Darlie Routier on Death Row

[accordn2me]

Frankly, Mulder had an idiot for a client, who has idiots for family members. You can be one of the best defense attorney . . . oh wait, he IS one of the best. Silly me. Anyway, you can put on the best defense ever seen in defense HISTORY, but if your client gets on the stand and starts telling lies to the jurors, your client is screwed.

The sad thing is....Mulder didn't coach his other witnesses. He coached Darlie. I'll always believe it was Mulder's coaching that led Darlie to her fatal mistake on the stand of changing the word "fighting" to "frightening." :doh: It was an idiotic thing to do. However, Darlie's all-time most idiotic mistake after her arrest was hiring Mulder in the first place. He may have been one of the best for some. For Darlie, it couldn't have been worse if she'd been assigned a law school dropout. She would have been better off with no attorney whatsoever than one who couldn't even get along with the judge in the courtroom.

 

[accordn2me]

What could he do, present evidence that the unknown stranger had entered the house. There was no evidence. A case is only as good as the evidence. So the DA did their homework, had a mock trial, well that is called "being prepared". They wanted to win, they wanted justice for the two slaughtered boys. They did not want to let them down, by being not prepared. Darlie deciding to testify was a mistake. But I put money that it was "her decision". No defense attorney wants or encourages their client to take the stand, especially when there is a lot of evidence pointing to their guilt.

We agree on the prosecution being well-prepared and wanting justice for the boys and society. I think they truly believe Darlie killed them.

I, on the other hand, have doubts that Darlie did it. Why? Because her lawyer presented NO DEFENSE. He could have at least done that.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

The sad thing is....Mulder didn't coach his other witnesses. He coached Darlie. I'll always believe it was Mulder's coaching that led Darlie to her fatal mistake on the stand of changing the word "fighting" to "frightening." :doh: It was an idiotic thing to do. However, Darlie's all-time most idiotic mistake after her arrest was hiring Mulder in the first place. He may have been one of the best for some. For Darlie, it couldn't have been worse if she'd been assigned a law school dropout. She would have been better off with no attorney whatsoever than one who couldn't even get along with the judge in the courtroom.

An attorney like Mulder isn't going to coach his client to LIE on the witness stand. Give me a break. He's going to put his entire career and reputation on the line in order to teach Darlie how to lie better on the witness stand? You can have an opinion about Mulder all you'd like, but he didn't make those words come out of Darlie's mouth. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Jeana (DP)]

We agree on the prosecution being well-prepared and wanting justice for the boys and society. I think they truly believe Darlie killed them.

I, on the other hand, have doubts that Darlie did it. Why? Because her lawyer presented NO DEFENSE. He could have at least done that.

Counsellor, what defense would you have used?

 

[CyberLaw]

Jeana is right on, lawyers don't teach or coach their clients to lie, that is called being a party to perjury, and you lose your license that way.

But, in preparing a client, you can tell them, no you are giving too much detail, answer the question yes or no.

When a person "tells" a story, and that story is not based in fact, but fiction, well they have to "fill" in the blanks, on a second's notice, they have no basis in "reality" for the story, so it comes apart, especially under cross.

Just like our oldest, did not do too well last year in school. Oh, but his "story" was the work was "too easy" that is why he got terrible marks.

Well the "facts" are: He "skipped" assignments, he skipped school, he did not do his homework on a regular basis. Those are called facts, not fiction.

Just like Darlie had to change her "story" many times in an attempt to "fill in the blanks" to fit the evidence.

The defense was: The stranger did it. That was Darlie whole defense, but how can a person introduce evidence into court, when there is no evidence of a stranger at the scene and all of the "known" evidence points to Darlie being guilty.

 

[HarleyGuy]

I have news for you...there are people in little "redneck" towns all over who smoke pot and use sex toys. I REALLY don't think either one of these were a big factor in determining her guilt.

I agree with you totally that there are such people but that is the same reasoning that makes Darlie's guilt so difficult to see. What is the most LIKELY composition of a Kerrville jury? Did Darlie kill her kids for 100% certain? We'll never know. But based on what we are reasonably sure of what is the most LIKELY answer to that question, she is guilty.

Of course these weren't the deciding factors in her conviction. I really cannot site even one single factor in most cases that results in a guilty verdict but they are one of the many. Change of venue to Kerrville was not helpful but you should play to your audience and Mulder did not even try. I wont pick on Mulder except to say that if you come in with Superman's reputation then you better be faster than a speeding bullet....

 

[CyberLaw]

Play to your audience, what does that mean in the context of the residence of Kerrville. The reason why it is called "reasonable" doubt is because of the threshold. Is it more likely that an "unknown" stranger entered the house, and left no evidence. Or is it more likely given the evidence that Darlie killed the two boys. You do not take one piece of evidence into account, but the total of all of the evidence.

Make no mistake, Darlie wanted to ensure that on the 911 tape that she can account for her fingerprints on the weapon. Of course knowing that this call would be recorded. So when in the future(lets just say she did not say anything about her fingerprints on the knife in the 911 call) the "State" could not claim that her fingerprints were on the knife because she killed the kids.

That was the start of Darlie attempting to "cover up", deflect blame, manipulate and control everyone. Why pick up the knife otherwise and then mention it in a recorded phone call.

I thought Darlie had more then one lawyer for trial and Mulder was the lead. Mark G. lost also, and I am sure he had a better rep then Mulder, and Scott P is stilll on death row. Having a talented lawyer is beneficial, but again, if there is enough evidence to point to guilt, then he/she will lose.

Darlie, I am sure against the advice of her lawyer took the stand. I can't not believe anyone of Mulder rep. would encourage their client to take the stand.

But again, knowing the personality of Darlie, she probably thought she could con and manipulate the jury of this small town.

 

[accordn2me]

An attorney like Mulder isn't going to coach his client to LIE on the witness stand. Give me a break. He's going to put his entire career and reputation on the line in order to teach Darlie how to lie better on the witness stand? You can have an opinion about Mulder all you'd like, but he didn't make those words come out of Darlie's mouth. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I didn't say that he made her lie. I can't stand it when others try to place responsibility for their actions on someone else. If it came across like I was doing that, I apologize. That's not what I meant at all.

However, I believe Mulder coached Darlie to a point where she came to believe the word "fighting" made her look like she remembered the intruder and the fight, yet there was so much she couldn't remember. Except for this, I don't remember the other lies Darlie told on the stand. This one really stood out for me though.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I didn't say that he made her lie. I can't stand it when others try to place responsibility for their actions on someone else. If it came across like I was doing that, I apologize. That's not what I meant at all.

However, I believe Mulder coached Darlie to a point where she came to believe the word "fighting" made her look like she remembered the intruder and the fight, yet there was so much she couldn't remember. Except for this, I don't remember the other lies Darlie told on the stand. This one really stood out for me though.

What about the part where she said she wasn't having problems in her marriage?

What about the part where she said they weren't having problems financially?

What about the 50 other lies that Shook caught her in and drilled her on? She finally broke down because she couldn't think up her lies as fast as he could question her on. THESE are the things that a jury will see and decide that if she's lying about all of these things, she's a liar. Then nothing else she says will be accepted. The "fighting vs. frightening" comment was stupid, but believe me when I tell you that IF Darlie was telling the truth, there's no way she could have been confused into saying something that wasn't true nor could she be caught off guard by Toby Shook. When a person tells the truth, there is only one version, so there's no need to have a good memory. There's no need to be coached into learning how to say it. Darlie lied. Fact. Darin lied. Fact. Darlie is on death row. Fact. Its also a fact that if she's lucky enough to get a second trial, there's no way in hell she's going to get on that stand again. If Mulder did anything wrong, it was not holding her down with force in order to get her to give up the idea of testifying. However, what's also a fact is that if she's lucky enough to get a second trial, Darin will be testifying and there's no way he can get out of his testimony from the first trial. He's going to have to stick to it or get called out on it and believe me when I tell you that his testimony is enough to get her right back on the row.

 

[accordn2me]

Counsellor, what defense would you have used?

:razz:

One of my techniques would have been to OBJECT when a witness was clearly testifying to hearsay.


I would like to say this......I remember how shocked I was when I found out that Darlie's public defenders where planning to go with the "Darin did it" defense. I hadn't realized that their defense strategy was the reason the Routiers hired Mulder in the first place. At least the public defenders had a strategy. Mulder only had presence in the courtroom. And it seemed to antagonize the judge most of the time.

Listen Jeana, I know you live in the area and have followed the case from the beginning. I respect the amount of knowledge you have on this subject. But as an outsider who has no ties to the area, the Routiers, LE, lawyers...ANY of the players in this thing....when I read those transcripts a few years ago, Mulder's performance as Darlie's lawyer, both in and out of the courtroom, really struck me as being.....horrible. Allowing all the hearsay is just the only thing I can remember off the top of my head. Rest assured there were other things.........oh yeah....dismissing Terry Laber. Not have any of the evidence tested independently. That's another. But there was a whole lot more he could have done but just didn't.

Maybe the only other alternative was to finger Darin. If so, Mulder couldn't do that per his being hired. Now, here's where I would abandon my doubts about Darlie's innocence, if I found out Darin did it. See, I personally believe that if either one of them did it, the other one knows. For me, covering for someone who committed this crime is just as bad as doing the deed. If it's ever proven there was no intruder, and this was an inside job, my vote would be to leave Darlie right where she is and prosecute Darin for the same.

That said, there is too much that is unanswered because Mulder didn't have it tested or provide a smidgen of a defense to a brilliant, well-prepared prosecution case. I would just like to see Darlie's pro-bono lawyers' motions for all the testing granted. I'm not interested in seeing her get off on a legal technicality like the transcript fiasco. If there is some evidence to support her innocence, I hope it is found before she is executed.

 

[whitywendy]

I didn't say that he made her lie. I can't stand it when others try to place responsibility for their actions on someone else. If it came across like I was doing that, I apologize. That's not what I meant at all.

However, I believe Mulder coached Darlie to a point where she came to believe the word "fighting" made her look like she remembered the intruder and the fight, yet there was so much she couldn't remember. Except for this, I don't remember the other lies Darlie told on the stand. This one really stood out for me though.

She lied about having money problems.
She lied about the "discussion" her and Darin had that night.
She lied about whether she was at the kitchen sink and getting towels wet.
These are just a few off the top of my head. I am sure there are much more, just can't remember right now.

 

[whitywendy]

:razz:

One of my techniques would have been to OBJECT when a witness was clearly testifying to hearsay.


I would like to say this......I remember how shocked I was when I found out that Darlie's public defenders where planning to go with the "Darin did it" defense. I hadn't realized that their defense strategy was the reason the Routiers hired Mulder in the first place. At least the public defenders had a strategy. Mulder only had presence in the courtroom. And it seemed to antagonize the judge most of the time.

Listen Jeana, I know you live in the area and have followed the case from the beginning. I respect the amount of knowledge you have on this subject. But as an outsider who has no ties to the area, the Routiers, LE, lawyers...ANY of the players in this thing....when I read those transcripts a few years ago, Mulder's performance as Darlie's lawyer, both in and out of the courtroom, really struck me as being.....horrible. Allowing all the hearsay is just the only thing I can remember off the top of my head. Rest assured there were other things.........oh yeah....dismissing Terry Laber. Not have any of the evidence tested independently. That's another. But there was a whole lot more he could have done but just didn't.

Maybe the only other alternative was to finger Darin. If so, Mulder couldn't do that per his being hired. Now, here's where I would abandon my doubts about Darlie's innocence, if I found out Darin did it. See, I personally believe that if either one of them did it, the other one knows. For me, covering for someone who committed this crime is just as bad as doing the deed. If it's ever proven there was no intruder, and this was an inside job, my vote would be to leave Darlie right where she is and prosecute Darin for the same.

That said, there is too much that is unanswered because Mulder didn't have it tested or provide a smidgen of a defense to a brilliant, well-prepared prosecution case. I would just like to see Darlie's pro-bono lawyers' motions for all the testing granted. I'm not interested in seeing her get off on a legal technicality like the transcript fiasco. If there is some evidence to support her innocence, I hope it is found before she is executed.

Well thought out reply. Now why can't all pro/anti's debate like this.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Well thought out reply. Now why can't all pro/anti's debate like this.

It was well thought out!!!! Got to hand it to her!!!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

:razz:

One of my techniques would have been to OBJECT when a witness was clearly testifying to hearsay.

Listen Jeana, I know you live in the area and have followed the case from the beginning. I respect the amount of knowledge you have on this subject. But as an outsider who has no ties to the area, the Routiers, LE, lawyers...ANY of the players in this thing....when I read those transcripts a few years ago, Mulder's performance as Darlie's lawyer, both in and out of the courtroom, really struck me as being.....horrible. Allowing all the hearsay is just the only thing I can remember off the top of my head. Rest assured there were other things.........oh yeah....dismissing Terry Laber. Not have any of the evidence tested independently. That's another. But there was a whole lot more he could have done but just didn't.

I don't remember the testimony well enough to remember if exceptions to hearsay would have trumped the objections. I seem to recall there were times that he could have successfully objected and times when he couldn't. I also don't remember how much money they paid for her defense or if part was paid by them and part by the state. If you remember, that would be great. If she took on the sole responsibility for payment for the defense of her case, she needed to pay for those tests. Maybe they didn't feel it was necessary because she and her family never really thought she'd be convicted.

Anyway, it was a good response to my question!! Thanks.

 

[whitywendy]

It was well thought out!!!! Got to hand it to her!!!

Puts me in the mind of Ms. Goody's (I really enjoyed reading her posts) "attitude". Respect...

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Puts me in the mind of Ms. Goody's (I really enjoyed reading her posts) "attitude". Respect...

Ahhhhh!! Me too!!! I miss her.:blowkiss:

 

[CyberLaw]

Can anyone give me an idea of what "hearsay" evidence was allowed, there are MANY exceptions to hearsay, I just looked up the state of Texas, which is not much different then others.

Also If I recall correctly, did the DA not prove that neither boy could speak after the attack. I am pretty sure this is one of the "wholes" in her story.

Thanks....plus Jeana I wish I had your quick wit and sense of humor.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Can anyone give me an idea of what "hearsay" evidence was allowed, there are MANY exceptions to hearsay, I just looked up the state of Texas, which is not much different then others.

Also If I recall correctly, did the DA not prove that neither boy could speak after the attack. I am pretty sure this is one of the "wholes" in her story.

Thanks....plus Jeana I wish I had your quick wit and sense of humor.

I wish I could remember what they're considering hearsay. I've posted about this topic back when the transcrips were sitting on my desk and thought I explained pretty well why some of the issues were allowable, considering they were things that Darlie or Darin would have brought in during their own testimony, etc., but its been too long for me to remember any specifics now.

The medical examiner did a really good job of explaining how it would have been impossible for the boys to have been standing, talking, etc. after the attacks, but in at least a couple of Darlie's 16 different versions, I believe she tries to put one of them on his feet. I think it was one of the things that pissed me off so horribly about her. She couldn't leave them, she had to make them walk and talk. Simply inexcusable. I mean trying to say he saved her life when she knew she took his is just evil.

Thanks for the compliment, but most people just think I'm a smart *advertiser censored*!!! LOL

Thanks for all you do in giving good legal explanations for the posters here. I type so horribly slow that trying to explain things that take that many words just makes me frustrated!!! LOL

 

[accordn2me]

I don't remember the testimony well enough to remember if exceptions to hearsay would have trumped the objections. I seem to recall there were times that he could have successfully objected and times when he couldn't. I also don't remember how much money they paid for her defense or if part was paid by them and part by the state. If you remember, that would be great. If she took on the sole responsibility for payment for the defense of her case, she needed to pay for those tests. Maybe they didn't feel it was necessary because she and her family never really thought she'd be convicted.

Anyway, it was a good response to my question!! Thanks.

One of the reasons I empathize with Darlie's faulty memory, mine has got to be worse! I can't imagine life if memory continues to deteriorate with age. Hopefully, I got all mine.....lack of, rather, at one time! :doh:

No, I don't remember the specific hearsay. As for Mulder's fee, who knows. All I've heard has been strictly on message boards. I seem to recall.....no, I don't. I was about to type a million but surely not! $100,000 sounds more reasonable doesn't it? It was a lot of money for the Routiers at the time. Especially given that the trial was super short relative to some. Experts cost money nonetheless, I know Laber was retained by the public defenders and had a significant amount of evidence tested. He was dismissed before he gave Mulder the results.

 

[CyberLaw]

Faulty memory, she was what not even 30.

You can bet your bottom dolllar, that if a stranger came into my home and murdered my kids and injured me, I would never forget that in a million years.

It would be "imprinted" upon my memory.

But if it was based in fiction, not fact, then of course I could not remember a lot of details as I would have to "fabricate" the details or say: I don't remember, as to not increase the size of the whole that I am in already.

A lawyer can't cross on "I don't remember". Oh. Please. Darlie can't remember because her "story" is fiction.