Since people depend on the computer in so many ways. Let's hope for her sake that Stones of Grace wouldn't be one of her business ads, or that key words like "adoption", "surrogate", "changing jurisdicitons" etc., are going to be googled any more after her sentencing. But you never know.

What I'm saying about the psychological or psychiatric issues is that they were not brought out at trial - and in fact the judge prohibited that. Which is why defense is trying to steer toward a re-trial (or appeal) based on prosecution focusing on her "obsessed" character.

So if an issue is not raised at trial as a "situation" (or character) would a judge go ahead and order those evaluations anyway? And if he did, wouldn't that give defense more ammunition to appeal her conviction and sentencing? I don't know, just trying to apply some context.

I am not familiar with the Powell case, whether those issues were raised at or testified to at his trial.

 

[ChickenPants]

Well, I don't know if the hearing will be on In Session, but I would suspect that it will be aired, gavel to gavel - just like the trial was, online at KPHO or AZ Family. Since it's Court TV, not In Session, that provides the cameras, they may do it for KPHO & AZ Family - especially knowing that there is continued interest in the case.

I forgot the name of that station, so thanks for posting the info. IDK about you, but I find it very frustrating when one is invested in something to have it cut off at 3:00 anyway.

 

[ChickenPants]

I suspect that the prosecution will work EJ's trial the way they did with Tammi's - just using audio tapes, instead of co-conspirators testifying against each other. Tammi is just such a loose cannon to get her on the stand for either side.

There was just SOOOO much evidence of Tammi's involvement and controlling the situation without even using the phone call recording between the two, but I think the only reason they used it was because it showed the two were in co-hoots. Tammi got herself convicted on all of her actions that had nothing to do with that phone call (see my earlier posts on the past few pages of this thread that spell them out).

IMHO, I think a lot of EJ's trial is going to center around what she says and does when she is angry (and they have plenty of in-jail behavior to back it up). My guess is that they will show that EJ makes rash decisions when she is angry and trying to "get back at someone", and then play Tammi's interviews with LE to show that Tammi manipulated EJ's situation to her benefit (to try and get Gabriel).

I think the biggest "tell" in all those taped interviews between Tammi and LE, for BOTH trials, is that fact that I don't recall one instance where Tammi tells LE "ELIZABETH asked me to look into changing jurisdictions" or "ELIZABETH wanted to drag out the paternity issue by adding more potential fathers to the court documents", etc. She NEVER mentioned EJ asking her to do any of the things that got Tammi convicted - in fact, Tammi almost sounds bragging of the things she did - trying to change jurisdictions, planning on stressing out Logan into giving up his rights, etc.

How can Tammi say that EJ manipulated her, when the proof is in Tammi's own voice - TAMMI is the one who orchestrated everything Tammi and Elizabeth did.

And I guess if you make an assumption based on all the other evidence (again, leaving the tape of the phone call between Tammi and EJ out of the equation), since Tammi was pulling the strings, then did she set up for EJ to go to TX, and did she arrange for someone to come and pick up Gabriel????

Paragraph 4: All of that seems true based on the tapes and etc., but I still think they may want to have everyone testifying to their "state of mind" during the conversations, put it into the different context of Elizabeth's trial. The heresay rule won't apply because you aren't listening to what another person allegedly said. IIRC Tammi was not asked many questions about the tapes.

So if you have all of the "co-conspirators" on the stand, you get to ask pointed questions, cross-examine and etc. The jury will get a big picture out of the demeanor of the witnesses.

I recall at the trial "tone of voice" was a subject of debate. A lot of people got confused about Elizabeth, whether she was lying, and there was also the element that the detective had told her what to say. So it wasn't a real, true, spontaneous discussion, it was scripted. Tammi's outrage and her "bullying" tone were evident, Elizabeth had a flat, disinterested tone. Put it out there on the witness stand and see what flies.

Re your last paragraph: all of those questions are something they can ask Tammi...and then cross-examine her, and then bring up other witnesses to agree or refute what she says. OR refer back to her past testimonies in case she wanders away from the truth. LOTS of other witnesses in the EJ trial that may not have been in the Tammi trial.

There are lots of reasons they may or may not choose to do it. One thing for sure is they will want to win and not spend a fortune.