Deceased/Not Found IL - Yingying Zhang, 26, Urbana, 9 June 2017 #7 *Arrest*

[Hatfield]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_in_limine

I had to look up what this meant so thought I would post the wiki for others.

It's about excluding certain evidence - whatever that may be we may not know but I am guessing it is likely the secret recordings.

Good guess. I agree it is likely the recordings made by the person that was with him at the walk.

Hope LE had all their ducks in a row with that.

This trial is going to be a very interesting trial to follow. That is if he does not do some sort of plea bargain before it starts.

 

[trunkizback]

Good guess. I agree it is likely the recordings made by the person that was with him at the walk.

Hope LE had all their ducks in a row with that.

This trial is going to be a very interesting trial to follow. That is if he does not do some sort of plea bargain before it starts.

I don't see how BC has any cards to play in the plea bargaining game tho. Maybe body location for the DP to be gone. But then he'll still be life in jail. Which I'd prefer he gets anyway. IMO life in prison is far worse than being dead.

 

[kittythehare]

I don't see how BC has any cards to play in the plea bargaining game tho. Maybe body location for the DP to be gone. But then he'll still be life in jail. Which I'd prefer he gets anyway. IMO life in prison is far worse than being dead.

I would as well.. it is non negotiable, for one thing.. Life means life.
A DP could drag on for 10 years and will cost the state a fortune..

 

[dm92]

I don't see how BC has any cards to play in the plea bargaining game tho. Maybe body location for the DP to be gone. But then he'll still be life in jail. Which I'd prefer he gets anyway. IMO life in prison is far worse than being dead.

That sounds about right; but, it might depend on just how solid their evidence is that he tortured her and intentionally killed her. He and his defense team might think the evidence isn't strong enough. Thus they might be trying to concoct some story of how she agreed to do something consensual, and he accidentally killed her then in a panic hid her body. He could be trying to talk them down to re-indicting on something lesser in exchange for her body. They, of course, are saying no way. They have told the family that they are very sure of the evidence they have showing he did what they are saying he did.

This is resulting in all these sealed filings with the court for a very simple reason: if any of the details of the negotiation get out and become widespread public knowledge, everyone will conclude that he is guilty as sin of killing her, so it will be VERY hard to get an untainted jury.

 

[kittythehare]

looking at this again- concerns his wife, Michelle
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6129073/43/united-states-v-christensen/

Counsel has been provided statements in discovery that Michelle Christensen

gave to the FBI wherein she disclosed conversations between herself and Mr.

Christensen that are at the heart of confidential spousal privilege. In part, these

statements recite statements to Michelle Christensen wherein her husband described

disturbing dreams and otherwise revealed his most private thoughts. As such, upon

appropriate objection which Mr. Christensen herein raises, Michelle Christensen cannot

testify concerning these matters or any other presumptively confidential



Michelle Christensen’s revelation of these statements to the FBI does not constitute a

waiver by Mr. Christensen. United States v. Wood, 924 F.2d 399, 401-02 (1st Cir.

1991)(distinguishing the spousal testimonial privilege which can be waived, court holds

wife could not waive husband’s privilege against disclosure of confidential marital

3
 2:17-cr-20037-CSB-EIL # 43 Page 4 of 8


communications and thus incriminating letter he sent her from jail was inadmissible);

United States v. Neal, 532 F. Supp. 942, 947 (D. Colo. 1982), aff’d 743 F.2d 1441 (10th Cir.

1984) (privilege not lost where one spouse let police eavesdrop on conversation with

spouse).


In light of the above principles, counsel seeks an order barring any testimony

from or questioning of Michelle Christensen concerning any conversation with or

communication from her husband, Brendt Christensen during their marriage, or any

reference thereto during the trial of this case, absent a prior determination of

admissibility by the Court.

I have not checked any of the laws or cases they cited in support of this attempt so not sure whether they will run or not

But, from this it does appear as though she is co-operating fully with the investigation.
Previous media reports were ambiguous.

 

[Shiressleuth]

That sounds about right; but, it might depend on just how solid their evidence is that he tortured her and intentionally killed her. He and his defense team might think the evidence isn't strong enough. Thus they might be trying to concoct some story of how she agreed to do something consensual, and he accidentally killed her then in a panic hid her body. He could be trying to talk them down to re-indicting on something lesser in exchange for her body. They, of course, are saying no way. They have told the family that they are very sure of the evidence they have showing he did what they are saying he did.

This is resulting in all these sealed filings with the court for a very simple reason: if any of the details of the negotiation get out and become widespread public knowledge, everyone will conclude that he is guilty as sin of killing her, so it will be VERY hard to get an untainted jury.

I think most people already think he is guilty as sin. Has a change of venue been allowed? I cannot recall the outcome of that.

I think you're right that if the defense can bargain a lesser charge then they will obviously. They will have more chance of that if they get the recordings thrown out, which is what I think they are trying. Then they are also looking at this 'mother's pregnancy diet' thing and the Atkins defence.

Are we sure they had never met before? Even just a fleeting possibility? E.g. had he given her an innocent lift before ever? Could they have that up their sleeve?

His biggest bargaining chip may be the body location. But if he gives that up, he will reveal his guilt in the process so I am guessing that all the other negotiations will happen first.

:cow:

 

[Shiressleuth]

looking at this again- concerns his wife, Michelle
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6129073/43/united-states-v-christensen/

Counsel has been provided statements in discovery that Michelle Christensen

gave to the FBI wherein she disclosed conversations between herself and Mr.

Christensen that are at the heart of confidential spousal privilege. In part, these

statements recite statements to Michelle Christensen wherein her husband described

disturbing dreams and otherwise revealed his most private thoughts. As such, upon

appropriate objection which Mr. Christensen herein raises, Michelle Christensen cannot

testify concerning these matters or any other presumptively confidential



Michelle Christensen’s revelation of these statements to the FBI does not constitute a

waiver by Mr. Christensen. United States v. Wood, 924 F.2d 399, 401-02 (1st Cir.

1991)(distinguishing the spousal testimonial privilege which can be waived, court holds

wife could not waive husband’s privilege against disclosure of confidential marital

3
2:17-cr-20037-CSB-EIL # 43 Page 4 of 8


communications and thus incriminating letter he sent her from jail was inadmissible);

United States v. Neal, 532 F. Supp. 942, 947 (D. Colo. 1982), aff’d 743 F.2d 1441 (10th Cir.

1984) (privilege not lost where one spouse let police eavesdrop on conversation with

spouse).


In light of the above principles, counsel seeks an order barring any testimony

from or questioning of Michelle Christensen concerning any conversation with or

communication from her husband, Brendt Christensen during their marriage, or any

reference thereto during the trial of this case, absent a prior determination of

admissibility by the Court.

I have not checked any of the laws or cases they cited in support of this attempt so not sure whether they will run or not

But, from this it does appear as though she is co-operating fully with the investigation.
Previous media reports were ambiguous.

Perhaps she has doubts about testifying. If she decided she did not want to testify then could they still use what she had told the FBI? If she testifies but these details are ruled inadmissible then there won't be much she can contribute by the sounds of it.

Unless she is formally separated or divorced, which, as I read this, destroys the marital privilege. Is that a correct interpretation of mine?

This is getting complicated.

 

[kittythehare]

Perhaps she has doubts about testifying. If she decided she did not want to testify then could they still use what she had told the FBI? If she testifies but these details are ruled inadmissible then there won't be much she can contribute by the sounds of it

Unless she is formally separated or divorced, which, as I read this, destroys the marital privilege. Is that a correct interpretation of mine?

This is getting complicated.

there is no solid evidence that she has any doubt about testifying. In fact she has already clearly shared the incriminating letter she received from him -in-jail plus various other nuggets she has shared and they are attempting to suppress.
That is what the document states.
I have no idea whether the cases or laws they cited are applicable in full in the manner in which they were presented.
That needs to be researched and precedent sought in federal cases whereby spousal testimony was accepted in a capital case.. I have not even started this work, maybe somebody will?

I have no idea whether a divorce would nullify it.

It's not so complicated.
They are attempting to suppress all the evidence that has been shared with them because it incriminates their client.
Ditto- girl with wire
Ditto prison informant.
Ditto all evidence removed from his apartment as well as the warrants..

It's not so complicated.. it's par for the course. Recall the judge practically calling them vexatious..
They will have tantrums, the courts will decide. It just totally disrespects YY and the nature of her death- and the value of her life and the shattered lives of her family and friends.
They are awarding the alleged perp. more rights than his victim (s).
And it's horrible, it's gonna continue being horrible until he is sentenced.

Meanwhile we can try shredding every argument they put forth by finding cases where it did not apply.. or just wait for the prosecution to get their acts together..

(I'm just hoping the feds didn't screw up with warrants, testimonies or witness statements or methodologies they used in order to get him on record.

He is so cunning, so cold and calculating that though he boasted about his exploits, he withheld the only information that would be useful- the location of her body.

He had a few days, it is possible he butchered her.. he had time..he knew about cleaning agents prior to their location of his car and he had used these cleaning agents on the passenger door of his car..

 

[Shiressleuth]

https://marriage.laws.com/marriage/testifying-against-a-spouse

Hmmm. It still sounds complicated to me and he has to be found guilty before he can be sentenced.

I'm hoping someone may know or have come across these things in other cases. Without a body and all the physical evidence of what was done it will be that much harder to prove all this imo.

Eta I have added a link that suggests both members of the marriage would have to agree the conversations were confidential for the privilege to apply.

 

[Shiressleuth]

https://www.clementlaw.com/divorce/...t-is-it-and-what-happens-to-it-after-divorce/

Here's another article that appears to show the confidential privilege still applies after divorce in certain scenarios.

 

[Niner]

Hey!

Shiressleuth - I personally haven't seen any motion for change of venue.

I have next court date is May 18th - State's Disclosure Hearing - State's disclosure of expert witnesses and expected evidence.

 

[kittythehare]

I just found this article on mental illness and the death penalty on another thread.. it is interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/us/mental-illness-death-penalty.html

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to shield mentally ill people from the death penalty, saying only that people who are insane cannot be executed.
But “the insane” is narrowly defined as “those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it” — a definition that excludes most people with severe mental illness.

Eight states have introduced legislation this year that would bar execution for people with severe mental illness, according to the 8th Amendment Project, an anti-death-penalty group, and one more is close. The bills do not agree on a common definition of severe mental illness, but it would typically include schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

Insane is different from mentally ill. The legal definition of insanity centers on the inability to comprehend the nature of one’s actions, a lack of understanding of right and wrong, or, in some states, a lack of capacity to control one’s actions.

And when it comes to execution, it is the person’s mental state at the time of punishment that matters. No one argued that Alvin Bernard Ford was insane when he killed a police officer in 1974. But he later became obsessed with the Ku Klux Klan and came to believe that family members and prominent politicians were the victims of a prolonged hostage crisis. His case, Ford v. Wainwright, reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1986 that an insane person could not be executed.

 

[kittythehare]

Hey!

Shiressleuth - I personally haven't seen any motion for change of venue.

I have next court date is May 18th - State's Disclosure Hearing - State's disclosure of expert witnesses and expected evidence.

I have not checked with the documents but I have a feeling I remember it being mooted recently.. they had been citing various media outlets etc.. if it's not in the future hearings, it may have already been denied.

 

[dm92]

I think most people already think he is guilty as sin. Has a change of venue been allowed? I cannot recall the outcome of that.

I think you're right that if the defense can bargain a lesser charge then they will obviously. They will have more chance of that if they get the recordings thrown out, which is what I think they are trying. Then they are also looking at this 'mother's pregnancy diet' thing and the Atkins defence.

No ruling yet on the motion for change of venue. After re-scheduling due to the filing of the notice of intent to seek death, all the motions have to be re-filed, so we probably won't know for a while. A couple of months back, I was listening to a discussion on a local talk show with some lawyers/court watchers. They were of the opinion that all of the motions the defense had made would eventually be denied.

Are we sure they had never met before? Even just a fleeting possibility? E.g. had he given her an innocent lift before ever? Could they have that up their sleeve?

In one of the filings made with the court, the defense stated that they were not aware of any evidence showing that their client and YY had had any prior communication with one another. WE can't be 100% certain that they never ran into one another, but there is nothing out there so far that suggests they did.

His biggest bargaining chip may be the body location. But if he gives that up, he will reveal his guilt in the process so I am guessing that all the other negotiations will happen first.

:cow:

That's what I would think as well. Other than the location of her body, or maybe also her belongings on her that day, I can't think of ANYTHING he would have that could get them to bargain with him. Also, her family wants the death penalty, but is willing to bargain in return for the location of her remains. If he can't give that, I don't know what he could have that would change their mind......

 

[Webthrush]

<snip>... Other than the location of her body, or maybe also her belongings on her that day, I can't think of ANYTHING he would have that could get them to bargain with him. Also, her family wants the death penalty, but is willing to bargain in return for the location of her remains. If he can't give that, I don't know what he could have that would change their mind......

The one other reason (and possibly a pretty big one) I think the prosecution may “bargain” is so as to save the family, and all others involved, the agony of prolonged judicial proceedings, and perhaps gruesome testimony about what happened. As much as I’m sure the family would like to see the death penalty administered, if they understand how long that process could take, they may settle for a plea bargain with no trial and life in prison (still of course with some hope of learning of YY’s final resting place).

 

[kittythehare]

I just popped in to keep thread alive.. still thinking of YY and heartbroken she has not been found..
Still hoping for the best possible outcome for her and her family- the recovery of her remains.

 

[BReVeTTe]

snipped
>In one of the filings made with the court, the defense stated that they were not aware of any evidence showing that their client and YY had had any prior communication with one another. WE can't be 100% certain that they never ran into one another, but there is nothing out there so far that suggests they did.<
......

In Australia, where I'm a home host to adult international students visiting for study purposes ; the largest percentage of those I have hosted, to date, have come from China ...hence my personal interest in following this particular case.

FWIW,
my first ever Chinese student explained to me, that in China, each student is routinely given an "English" name by their English teacher.
The "given English name" (of all but one) of my students (to date) bore zero resemblance to their actual Chinese name, and NONE of my Chinese students, nor their associates, actually use their Chinese name socially whilst in the host country.

The Chinese name (as written/spoken) always begins with the family surname, in this case ZHANG ; it is followed by the given name(s) ... Yingying.
therefore, ZHANG Yingying is her proper Chinese name
... but, for demonstration purposes only,
had YY's "given English name" been eg. "Annie",
her Westernised name would then have become "Annie Zhang"

I feel certain YY would have been given an English name, and that she would likely have been known socially, more so, by that "given English name" whilst in the host country.

For the purpose of extending research, do we know YY's "given English name" ?
[emoji887]

 

[dm92]

In Australia, where I'm a home host to adult international students visiting for study purposes ; the largest percentage of those I have hosted, to date, have come from China ...hence my personal interest in following this particular case.



For the purpose of extending research, do we know YY's "given English name" ?
[emoji887]

Many of them DO have English names they use, although certainly not all. Those that don't come with one will often choose one eventually, but it is by no means 100% in my experience. It is a significant percentage, but not all.

YY was here only six weeks, and as far as I know, there has been no public report of her using an English name. Even on the local Chinese WeChat, I don't recall my wife mentioning that she had seen any indication of an English name that YY used. I believe her boyfriend (Xiaolin Hou) has an English name that he uses, but I can't remember what it was, and I never saw it used in news reports.

If she did have an English name she was using, I'm sure the FBI was made aware of what it was through interviews with friends, coworkers and family.

 

[dm92]

The one other reason (and possibly a pretty big one) I think the prosecution may &#8220;bargain&#8221; is so as to save the family, and all others involved, the agony of prolonged judicial proceedings, and perhaps gruesome testimony about what happened. As much as I&#8217;m sure the family would like to see the death penalty administered, if they understand how long that process could take, they may settle for a plea bargain with no trial and life in prison (still of course with some hope of learning of YY&#8217;s final resting place).

Possible, but I've never heard of anything like this. And as far as sparing the family the gruesome testimony, I'm sure investigators/prosecutors are going to sit down with them and tell them everything they know about what happened to her at some point. As awful and as hard as it is to hear, most people want to know what happened to their loved one. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it were to occur right before the trial starts, so as to spare them some of the shock of what they will hear at trial.

There is something to be said about not executing him, even if he refuses to divulge the location of the body. Once he's dead, he can't tell where it is. IF he's alive, he can always change his mind -or he could just go on and on being an ******* forever. No way to know; and if he destroyed her remains? He has nothing, so if the family wants him executed, I wouldn't think they would care how long it would take, as long as that is what the sentence is and that it is carried out eventually.

There is another thing that might come into the bargaining: The statement in the notice of intent where they say he was an "expert at avoiding detection" and mentioning other victims. They might be trying to determine if there is any truth to this, or if it is all macho ******* bluster. If they think it might have some truth to it, they might be trying to pull out more info from him -divulge who these other victims are and where they are- as part of a deal.

 

[Angleterre]

https://marriage.laws.com/marriage/testifying-against-a-spouse

Hmmm. It still sounds complicated to me and he has to be found guilty before he can be sentenced.

I'm hoping someone may know or have come across these things in other cases. Without a body and all the physical evidence of what was done it will be that much harder to prove all this imo.

Eta I have added a link that suggests both members of the marriage would have to agree the conversations were confidential for the privilege to apply.

Just checked this out Shire and ‘testimonial’ privilege extends to beyond marriage. So in essence, ( from Wikipedia but I don’t know how to link it) you are protected against testifying against a former spouse once separated or divorced subsequent to the information exchange. Hope this makes sense.
Interestingly, it only commences upon marriage ( not co habitation or the equivalent of common law marriage in uk [emoji636]) but does not end with the dissolution of the marriage.
Apparently, either party can invoke it so if MC divorces BC and still wants to testify regarding legally privileged information discussed during the time of the marriage then even though she wants to testify, she can’t unless BC agrees to it otherwise he can invoke his privilege to stop her testifying, even if they subsequently divorce.
That’s my understanding - hope I got it right but it is laid out quite straightforward. All as usual is my own interpretation opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk