CA - Dr. Felix Polk, 70, stabbed to death, Orinda, 14 Oct 2002
- Thread starter mysteriew
- Start date
BillyGoatGruff
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,173
- Reaction score
- 8
It shouldn't be. She's been showing the jury she's not playing with a full deck of the cards from the git-go. They probably took the fact she's operating with extremely defective reality filtering system into account, one that would see an orange and interpret it as being an apple. With a knife and a grudge.Buzzm1 said:
railbird
New Member
Hbgchick said:
I think they gave her credit for being as nutty as a fruitcake.
Jules
Former Member
Anyone hear when sentencing is? I can't seem to find any info on that. :waitasec:
13th Juror
Inactive
Hbgchick said:
Yes - Susan will automatically get "2 for 1" for every day of time already served in jail shaved off her sentence.
After sentencing, presently scheduled for July 14th - whatever the Judge decides between 16 years & life - Susan will have to serve at least 85% of her sentence under CA law.
It will be up to the parole board to decide if she may be paroled after the 85% is served. In order to get the attention of the parole board .. Susan must apologize (show remorse), acknowledge the crime and get therapy while incarcerated. It could be a long time ....
13th Juror
Bobbisangel
New Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 11,071
- Reaction score
- 193
13th Juror said:
I don't see her ever admitting to doing anything wrong. I was shocked that it was second degree. I think that she was so silent because she was in shock. I believe that she really thought that she would walk right out of that one.
Oh she will have the appeals just flying. It will give her a way to spend her time. She will bring in the Pros....the Judge.....her Previous attornies... the whole Peanut Gallery and the Jury. Everyone will be at fault in her many appeals.
13th Juror
Inactive
mysteriew said:
I don't know if one can represent themselves in an appeal. I doubt it.
However, Susan has already requested an attorney for her appeal. She does not want a "Contra Costa County" attorney appointed (they are all against her, of course) - she wants a "State public defender" appointed and will be filing motions on that.
A status hearing is scheduled for July 6th - also that is when the motions are due to be filed. (Doubtful that the sentencing will take place on 14th as now scheduled.)
Valerie Harris, who will be helping Susan with the appeal, already has much of her appeal stuff in the works and paperwork filled out. Several attys are assisting Valerie with the motions filings.
Ivan Golde (that weirdo atty that was partnering with Dan Horowitz to represent Susan way back when) was a guest on Crier Live today. He still seems to think his defense of Polk could have/would have produced a different verdict. IMO - he's still really weird. Just not my kind of lawyer, I guess. I do think Dan Horowitz might have made a difference in the outcome.
Hey - isn't this the same Valerie Harris that was posting here on WS (and also had a blog) during the Peterson trial??
13th Juror
13th Juror
Inactive
Bobbisangel said:
I have to agree with you, BobbisAngel. I can't see Susan admitting her culpability or any wrongdoing in ultimately causing the death of her husband.
She is so controlling & manipulative that I feel confident she'll continue to put forth her "Felix had a heart attack after attacking me - it wasn't the 27 stab wounds I inflicted on him" defense spin.
IMO - If she ever does express remorse, verbally accept responsibility for the murder & get therapy - I think it would simply be a manipulative tactic for an earlier release - nothing more.
I also think the guards and other personnel at the prison will have their hands full with this challenging woman. I don't envy them one bit - and I pity whoever becomes her roomie!
I also thought Susan deserved a 1st degree conviction - but, I wasn't surprised at the 2nd degree verdict.
I was favorably impressed with this jury at their news conference. SO different from the idiots on Michael Jackson & O.J.'s trials.
I just hope that Judge Brady decides on more than the minimum of 15-16 years. In light of all the chaos Susan caused in the courtroom (and charges she leveled at everyone!) it will be interesting to hear what the judge hands down during sentencing in July.
13th Juror
mysteriew
A diamond in process
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
- Messages
- 23,811
- Reaction score
- 816
LOL, 13Juror, you did a great job of presenting what has been happening.
Here are a few extra little tidbits.
Jury foreman/forewoman? said that Gabriel's testimony was what was pivitol in the verdict.
Polk said in requesting her appeal that the county officals could not be "objective" in her case. More talk of fabrication and suppression of evidence.
The jury all agreed it was murder, but they spent a lot of time differentiating between first and second degree. Said they weren't swayed by Polk's contension that Felix had a heart attack. Said that was irrelevant to the murder. Jurors saw no evidence of abuse. They were stumped as to motive.
Ivan Golde says that they saw her behavior in court and think that may have had something to do with her conviction. (I know that is what swayed me).
As to Felix's character, Sequeria said that they could have put on several witnesses, including the children from his first marriage who could have put a better perspective on him, but they made a tactical decision to keep the trial focused on Polk.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/16/MNGNAJFI5Q4.DTL
Here are a few extra little tidbits.
Jury foreman/forewoman? said that Gabriel's testimony was what was pivitol in the verdict.
Polk said in requesting her appeal that the county officals could not be "objective" in her case. More talk of fabrication and suppression of evidence.
The jury all agreed it was murder, but they spent a lot of time differentiating between first and second degree. Said they weren't swayed by Polk's contension that Felix had a heart attack. Said that was irrelevant to the murder. Jurors saw no evidence of abuse. They were stumped as to motive.
Ivan Golde says that they saw her behavior in court and think that may have had something to do with her conviction. (I know that is what swayed me).
As to Felix's character, Sequeria said that they could have put on several witnesses, including the children from his first marriage who could have put a better perspective on him, but they made a tactical decision to keep the trial focused on Polk.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/16/MNGNAJFI5Q4.DTL
Buzz Mills
New Member
July 14th for sentencing.Jules said:
Jules
Former Member
Buzzm1 said:
Thanks Buzz. :blowkiss:
nanandjim
Former Member
I thought that she was guilty of first degree murder, too. I heard just a small soundbite of one juror on the phone with Catherine Crier. He said that he thought that this was an isolated case and that she would never do anything like this again.13th Juror said:
I beg to differ. It seems to me that this woman is mentally imbalanced and may harm someone if they went against her or got in her way. I certainly wouldn't want to be around her or live near her.
13th Juror
Inactive
"Polk Trial Analysis Article - SFGate"
NEWS ANALYSIS - Attorney unlikely to have saved Polk, experts say
NEWS ANALYSIS - Attorney unlikely to have saved Polk, experts say
*Some Excerpts* from San Francisco Chronicle article - Saturday, June 17, 2006
Susan Polk would have been better served if she hadn't acted as her own attorney, but it wouldn't have averted her murder conviction, jurors and legal experts said Friday.
An attorney would probably have cut off any talk of psychics, fairies, conspiracy theories, family dogs and the alleged looting of the Polk family's estate. The lawyer would have focused instead on Polk's claim of self-defense, experts said.
And jurors wouldn't have been subjected to Polk's unorthodox behavior in court -- including repeated motions for a mistrial to accusations of misconduct by the judge and prosecutor -- and hours of often repetitive testimony by Polk.
But jurors said Friday that none of her antics would have changed their verdict.
At best, they would have been back to their normal lives a lot sooner had an attorney "expedited the process," said juror Pat Roland.
Asked if Polk was happy with her lawyering skills, Polk's assistant and friend, Valerie Harris, said, "She said just before the verdict came down that if she had to represent herself again, she would do it all over, because she learned a lot."
Harris said Polk "absolutely" plans to appeal and to represent herself again. "She said this time she'll be better at it," she said.
Roland said none of Polk's courtroom theatrics came up as jurors deliberated. Still, said jury forewoman Lisa Cristwell, "She probably would have been better off with an attorney, no doubt."
But had there been an attorney by Polk's side, jurors probably wouldn't have been privy to all of the details of her life, said juror Kathy Sommese: "I feel like we really got to know Susan Polk."
During the trial, it was clear that Polk forgot the courtroom rule "Don't ask a question unless you already know the answer."
At one point, Polk asked her son, Gabriel Polk, a supposedly mundane question:
"Isn't it true that you were not the big guy that you are now?"
He replied, "Between the four years when you murdered my dad and now, yeah, I grew a lot."
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Laurel Brady also spent a lot of time explaining to Polk why she couldn't make a particular motion or objection. In a familiar refrain, the judge also said, "We are going far afield," when Polk addressed side issues. But Polk often refused to listen.
Jurors said they simply tried to stay above the circus-like atmosphere and reach a verdict based on the evidence.
"The instructions that we got eliminated any other kind of decision that we can make," said juror Joe Kermode. "We didn't feel there was enough for premeditation, so we couldn't go murder one, so that's just where it went."
Prosecutor Paul Sequeira said the fact that Susan Polk hired and fired four attorneys was proof that she wouldn't be content with any lawyer. Polk would have been found guilty either way, he said.
"The greatest lawyer in the world wasn't going to make her more credible," Sequiera said.
"Anybody is better off being represented by an attorney," he said. "But she was not going to let that happen. She was never going to have an attorney tell her story for her."
But Ivan Golde, an Oakland attorney who had represented Polk last year before she was allowed to represent herself, said Friday that her behavior may have "skewed" the presentation of the evidence.
<<large portion snipped - much more at link on Golde's comments>>
Steve Clark, a legal analyst and former Santa Clara County prosecutor, applauded Polk's skills but called it unwise for a defendant to represent herself.
"Maybe it's like trying to climb Mount Everest with no oxygen and no experience," he said. But "I have to hand it to her. There were times I was absolutely astounded by her intelligence, her tenacity. She never gave up."
But Clark agreed that her combative courtroom behavior hurt her battered-woman defense. "When your theory is you're a battered woman, when you're this tenacious, aggressive ... it goes against everything you're trying to prove in this case," Clark said.
Clark said Polk, instead of simply focusing on reasonable doubt, "tried to prove too many things in this case -- that she's a good mother, she's not crazy, her husband was having an affair."
Polk can't claim ineffective assistance of counsel in any part of her appeal because she waived that right when she decided to represent herself, Sequeira said.
Legal analyst Paula Canny, who gave advice during the trial to Polk's case manager, said the bottom line is, "Even lawyers hire lawyers."
13th Juror
13th Juror
Inactive
13th Juror said:
The question was asked if Susan could represent herself in the appeal. I guess so ..?
In light of the above statement by Valerie Harris in the linked article - I imagine Polk's request for a "state public defender" rather than one from "County" is simply to advise her of her legal rights & options and give her direction.
Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that Susan intends to handle her own appeal (as atty of record). Amazing. She apparently hasn't learned as much as she thinks she has after foolishly representing herself in this initial trial. Oh well ... live n' learn.
13th Juror
13th Juror
Inactive
Buzzm1 said:
Yes, July 14th is the date set for sentencing by Judge Brady - but, we can most likely expect that date to change to a later date. IMO - it will depend on the outcome of the "status hearing" Judge Brady has set for July 6th. (Motions by Polk, etc..)
3 posts in a row ... Okay, I'm outta here!
13th Juror
Bobbisangel
New Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 11,071
- Reaction score
- 193
There is no way poor ole Susan is going to get another trial. If anything the appeals court will want to lengthen her sentence She may have learned a lot during the trial but what she is to crazy to understand is that she didn't learn the right things.
Susan is going to get in the prison and try to take over. She has no idea what she is going to be up against with some of those hard core women. They will slap her down to size in no time. I would hate to be her cell mate.
She may have learned a lot during the trial but what she is to crazy to understand is that she didn't learn the right things.Susan is going to get in the prison and try to take over. She has no idea what she is going to be up against with some of those hard core women. They will slap her down to size in no time. I would hate to be her cell mate.