GUILTY DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #23

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
TFNYBRKS said:
NEW. In arguments to judge Tues, prosecutors in #quadruplemurder trial are backing away from initial stance that #DaronWint was sole perpetrator. Both sides discussing jury instructions. Asking judge to add aiding and abetting instruction #MansionMurders

Keith L. Alexander (@keithlalexander) | Twitter
Thoughts?!?!?!
Click to expand...
Judge agreed that 'Jury will be instructed on aiding and abetting'.
So, the prosecution isn't confident in their case after all. IMO
Rebuttal witnesses and closing arguments will be very interesting.

Meagan Fitzgerald on Twitter
Meagan Fitzgerald‏Verified account @MeaganNBCDC
NEW: Jury in #MansionMurders trial will be instructed on aiding and abetting. Defense argued against it saying the prosecution has argued this entire case that Wint is the only perpetrator. Aiding and abetting means Wint helped someone else carry out crime.
9:17 AM - 16 Oct 2018
 
I did some research on 'aiding and abetting' and found a recent interesting DC appeals case.
I believe that the prosecution is worried about skeptical jurors in the 'sole perpetrator' theory.
But with 'aiding and abetting' it seems that those skeptical jurors would have to believe in "purposive intent,” foreseeability, and “community of purpose”. (details in below blog re DCCA opinion)

The (New) Law of Unintended Consequences: DCCA Announces a New Test for Aiding and Abetting
Criminal Law Blog
The (New) Law of Unintended Consequences: DCCA Announces a New Test for Aiding and Abetting

Excerpt:
Of Note:
  • The portion of the opinion dealing with this issue should be studied with care, as the test for aiding and abetting recognized by the majority —shared mens rea, “purposive intent,” foreseeability, and “community of purpose”— is open-textured and its applicability to any case is necessarily fact bound.
  • The majority relied heavily on the facts, outcome, and reasoning of several cases in deriving the test applied in this case. (pp. 60-72). Attorneys grappling with the majority’s test in the future should also study those cases carefully.
 
Inthedetails said:
Looks like one has been handed to you. Write it!

jmo
Click to expand...


@patriciah I definitely agree with @Inthedetails.

Patriciah, you have a natural talent for writing and you picked up on nuances in the courtroom that others didn't. You described the atmosphere at the trial not unlike a writer describing a scene.

Keep your notes for references when you are writing the book. I'll certainly read it!
 
SeesSeas said:
I did some research on 'aiding and abetting' and found a recent interesting DC appeals case.
I believe that the prosecution is worried about skeptical jurors in the 'sole perpetrator' theory.
But with 'aiding and abetting' it seems that those skeptical jurors would have to believe in "purposive intent,” foreseeability, and “community of purpose”. (details in below blog re DCCA opinion)

The (New) Law of Unintended Consequences: DCCA Announces a New Test for Aiding and Abetting
Criminal Law Blog
The (New) Law of Unintended Consequences: DCCA Announces a New Test for Aiding and Abetting

Excerpt:
Of Note:
  • The portion of the opinion dealing with this issue should be studied with care, as the test for aiding and abetting recognized by the majority —shared mens rea, “purposive intent,” foreseeability, and “community of purpose”— is open-textured and its applicability to any case is necessarily fact bound.
  • The majority relied heavily on the facts, outcome, and reasoning of several cases in deriving the test applied in this case. (pp. 60-72). Attorneys grappling with the majority’s test in the future should also study those cases carefully.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to make of the aiding and abetting instruction. I get the impression that the prosecution is very confident in their case. I haven't spoken to them personally, but I've seen them joking around with each other and with other court employees on breaks. My sense is that they think DW's story is completely insane and ridiculous. It seems like the judge has been more than fair to the defense as well, and I wonder if the judge and prosecution are going above and beyond in fairness in the event of an appeal. I'm not an expert on criminal law but I'm going to ask around about this one to get input from others who know more.
 
patriciah said:
I don't know what to make of the aiding and abetting instruction. I get the impression that the prosecution is very confident in their case. I haven't spoken to them personally, but I've seen them joking around with each other and with other court employees on breaks. My sense is that they think DW's story is completely insane and ridiculous. It seems like the judge has been more than fair to the defense as well, and I wonder if the judge and prosecution are going above and beyond in fairness in the event of an appeal. I'm not an expert on criminal law but I'm going to ask around about this one to get input from others who know more.
Click to expand...
Well, when this trial started, I was worried the prosecution's case wouldn't be strong enough and wondered if everything would come down to pizza crust. I was reassured by WSers that just by being there, DW is guilty. That was news to me and gave me some confidence that DW will be found guilty of something, even if the prosecution couldn't prove he committed the murders himself.

So....I think the instructions to the jury about aiding and abetting are critical. Jury members need to let go of concerns that DW might not have acted alone.

It's obvious a heinous crime was committed...but the prosecution's case really isn't super strong. There are simply soooo many lingering questions. Will those questions bother the jury? They might.

I'm not saying that I don't think DW is guilty because I sure as heck do. But I also want the jury to hear instructions about aiding and abetting. I'd be worried if they didn't get those instructions.

jmo
 
Since the "chatter" reveals only the name "Mr. Wint", are they just assuming that it will be Darrell? I truly hope it will be Darrell but I don't know for sure.
 
He is going to jail if he says anything. At least harboring a known murderer.
 
Megan Cloherty‏Verified account @ClohertyWTOP 12m12 minutes ago
Major debate during break - defense wants to introduce evidence Darrell Wint took part in retaliatory stabbing of a witness with others in Maple Ave Crew years ago. Prosecution wants the fact it was a stabbing & gang related left out. Judge is considering.
Hyperviolence runs in the Wint family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 2,772 (members: 182, guests: 2,590)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
2,590
Total visitors
2,772
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,112
Messages
18,103,850
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top