Search results

Their TV and media appearances suggested extreme confidence in the case. That might have been a front. Who knows.

It was, but the advice of counsel weighs very heavily in any serious criminal trial. I don't want to get into a detailed legal analysis at this time on this thread. TM's story left too many holes in the scenario that only she could have filled. It's too little too late. With the evidence...

I'm sure she did not testify on advice of her counsel. See my earlier post, I think it was a big mistake for her not to. Oh well.

There is no parole in North Carolina. A person has to serve the minimum sentence, so it will be at least 20 years.

This letter is heartbreaking

Not a,surprising verdict really. The defense did not do a good job IMO. They offered nothing to explain the paving stone and nothing to explain SM chilling in the basement while a brutal murder happened right above her. MM's failure to testify was a very major mistake in a self-defense case...

Sentencing will likely take place the same day as the verdict. That is the general practice in NC state courts.

I found it interesting because its opposite of normal prosecutor behavior. Normally its overcharge and secure a lesser conviction.

A question I have had throughout this trial is why the prosecutor charged second degree murder. All of their evidence and their closing arguments suggested that their theory of the case was that this an intentional, pre-meditated murder. It doesn't make sense to me why firsr degree wasn't...

If this were a drug case or anything besides self defense I would say her not testifying doesn't carry as much weight. It has been my experience that juries in self-defense cases want to hear from thr defendant to understand why they did what they did. Molly had a role in this by, at a minimum...

I'm going with guilty...of something. Maybe its manslaughter as a lesser included or maybe its 2nd degree. There's too much unexplained, the brick paver is still a mystery. Molly did not testify. Of course that isn't required but in a case like this it's important. The jury has to wonder...

I'm interested to hear about TM's demeanor during testimony. From the articles, his quotes sound a bit rehearsed, but I was not there. The jury I think is still left with questions about the paving stone. Forensics show several blows with the stone but TM offered nothing to explain its use...

I don't think its favorable because to me its clear there were two assailants and the jury probably wants to hear from both. OTOH from what we think we know of her, it would be a big risk to put her up.

The defense is taking a risk IMO by trying to even have Fitzpatrick's alleged statements admitted. If they happen to be admitted that opens the door for the prosecution to bring in a parade of character witnesses to testify to JC's "peacefulness." This in turn could trigger an emotional...

If they are allowed in then all will probably come in for reasons of completeness.

In a self defense case the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. However, I agree that at this stage they have definitely presented enough to show the jury that possibly self defense is not what was going on here.

IMO Fitzpatrick comments will be kept out due to being too unreliable and children's statements allowed in.

Motions to dismiss are rarely granted at this stage of a case. The standard is whether the prosecution, in the light most favorable to them, has offered evidence to prove each element of the offense. It is unusual for a judge to dismiss a criminal case and not allow it to go to a jury.

The forensic showed a violent killing. The question is whether such was justified, that's what the defense contends. The jury wants to hear WHY it would be justified. The only ones that could answer that are TM and MM and I still think it's very unlikely that MM gets anywhere near a witness...

I've said it before but will say it again. The result in this case is probably coming down to TM's testimony. The jury is always going to want an explanation from the other side in a self defense case.