GUILTY FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015

[SeesSeas]

John Jonchuck's lawyers rest their case, hoping insanity is clear
April 4, 2019
LARGO — The trial of John Jonchuck has moved past concrete facts.

For a week, the public defenders in his murder case have worked to convince jurors that Jonchuck did not understand dropping his 5-year-old daughter off a bridge was wrong. They called three mental health experts to explain that Jonchuck was insane at the time he killed Phoebe.

But even those experts, two psychologists and a psychiatrist, conceded it’s impossible to know for sure what went through Jonchuck’s mind.

Instead, the case now hinges on opinions of Jonchuck’s behavior and medical history, and how jurors interpret those evaluations.
[...]
The trial is expected to continue through next week as prosecutors now try to rebut the defense’s insanity claim. They have hired two experts — a psychiatrist and psychologist — who plan to testify that Jonchuck was not insane when he killed Phoebe.

The prosecutors have implied he may be faking symptoms, and that he killed Phoebe out of vengeance — to punish his mother, who loved her more than him, and Phoebe’s mother, who had gotten a new boyfriend and could vie for custody.
[...]

 

[SeesSeas]

Ouch! If the prosecution broke the rules of discovery then letting Malcolm testify may very well open the door for an appeal if Jonchuck is found guilty. Of course a higher court could find that it didn't impact the outcome substantially enough for a retrial.

So while we wait for a decision it seems pretty damning that Jonchuck said “If I can’t have her, no one else will” as it points more to a revenge killing than a moment of insanity. Just guessing I think the defense was aware of the statement so apart from a broken rule would their experts change their minds if they knew?

If anything it seems that it could sway the defense experts to at least consider that Jonchuck wasn't insane. OTOH, all his statements to Malcolm would also be open for examination (I think), including Jonchuck saying he thought Phoebe was his father's child, not his though he later called back and said he knew Phoebe was his child.
The Trial of John Jonchuck Day 9: Watch as the defense introduces insanity
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 13: Watch as the defense wraps its case

I don't know, my gut says Jonchuck knew what he was doing when he threw Phoebe off the bridge and that it was partly due to anger and/or frustration over the custody issue and partly due to an inability to control his impulses, neither of which points to insanity.

But I'm not a professional so hopefully all the expert witnesses are being straight and unbiased in their evaluations. Certainly if he's insane then he should be in a mental facility and not prison. I'm just not seeing the evidence pointing strongly in that direction. All MOO.

Ugh, so confusing. Thanks, SeesSeas for being on top of the trial and reporting to us!!

Yes, very confusing. It seems the prosecution made a big mistake by not alerting the defense about Jonchuck's statements which Malcom would testify about. The recent timing of the prosecution interviewing Malcom made it appear as if they weren't on the ball. Malcom said she waited four years to be contacted regarding her subpoena. There was the dilemma of attorney/client privilege. . . but as Manuele pointed out to the judge, the prosecution could have requested a hearing regarding this BEFORE the trial started.

It has been interesting to observe the courtroom dynamics while sitting on a bench just a few feet away from the defendant. I'm anxious to watch the testimony of the 'controversial' psychiatrist Emily Lazarou and the juror's reaction to her testimony.

 

[Niner]

Friday, April 5th:
*Trial continues (Day 9) (@ 9:30am ET) – FL – Phoebe Jonchuck (5) (Jan. 18, 2015, St. Petersburg-thrown off 62’ bridge into Tampa Bay by her father) – *John Nicolas Jonchuck, Jr. (25/now 28) arrested & charged (1/18/15) with 1st degree murder, aggravated assault with a vehicle on LE officers & aggravated fleeing & eluding police. Plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Held without bond.
Jury trial started 3/25/19. Jurors: 4 women & 8 men (alternates: 1 man & 3 women). 1 man dismissed, not sure "who" took his place from alternates. Jurors may ask witnesses questions. (Trial could take at least one week. General hours are going to be 9am until 7pm).
Jury Selection Day 1 (3/18/19) thru Day 5 (3/22/19) reference post #218 here:
FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015
Trial Day 1 (3/25/19) thru Day 6 (4/2/19) reference post #291 here:
FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015
4/3/19 Day 7: Richard Cipriano, court psychologist evaluated Jonchuck. “He’s competent as to all six statutory criteria,” says the judge. “I find him competent to stand trial.” Court resumed at 1:15 p.m. when the jurors came back, and Randy Otto, a USF psychologist, who started testifying yesterday, took the stand again. Other Defense witness: St. Petersburg police Sgt. Kenny Miller. Court continues on 4/4.
4/4/19 Day 8: Defense witness: Assistant Public Defender Paige Parish, a colleague of Jonchuck’s defense team. She was the court appointed public defender who represented Jonchuck during his first appearance in court. Jim Jones, registered nurse & administrative nursing supervisor with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office & works at the Pinellas County Jail. Dr. Michael Maher, psychiatrist (certified forensic psychiatrist). Defense rests their case.
The judge asks the lawyers what they want to do about the juror who doesn’t actually live in Pinellas County anymore. She said the man lives in Trinity, in Pasco County, and moved there in December. Judge has dismissed this juror.
Prosecutors on rebuttal-witness: Kyrsten Malcolm, former paralegal to family attorney Genevieve Torres, whom Jonchuck was trying to hire to represent him in custody dispute over Phoebe. Defense objects to this witness. Judge will decide tomorrow and called it for the night, and the lawyers have their homework to do. Court begins tomorrow (4/5) at 9:30 a.m., to hear more arguments on the discovery issue surrounding Malcolm’s testimony.

 

[Niner]

Thank you again SeesSeas for all the updates. Glad you got to go to court. On the dismissed juror - "who" was he replaced by - a man or woman? TIA! Just so I can keep my notes up to date!

 

[SeesSeas]

Thank you again SeesSeas for all the updates. Glad you got to go to court. On the dismissed juror - "who" was he replaced by - a man or woman? TIA! Just so I can keep my notes up to date!

Oh Niner. . . I knew you'd ask me this question!
A man was dismissed; replaced by a man. So main jury still consists of 8 male and 4 female. Alternate jurors are 3 female.

We arrived yesterday just as the judge was explaining to the jury about the 'missing' juror. A few of the jurors were not sitting in their same seats, which I thought was odd. I don't know why that would happen, but there are at least two jurors who have changed seats. One of them is a WF who asks many questions. The judge has called her Myra. Originally she sat 3rd row, 3rd from left (I think this is juror #11). Yesterday, she sat first row, 1st seat on left (juror #1). The man who was dismissed had sat in the #1 seat. Yesterday, Myra sat in that #1 seat. Maybe I can find out today more details about this.

 

[SeesSeas]

The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 14: The state gets rebuttal
April 5, 2019
Wednesday ended with a cliffhanger: Will the prosecution’s first rebuttal witness -- who started testifying in front of the jury that afternoon -- be allowed to finish?

The fate of Kyrsten Malcolm’s testimony is up in the air. She was the paralegal who worked with Genevieve Torres, Jonchuck’s custody lawyer, the day before Jonchuck killed his daughter, Phoebe. Malcolm took notes on her interactions with Jonchuck that day, and during testimony without the jury in the room, recalled how Jonchuck said "If I can’t have her, nobody can,” in reference to Phoebe.

Defense lawyers argued they were not given notice that Malcolm would say that, rendering her statements prejudicial and inadmissible. Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Chris Helinger, initially ready to rule that Malcolm could testify, heeded the calls of defense lawyers to reconsider.

Lawyers went home Wednesday night to research case law. We expect a vigorous argument over the issue. Helinger acknowledged that letting the testimony in could be grounds for appeal.

Once that issue is ironed out, Malcolm will either continue to testify or prosecutors will call their next witness.
---------------------------

Judge Chris Helinger listens to lawyers argue about whether to allow the testimony of a paralegal who saw Jonchuck and his daughter on the day before he killed her. The paralegal said Jonchuck told her: "If I can't have her, no one can." Defense attorneys said the prosecution didn't alert them to those statements ahead of time. But the prosecutors say the defense already had heard those statements. [SCOTT KEELER | Times]

 

[SeesSeas]

The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 14: The state gets rebuttal
LIVE
John Jonchuck murder trial, April 5, 2019.

 

[SeesSeas]

Oh Niner. . . I knew you'd ask me this question!
A man was dismissed; replaced by a man. So main jury still consists of 8 male and 4 female. Alternate jurors are 3 female.

We arrived yesterday just as the judge was explaining to the jury about the 'missing' juror. A few of the jurors were not sitting in their same seats, which I thought was odd. I don't know why that would happen, but there are at least two jurors who have changed seats. One of them is a WF who asks many questions. The judge has called her Myra. Originally she sat 3rd row, 3rd from left (I think this is juror #11). Yesterday, she sat first row, 1st seat on left (juror #1). The man who was dismissed had sat in the #1 seat. Yesterday, Myra sat in that #1 seat. Maybe I can find out today more details about this.

Quoting my own post. More delays today. Lots of procedural discussions, motions, and lulls.

I didn't find out more about the jury seating arrangement, but I reviewed the online court docket which confirms my reporting that it was JUROR #1 who was dismissed:
https://ccmspa.pinellascounty.org/PublicAccess/default.aspx
STATE OF FLORIDA vs. JONCHUCK, JOHN N
04/04/2019 ORDER GRANTING - IN COURT Doc # 379
D/MTN TO EXCUSE JUROR #1

 

[SeesSeas]

No testimony today!
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 14: Another delay
April 5, 2019
JOSH, ZACK AND LANE (2:55 p.m.)
“I made my point about psychopaths,” says the judge. “It’s very prejudicial, and I don’t know that it means anything.”

Both Ellis and Bolan are up and pacing.

The judge says she’s not going to change her decision. She looks exasperated.

“It’s the middle of the trial,” she says. “I think I made the right ruling.”

One of the state’s experts, who we expect will be called to the stand next week, has diagnosed Jonchuck with antisocial personality disorder, and in order to render that opinion, he administered a test that monitors psychopathic characteristics.

Manuele wants to prevent any testimony related to his psychopathic traits. Helinger is letting the expert talk about that test, in so far as it relates to the expert’s diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. But nobody will be allowed to directly call Jonchuck a psychopath in court, she says.

Helinger ends for the day, but she tells Bolan and Ellis she’s open-minded to reconsidering her ruling on the key statement she decided to exclude earlier this afternoon, if they find a previous case that suggests she was wrong. That statement, again, comes from a paralegal who spoke to Jonchuck on the phone hours before he killed Phoebe. She remembers him saying about his daughter: “If I can’t have her, then no one else will.”

We’re done for the week. We heard no testimony today.

 

[SeesSeas]

Yes, very confusing. It seems the prosecution made a big mistake by not alerting the defense about Jonchuck's statements which Malcom would testify about. The recent timing of the prosecution interviewing Malcom made it appear as if they weren't on the ball. Malcom said she waited four years to be contacted regarding her subpoena. There was the dilemma of attorney/client privilege. . . but as Manuele pointed out to the judge, the prosecution could have requested a hearing regarding this BEFORE the trial started.

It has been interesting to observe the courtroom dynamics while sitting on a bench just a few feet away from the defendant. I'm anxious to watch the testimony of the 'controversial' psychiatrist Emily Lazarou and the juror's reaction to her testimony.

Quoting my own post again.
Re-reading - I noticed I had the witness name spelled Malcom, which apparently should be Malcolm. I don't find her name in the court docket, but did find a FB for Kyrsten-Malcolm as a Paralegal in Lutz, Florida.

I think TampaBay.com has spelled her name correctly - Malcolm.
John Jonchuck's lawyers rest their case, hoping insanity is clear
April 4, 2019
JOSH AND ZACK (4:11 p.m.)
Court resumes with news the defense has rested its insanity case. The prosecution calls its first rebuttal witness, Kyrsten Malcolm, 23, former paralegal to family attorney Genevieve Torres, whom Jonchuck was trying to hire to represent him in his custody dispute over Phoebe.

Here is the BayNews9.com article where I saw the name consistently spelled Malcom (apparently incorrect):
Day 14 of Jonchuck Murder Trial Ends Early Due to Issue Over Evidence
UPDATED 3:59 PM ET Apr. 05, 2019
[...]
It all has to do with prosecution rebuttal witness Kyrsten Malcom. Malcom is a paralegal at the law office of Geneve Torres where Jonchuck stopped by the day before Phoebe was killed.

Malcom was there and part of her planned testimony, she says Jonchuck called the office seven times after he left that day, and at one point said, "If I can't have her, nobody can," referring to his daughter Phoebe.

The defense said the problem is that they didn't know Malcom was going to testify to that statement, and since it wasn't revealed to them ahead of time, it's a discovery violation.
[...]

Here is the video of her 4/4/19 testimony:

Scales of Justice
Published on Apr 4, 2019
John Jonchuck Trial

 

[Niner]

So.... from what I understand happened on Friday, April 5th is:

Malcolm gave testimony without the jurors there. Defense does not want her to testify regarding Jonchuck's statement ""If I can't have her, nobody can," referring to his daughter Phoebe. " - ?? Otherwise okay to call her as rebuttal witness - ??
Judge has not made a decision on this - ?? - Defense rested their case.
Monday April 8th - Judge will rule if Malcolm can testify for State's rebuttal - ?? and then closing arguments - ??

Notice those ?? in there Just want to get it straight, if you can help me on that. I can't hear the LIVE video you posted for that day. For some reason none of the UTube things play on my laptop....

Thanks in advance SeesSeas!

 

[SeesSeas]

So.... from what I understand happened on Friday, April 5th is:
Malcolm gave testimony without the jurors there. Defense does not want her to testify regarding Jonchuck's statement ""If I can't have her, nobody can," referring to his daughter Phoebe. " - ?? Otherwise okay to call her as rebuttal witness - ??
Judge has not made a decision on this - ?? - Defense rested their case.
Monday April 8th - Judge will rule if Malcolm can testify for State's rebuttal - ?? and then closing arguments - ??

Notice those ?? in there Just want to get it straight, if you can help me on that. I can't hear the LIVE video you posted for that day. For some reason none of the UTube things play on my laptop....

Thanks in advance SeesSeas!

Yes, I notice the ??'s My answers:
There was not any witness testimony on Friday 4/5.
Malcolm’s testimony was on Thursday 4/4 when the jury was not in the courtroom.
It is my understanding that Malcolm can testify with jury present, but judge ruled that she will not be allowed to state that Jonchuck told her “If I can’t have her, then no one else will.” Malcolm has other testimony, much of it is corroborating the testimony of her employer, attorney Torres.
Judge ruled, but on Monday "she’s open-minded to reconsidering her ruling".
Prosecution also has expert rebuttal witnesses – Emily Lazarou, forensic psychiatrist and Peter Bursten, psychologist.
Defense can cross-examine rebuttal witnesses.
Then closing arguments after all testimony is complete.

John Jonchuck's lawyers rest their case, hoping insanity is clear
The trial is expected to continue through next week as prosecutors now try to rebut the defense’s insanity claim. They have hired two experts — a psychiatrist and psychologist — who plan to testify that Jonchuck was not insane when he killed Phoebe.

The Trial of John Jonchuck Day 11: Competency questions halt the trial
We expect Dr. Emily Lazarou, a forensic psychiatrist who will testify for the prosecution, to say that Jonchuck is malingering his symptoms.

The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 13: Watch as the defense wraps its case
Peter Bursten, a psychologist who will testify for the prosecution and who has been sitting in the gallery during recent days of testimony, . . .
We’re in the middle of a technical legal dispute right now about whether Malcolm will be allowed to testify in front of the jury.

The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 14: Another delay
Helinger ends for the day, but she tells Bolan and Ellis she’s open-minded to reconsidering her ruling on the key statement she decided to exclude earlier this afternoon, if they find a previous case that suggests she was wrong. That statement, again, comes from a paralegal who spoke to Jonchuck on the phone hours before he killed Phoebe. She remembers him saying about his daughter: “If I can’t have her, then no one else will.”

Jonchuck Murder Trial Day 14: "Killer Statement" Tossed Out as Evidence
The judge in the John Jonchuck case ruled in favor of the defense Friday in regards to a key piece of evidence in the prosecution's case.
After a recess, the judge ruled that the statement at issue simply cannot be heard in the case.

 

[Niner]

Okay - thanks for the corrections! So there was no court on Friday 4/5? Where was I? LOL!

 

[Niner]

Ok - just looked at my notes - here's what I had for Friday, 4/5:

4/4/19.... Defense objects to this witness. Judge will decide tomorrow and called it for the night, and the lawyers have their homework to do. Court begins tomorrow (4/5) at 9:30 a.m., to hear more arguments on the discovery issue surrounding Malcolm’s testimony.
4/5/19 Update: Defense rests their case. Judge has decided not to let Malcolm’s testimony re Jonchuck’s statement “”If I can’t have her, nobody can” into testimony. Trial continues on 4/8.

So, no I did not have Malcolm's testimony on Friday, just the attorneys arguing their case on her testimony.

Did Defense rest their case on Thursday, 4/4? I had that for 4/5.

No?

 

[SeesSeas]

Okay - thanks for the corrections! So there was no court on Friday 4/5? Where was I? LOL!

There was court on Friday (I was there!)
There was not any testimony Friday.
Jury was called into the courtroom late Friday morning, only to be dismissed for the day!
Here is part of my post describing yesterday:

More delays today. Lots of procedural discussions, motions, and lulls.

 

[SeesSeas]

Ok - just looked at my notes - here's what I had for Friday, 4/5:

4/4/19.... Defense objects to this witness. Judge will decide tomorrow and called it for the night, and the lawyers have their homework to do. Court begins tomorrow (4/5) at 9:30 a.m., to hear more arguments on the discovery issue surrounding Malcolm’s testimony.
4/5/19 Update: Defense rests their case. Judge has decided not to let Malcolm’s testimony re Jonchuck’s statement “”If I can’t have her, nobody can” into testimony. Trial continues on 4/8.

So, no I did not have Malcolm's testimony on Friday, just the attorneys arguing their case on her testimony.

Did Defense rest their case on Thursday, 4/4? I had that for 4/5.

No?

Defense rested their case Thursday 4/4
John Jonchuck's lawyers rest their case, hoping insanity is clear
Published April 4

Prosecution started their rebuttal case Thursday 4/4

Malcolm testified Thursday 4/4 (on witness stand, although jury was not present)

4/4 and 4/5 (Thursday and Friday) - Attorneys argued about Malcolm's statement "If I can’t have her, then no one else will."
Judge ruled Friday 4/5 to not allow the statement. But judge tells the prosecution that "she’s open-minded to reconsidering her ruling". Which means that they could find case law that supports their position, and bring that case law to judge in court on Monday morning. And then we'll have another delay!

4/5 Friday - Attorneys also argued the use of the word 'psychopath'.
Judge ruled that nobody will be allowed to directly call Jonchuck a psychopath in court.

 

[Niner]

You're a peach!!

 

[Niner]

I'll be shortening this after I post it here today.

Monday, April 8th:
*Trial continues (Day 10) (@ 9:30am ET) – FL – Phoebe Jonchuck (5) (Jan. 18, 2015, St. Petersburg; thrown off 62’ bridge into Tampa Bay by her father) – *John Nicolas Jonchuck, Jr. (25/now 28) arrested & charged (1/18/15) with 1st degree murder, aggravated assault with a vehicle on LE officers & aggravated fleeing & eluding police. Plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Held without bond.
Jury trial started 3/25/19. Jurors: 4 women & 8 men (alternates: 3 women/1 juror was dismissed on 4/4). Jurors may ask witnesses questions. (Trial could take at least one week. General hours are going to be 9am until 7pm).
Jury Selection Day 1 (3/18/19) thru Day 5 (3/22/19) reference post #218 here:
FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015
Trial Day 1 (3/25/19) thru Day 6 (4/2/19) reference post #291 here:
FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015
4/3/19 Day 7: Richard Cipriano, court psychologist evaluated Jonchuck. “He’s competent as to all six statutory criteria,” says the judge. “I find him competent to stand trial.” Court resumed at 1:15 p.m. when the jurors came back, and Randy Otto, a USF psychologist, who started testifying yesterday, took the stand again. Other Defense witness: St. Petersburg police Sgt. Kenny Miller. Court continues on 4/4.
4/4/19 Day 8: Defense witness: Assistant Public Defender Paige Parish, a colleague of Jonchuck’s defense team. She was the court appointed public defender who represented Jonchuck during his first appearance in court. Jim Jones, registered nurse & administrative nursing supervisor with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office & works at the Pinellas County Jail. Dr. Michael Maher, psychiatrist (certified forensic psychiatrist). Defense rests their case.
The judge asks the lawyers what they want to do about the juror who doesn’t actually live in Pinellas County anymore. She said the man lives in Trinity, in Pasco County, and moved there in December. Judge has dismissed this juror.
Prosecutors on rebuttal-witness: Kyrsten Malcolm, former paralegal to family attorney Genevieve Torres, whom Jonchuck was trying to hire to represent him in custody dispute over Phoebe. Testimony was without the jury in the room, recalled how Jonchuck said "If I can’t have her, nobody can,” in reference to Phoebe. Defense lawyers argued they were not given notice that Malcolm would say that, rendering her statements prejudicial and documents on the discovery issue surrounding Malcolm’s testimony.
Defense objects to this witness. Judge will decide tomorrow and called it for the night, and the lawyers have their homework to do. Court begins tomorrow (4/5) at 9:30 a.m., to hear more arguments on the discovery issue surrounding Malcolm’s testimony. Defense rests their case.
4/5/19 Day 9: Judge has decided not to let Malcolm’s testimony re Jonchuck’s statement “”If I can’t have her, nobody can” into testimony. But judge tells the prosecution that "she’s open-minded to reconsidering her ruling". Which means that they could find case law that supports their position, and bring that case law to judge in court on Monday morning. Attorneys also argued the use of the word 'psychopath'. Judge ruled that nobody will be allowed to directly call Jonchuck a psychopath in court. Trial continues on 4/8.

 

[SeesSeas]

The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
John Jonchuck murder trial, April 8, 2019.

 

[SeesSeas]

The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
With some technical legal questions out of the way, prosecutors are free to argue that Jonchuck was of sound mind when he dropped his daughter, 5-year-old Phoebe Jonchuck, off a bridge in 2015.

Prosecutors on Thursday called their first rebuttal witness, a paralegal who had spoken to Jonchuck several times the day before he killed his daughter. Without the jury in the room, she testified that she heard Jonchuck say that day, “If I can’t have her, then no one else will," in reference to Phoebe.

Jonchuck’s defense lawyers objected, saying they weren’t properly notified of her testimony, and it therefore should not be admissible. It took the rest of Thursday and all of Friday to work out the legal issues. In the end, that statement will not be allowed into the trial.

It’s unclear if prosecutors will now call the paralegal back to court to testify in front of the jury about other details, or if they will move onto another witness.

Once the prosecution wraps its rebuttal, the judge could grant the defense a surrebuttal — a chance to rebut the rebuttal. Then the lawyers will deliver their closing arguments and the jury will begin to deliberate.