GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #10

[emmalpage81]

The only thing I can see could have a chance of going anywhere would be the motion for a change of venue. That is always a coin toss on appeals. Since the def Attys stated they would be filing 1 joint appeal that eliminates the motion that was denied allowing TM's co-worker to testify to the "hate" comment. Basically they will use the old throw it against the wall and hope something sticks method. Object to everything during trial and Appeal every decision that went against them. I think the Judge did an excellent job but my only concern was that he called recess a few times to check the law on some objections. Once was the co-worker and once was the children's statement that I remember specifically.

Also the comment made by the jury foreman about his wife not agreeing with his opinion on the verdict. That meant he ignored the judges instructions not to discuss the case with anyone including other jurors during the trial phase.

I would look on the judge checking the law as a good thing rather than bad; he wanted to make sure he was following the law leaving less room for his decisions to be overturned on appeal.

In regards to the change of venue, again why did they not renew the application at jury selection if they thought they were in any way prejudiced. According to the NC Defender Manual (http://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/...nc.edu/files/pdf/Ch 11 Venue 2d ed 2013_0.pdf)

"Voir dire of Jurors.

North Carolina courts have held that jurors answers to voir dire questions are the best evidence of community bias.
See State v. Jaynes, 342 N.C. 249 (1995); State v. Madric, 328 N.C. 223 (1991). Thus, if a pretrial motion to change venue is denied, counsel should try to establish the existence of widespread juror bias during voir dire and renew the motion at that time."

BBM. The defence did not renew its application for a change of venue. It questioned the prospective jurors fully and accepted them.

I am sure they plan on arguing that the defence was in some way prejudiced by the judge refusing to remove juror 1 after she became physically ill looking at photos of JC's body; tbh i have felt physically sick looking at some of the photos and i did not have to see the result of the assault on JC so not sure if that argument will hold up.
All IMO

 

[Be true]

I've been on an old thread for days[emoji23] just found you all now. And feel a lot better reading posts, was concerned about defences latest stunt.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[stephanddoody]

If I remember correctly she said it was a combination of not eating breakfast. She didn't say it was nothing to do with the graphic nature of the photos that was accepted by the judge

 

[Be true]

If I remember correctly she said it was a combination of not eating breakfast. She didn't say it was nothing to do with the graphic nature of the photos that was accepted by the judge

Yes your right, and to me that's the dodgy part because the judge ruled she should stay in, if I'm right because she admitted it was a combination of not eating and the graphic pics. That's what he made his decision on.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[stephanddoody]

Yes that's what she said
Judge David Lee sent the jury out and allowed the juror who got sick to come in by herself. He asked her if she could continue.
“Yes sir,” she answered. “It was a combination of not eating breakfast.”
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...ed-had-no-visible-signs-of-injury-799630.html

 

[Be true]

Lee asked her if she could continue.

She said: “Yes sir. It was a combination of not eating breakfast.”

The juror left the courtroom, and David Freedman, attorney for Martens, made a motion for the juror to be dismissed.

Lee denied the motion, saying he was satisfied with the juror’s answers.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1317698/...-shown-photos-of-damage-to-businessmans-head/

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

 

[kittythehare]

Just putting the Mallory lane video here
https://www.facebook.com/wxiimallorylane/videos/681493118715960/

I watched this again, just now. Last night, I watched the Winston Salem Journal version. They are quite different.

 

[emmalpage81]

I would look on the judge checking the law as a good thing rather than bad; he wanted to make sure he was following the law leaving less room for his decisions to be overturned on appeal.

In regards to the change of venue, again why did they not renew the application at jury selection if they thought they were in any way prejudiced. According to the NC Defender Manual (http://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/...nc.edu/files/pdf/Ch 11 Venue 2d ed 2013_0.pdf)

"Voir dire of Jurors.

North Carolina courts have held that jurors answers to voir dire questions are the best evidence of community bias.
See State v. Jaynes, 342 N.C. 249 (1995); State v. Madric, 328 N.C. 223 (1991). Thus, if a pretrial motion to change venue is denied, counsel should try to establish the existence of widespread juror bias during voir dire and renew the motion at that time."

BBM. The defence did not renew its application for a change of venue. It questioned the prospective jurors fully and accepted them.

I am sure they plan on arguing that the defence was in some way prejudiced by the judge refusing to remove juror 1 after she became physically ill looking at photos of JC's body; tbh i have felt physically sick looking at some of the photos and i did not have to see the result of the assault on JC so not sure if that argument will hold up.
All IMO

I should start at the end of the thread and not where i leave off the previous day. Jury misconduct. I guess it was to be expected.

Stephan not sure if you have linked the motion if not https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-57e3-8011-3974fc96dfc1/59951b97bf2cd.pdf.pdf

Going to have a read through now.....


All IMO

 

[stephanddoody]

I had it but wasn't sure whether to link it . It's not bad I think serious but they broke no laws

 

[kittythehare]

I had it but wasn't sure whether to link it . It's not bad I think serious but they broke no laws

Had it as well and thats what I based my night long research on below..

 

[emmalpage81]

I had it but wasn't sure whether to link it . It's not bad I think serious but they broke no laws

This is just the motion and we know how truthful the defence are in their motions.......

I await the prosecutions reply to the motion. At the moment I can see a few things that make me go 'ohhhh why did you do that'. Whether the judge will think it matters is another thing.

Just watching the WX Mallory Lane video. Watching the foreman it seems a lot more innocent than when you actually read the words. IMO it seems like he is discussing what went on in the jury room rather than conversations outside. I could be wrong but he stated 'nobody voted not guilty'. The only place you would be having a vote is in the jury room.

Who was he in the car with, i'm sure we will hear more about that. Could be completely innocent, again we will find out.

Information on jury misconduct http://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/...iles/pdf/Ch 26 Jury Misconduct 2d ed 2012.pdf

All IMO

 

[Logic-lady]

"contradicts the courts finding that molly corbett was not the aggressor"... (excerpt from above article. )I don't recall the court making a finding of that nature?? Or did I miss it?

Didn't the spatter expert indicate it was probable that blows took place on or near the bed? Surely it was hardly a major leap for the jury to surmise that JC was first struck while in bed?

The prosecution made much of the fact that the brick was covered in blood and hair and that MM's pyjama bottoms had not only blood but also human tissue on them. TM stated he never saw the brick....what other conclusion were the jury to arrive at?

 

[Logic-lady]

According to court papers, Molly Corbett has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. But that was never presented to the jury, the motion says. "No evidence from the witness stand supported any conclusions that she suffered from bipolar disorder, was manipulative or could control her 'personalities,' or from which the jury could reasonably infer those conclusions," the motion says. Molly Corbett did not testify, and the jurors' "speculation about Molly Corbett's mental status or manipulative personality also violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to testify, as well as the defendant's Due Process and Equal Protection clause protections," the motion says.

Improper theories


The motion also said that the three jurors talked about their theory that Molly was the aggressor and struck her husband first with the paving brick while he was asleep. That contradicts the court's finding that Molly Corbett was not the aggressor and the evidence doesn't support the theory, the motion says.

Holton and Freedman also allege that the jurors were biased and less than candid. Perez vomited when looking at an autopsy photo and told Lee outside the presence of other jurors that it was because she had skipped breakfast, the motion says. But in the 20/20 interview, Perez said, "I don't think there's anything or any experience in life that can prepare you to look at those pictures."

Perez also talked post-trial about the case on social media, mentioning that Molly Corbett was "delusional" and "how daddy and Sharon (Molly's mother) enabled this non-human person." She said Molly's parents and Molly Corbett lied and that Sharon Martens did crossword puzzles for the last three weeks of the trial, according to the motion.

But were the jury not present when the judge was presented with the motion to allow MM psychiatric care in prison? That would have made me more confident in my verdict, if after the fact I realised there was far more to the defendant than I had been led to believe during trial, especially if the evidence which had been presented to me had made me consider she was the aggressor.

 

[stephanddoody]

This is just the motion and we know how truthful the defence are in their motions.......

I await the prosecutions reply to the motion. At the moment I can see a few things that make me go 'ohhhh why did you do that'. Whether the judge will think it matters is another thing.

Just watching the WX Mallory Lane video. Watching the foreman it seems a lot more innocent than when you actually read the words. IMO it seems like he is discussing what went on in the jury room rather than conversations outside. I could be wrong but he stated 'nobody voted not guilty'. The only place you would be having a vote is in the jury room.

Who was he in the car with, i'm sure we will hear more about that. Could be completely innocent, again we will find out.

Information on jury misconduct http://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/...iles/pdf/Ch 26 Jury Misconduct 2d ed 2012.pdf

All IMO

Yes i agree but now look at the WS journal one . As far as I'm aware the foreman drove a motorcycle so I imagine he didn't eat lunch on that . I would say that was completely innocent. I wonder if the witness took a photograph of this . Surely they would be in serious trouble if they did .

 

[Frizby]

Link to the Jury Foremen video on Winston Salem Journal

http://video.journalnow.com/Tom-Aamland-jury-foreman-CorbettMartens-trial-32810590?playlistId=14503

 

[Logic-lady]

Law in the US is different than the UK. In most countries, jurors are not allowed to discuss verdicts except in situations where they are traumatized by the jury duty and require professional counselling services.

This tactic doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately, it may result in a retrial. I think the jurors will be interviewed separately by the Judge now to determine whether they discussed the case, or accessed media, prior to the verdict. If there is a retrial, I guess the jury has to be sequestered.

It is unfortunate that the Judge did not provide more guidance to the jurors to ensure that they remained silent for at least a period of time. Also, given gruesome nature of the evidence, perhaps they should have been offered counselling services post-trial so they could process their thoughts without speaking to the media.

Thanks this is helpful info. Do you know if they were to get a retrial, would they still face the same charges, or if more evidence were to come to light could they be re-charged with first degree murder?

 

[Jennifer17]

Yes i agree but now look at the WS journal one . As far as I'm aware the foreman drove a motorcycle so I imagine he didn't eat lunch on that . I would say that was completely innocent. I wonder if the witness took a photograph of this . Surely they would be in serious trouble if they did .

Where I live if anyone took a photo of a jury member and identified him as such, they would get a jail sentence for contempt of court.

 

[Logic-lady]

what with the abc 20/20 case being so rampantly pushed immediately post verdict, complete with its untruths, inaccuracies and blatant lies and with crime scene photos on board, well before the prosecutor released them to other media, it certainly looks like this was the goal, as you say.
But I read the affidavit and went through each complaint and I see no violations.
Most of the comments were made at end of abc viewing. The facebook comments referred were made on either fox8 or abc20/20, but they were based on juror's individual observations and not on the evidence that proved the allegations and the jurors made it clear their verdicts were reached based on evidence.

I dont believe they are in violation but I do believe they were set up, just one in a long line of dirty tricks that have characterised the defence tactics throughout the investigation and trial.

Someone else who is to blame Kitty! We can add it to the list.

 

[Logic-lady]

I've been on an old thread for days[emoji23] just found you all now. And feel a lot better reading posts, was concerned about defences latest stunt.

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk

Too funny!! :laughing:

 

[Frizby]

I have read through the motion and imo the only one that is causing me a concern is the reference to "private conversations".

The issue with regards to MM mental health, the jury observed MM during the trial, they witnessed how she reacted when the photos of JC body were displayed, they saw her reaction to the crime scene photos. From what I saw reported, MM didn't flinch, but when matter regarding the children were discussed she had plenty of reaction. At one point, I understand that MM stormed out of court but I am not sure where this was in front of the jury or was it when something was being discussed outside the jury being present.

The matter regarding the Juror getting sick I think is a ridiculous reason. She clearly stated that it was "a combination of not eating breakfast". So it was both, seeing the picture and not easting breakfast. The fact that she did not say she had not eaten breakfast on ABC doesn't make her point on that show the only reason.

The reference to her not being impartial does not also have any merit imo. She heard evidence from Law Enforcement as to the reaction of TM, she saw TM sitting in the court, she heard TM on the stand. It was evidence that sunk them, not her opinion on FBI and her opinion was not on FBI as a whole, it was on TM. And anyway, this was all put into the media and the ABC program was on the Friday, two days after the verdict.

But as I said about, the only one that I would have a concern with is the "private conversations", not the sitting in a car, just his comment about "private conversations".

Link to the full motion https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-57e3-8011-3974fc96dfc1/59951b97bf2cd.pdf.pdf