GUILTY IN - Melinda Lindsey, 23, shot to death, Porter County, 16 Jan 2015 - #2

[ArabianLover]

The jury instruction is given by the judge, not the defense attorney.

And unfortunately in closing arguments, the attorneys can say pretty much anything they want to say. The judge should have instructed the jurors that the closing arguments are not to be considered.

They would have received something similar to this:

Matters Not Evidence
The evidence does not include the Indictment, opening statements, or closing arguments of counsel. The opening statements and closing arguments of counsel are designed to assist you; they are not evidence.
Statements or answers stricken by the Court or that you were instructed to disregard are not evidence and must be treated as though you never heard them. You must not speculate as to why the Court sustained the objection to any question or what the answer to such question might have been. You must not draw any inference or speculate on the truth of any suggestion included in an unanswered question.

Although they were most likely instructed NOT to consider the closing argument as "evidence", I do agree it most likely had an impact. But the defense did nothing "wrong" by saying this in his closing argument.

Like I said earlier, this will likely turn out ok. There have been many, many murder trials where the defendant had to be retried because of a mistrial. And found guilty in the second trial.

Now the prosecution KNOWS the defenses' strategy. That is a huge advantage.

 

[Tina Grant]

I don't believe it is legal for the ex to sign away child support. The money is the child's (not for x-boxes, but for life's necessities and education). My understanding that any such arrangement could be fought in court, by the child, down the road.

Now, they possibly could have a quiet arrangement that Steve just not visit and she won't push for funds. But she can change her mind, and go after back $ if she found herself in dire financial straits. The deal would only be casual, and not supported by the law.

Anyway, that is how "I" understand it. It might change from state to state?

One way would be if the ex remarried, and her husband wanted to adopt the son. Then SL could be relieved of paying child support, and the new husband takes on that responsibility (even if they divorce). The child is entitled to support till 18 (I think 18...might be longer if he's in college).

Fact is, I don't think SL will ever be able to pay up his back child support or continue with current support (which will be at a much lower level if/when he's released). His earning days are gone in all likelihood. I feel bad for his family members who paid TONS of $ for his defense, and have to do it again if they want to attempt another try at freedom. Or he might get a court-appointed lawyer.

I feel bad for the family members too. He will have no problem taking everything they have, and then when it's all gone blaming them for his predicament. And if he does get out - where does he live? With his brother and his wife, and baby girl? Then those poor people will get to meet the man Melinda knew. Just terrible for everyone. He needs to be put down.

 

[BarryW]

The jury instruction is given by the judge, not the defense attorney.

And unfortunately in closing arguments, the attorneys can say pretty much anything they want to say. The judge should have instructed the jurors that the closing arguments are not to be considered.

They would have received something similar to this:

Matters Not Evidence
The evidence does not include the Indictment, opening statements, or closing arguments of counsel. The opening statements and closing arguments of counsel are designed to assist you; they are not evidence.
Statements or answers stricken by the Court or that you were instructed to disregard are not evidence and must be treated as though you never heard them. You must not speculate as to why the Court sustained the objection to any question or what the answer to such question might have been. You must not draw any inference or speculate on the truth of any suggestion included in an unanswered question.

Although they were most likely instructed NOT to consider the closing argument as "evidence", I do agree it most likely had an impact. But the defense did nothing "wrong" by saying this in his closing argument.

Like I said earlier, this will likely turn out ok. There have been many, many murder trials where the defendant had to be retried because of a mistrial. And found guilty in the second trial.

Now the prosecution KNOWS the defenses' strategy. That is a huge advantage.

Thank you for clarifying that. Damned shame they are allowed to MISlead the jury this way. What was said was incorrect. The Judges instructions are sort of general, and basically you can ignore anything you want to, and believe what you want to. You might expect the defendant, and the witnesses sometimes, to lie. You'd expect the lawyers to only be allowed to tell the truth.

Yes, I do believe the second time around will give a much better chance for a conviction. Just so hard on the families to wait for their justice.

 

[ArabianLover]

You might expect the defendant, and the witnesses sometimes, to lie. You'd expect the lawyers to only be allowed to tell the truth.

Well....we all remember the opening statements in the Casey Anthoney trial made by Jose Baez. When he claimed that George Anthony had molested Casey Anthony as a little girl. That wasn't true. And the Menendez brothers attorneys claiming they had been sexually abused? Likely not true either. Defense attorneys aren't about telling "truth". They're about creating "reasonable doubt".

 

[BarryW]

You might expect the defendant, and the witnesses sometimes, to lie. You'd expect the lawyers to only be allowed to tell the truth.

Well....we all remember the opening statements in the Casey Anthony trial made by Jose Baez. When he claimed that George Anthony had molested Casey Anthony as a little girl. That wasn't true. And the Menendez brothers attorneys claiming they had been sexually abused? Likely not true either. Defense attorneys aren't about telling "truth". They're about creating "reasonable doubt".

Yes, I remember when they accused Casey's father of sexual abuse, absolutely disgusting. Legally would Casey have had to tell him that, for him to utter it inside court? I do believe that it was told as a "statement of fact" instead of a theory.

I see how the defense lawyer's can theorize "Perhaps Casey's Dad molested her". Or in the case of SL, "perhaps one of Melinda's old boyfriends did it". As long as he's not making it a statement of fact, then I think that's okay...well, actually it's smarmy if he doesn't actually believe it, but "it's plausible", and normal court antics.

As for the Menendez brothers, if their crime had occurred more recently, they would have got off under the "affluenza" defense.

But, what I think is fair is obviously not the way things operate.

 

[Mercurial]

Just a vocabulary point, just to make people look good when they write in public: a jurist is an expert in the law, someone who writes law opinions, that kind of thing - usually a judge.

Someone who sits on a jury is a juror.

Think of me as just straightening your tie as you walk out the door, combing a piece of loose hair, not telling you need to go change the outfit or you look bad!

 

[BarryW]

Just a vocabulary point, just to make people look good when they write in public: a jurist is an expert in the law, someone who writes law opinions, that kind of thing - usually a judge.

Someone who sits on a jury is a juror.

Think of me as just straightening your tie as you walk out the door, combing a piece of loose hair, not telling you need to go change the outfit or you look bad!

I appreciate it. I know it's juror, but for some reason I kept using jurist. Juror Juror Juror Juror, if I repeat it enough times I won't make that mistake again.

I always notice a common error of others: There Their They're, maybe I shouldn't be such a spelling snob. Jurist...geesh LOL

 

[Safeguard]

I appreciate it. I know it's juror, but for some reason I kept using jurist. Juror Juror Juror Juror, if I repeat it enough times I won't make that mistake again.

I always notice a common error of others: There Their They're, maybe I shouldn't be such a spelling snob. Jurist...geesh LOL

I too used the word, "jurist", incorrectly. I appreciate (free!) education, delivered in such a thoughtful, supportive and caring manner.Thank you Mercurial!

 

[starryfive]

Anyone know when the next trial might begin?

 

[BarryW]

Anyone know when the next trial might begin?

Set Her Soul Free mentioned she thought it would be in March. Possible that after court Wednesday they'll know for sure.

 

[HistoryNut]

We knew his attorney planned on seeking a bond, but here's the latest. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_a1087ca9-c999-515f-833f-ec9607b1638b.html

I laughed when I read the 2nd paragraph that he is a loving father of two children (one who he didn't pay child support for and the other he was looking at adoption sites), and that he could find immediate employment in his field. Really? He's admitted to abusing drugs and he is going to be retried for murdering his wife. I can't imagine any employer would risk hiring this guy.

 

[BarryW]

We knew his attorney planned on seeking a bond, but here's the latest. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_a1087ca9-c999-515f-833f-ec9607b1638b.html

I laughed when I read the 2nd paragraph that he is a loving father of two children (one who he didn't pay child support for and the other he was looking at adoption sites), and that he could find immediate employment in his field. Really? He's admitted to abusing drugs and he is going to be retried for murdering his wife. I can't imagine any employer would risk hiring this guy.

While I agree with you 100%, he should NOT get out of jail, I also thought there would be a quick slam dunk guilty verdict. The world is upside down. I anxiously await till tomorrow to see what transpires. Hopefully new trial is allowed, and SL sits in jail while he waits for that trial. But nothing would surprise me after the verdict.

 

[Set her soul free]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_7461fd9c-6162-5cf1-a454-1f682abe28b3.html

 

[skinnycat]

So happy that bail was denied, at least the 2 babies will be safe from him.

 

[Tina Grant]

So happy that bail was denied, at least the 2 babies will be safe from him.

The two babies, his ex-wife, and anyone who testified against him. (((SHSF))).

 

[starryfive]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_7461fd9c-6162-5cf1-a454-1f682abe28b3.html

"Porter Superior Court Judge Bill Alexa scheduled the new trial to begin Feb. 16 and is allowing at least four weeks for it."

 

[BarryW]

The two babies, his ex-wife, and anyone who testified against him. (((SHSF))).

It is great news! I did worry about the witnesses who took the stand against him. He's got anger issues.

FOUR weeks for the next trial. I guess more of those 100 prosecution witnesses will be called.

Let's hope for a good outcome next time around. Feb. is not that long. He gets to spend Christmas inside of a jail cell. I hope the turkey is dry.

 

[skinnycat]

Turkey won't be dry it will be rolled mystery meat, I hope he chokes on it and saves the taxpayers some money.

 

[jggordo]

Did I somehow miss Thanksgiving on Thursday? If I did somehow, I am thankful he is still in Jail where he belongs.

VALPARAISO | Steven Lindsey was denied bond Friday and will remain behind bars at the Porter County Jail while he waits to be retried for the Jan. 16 killing of his wife, Melinda Lindsey.

Porter Superior Court Judge Bill Alexa scheduled the new trial to begin Feb. 16 and is allowing at least four weeks for it.

Lindsey, 35, who appeared for Friday's hearing in black-

Link from above.

JMO's

 

[BarryW]

Set Her Soul Free, a question for you. A difficult one, but an important one.

When SL went ahead and cremated Lindsey without regard to informing family/friends, what did he do with her ashes? Did he hang onto them? Throw them away? Return them to her family?

If he just tossed them out, I would hope the prosecutor, next time around could use this as a further example, of many, that show what kind of man he is. Maybe he didn't even pick them up from the cremator?