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

New Posts

kittythehare said:
Your final sentence nails it.
I am feeling this as well.
Almost like it was set up this way.
I'm so tired of them... so tired of their duplicity, dirty tricks and media prostituting..
Click to expand...

My hunch is that they did the 20/20 interviews before the trial and a financial incentive could have been offered for these jurors to appear on the broadcast by the 20/20 producers on behalf of the Defence lawyers with specific questions for them to be asked to open them up.

The jurors then fell into a trap. They also may have had friends of the Martens watching the juror's every move trying to catch them out or even lying about it.

I also think that the 20/20 broadcast, the appeal and this potential retrial are designed to attract more sympathy and money to the funding by ME in which case the lawyers will benefit too. It appears that the money can be taken out by ME as soon as it goes in so there will not be any refunds.
 
http://criminal.lawyers.com/crimina...-try-again-when-is-a-retrial-a-good-idea.html


Retrials and Sentencing

When criminal defendants are retried, they are not guaranteed the same (or less) sentence that they received after the first trial. The double jeopardy clause does insure that they be given credit for time served pursuant to the now-reversed conviction. And in death penalty cases, if the jury in the first trial recommended against death and the defendant secures a retrial, the double jeopardy clause usually bars the court from sentencing the defendant to death if the second trial results in a guilty verdict.
 
emmalpage81 said:
I have vomited before, actually a few times, when I haven't eaten breakfast (I actually don't eat breakfast so any time I have vomited before lunch would fit in this scenario), you are basically vomiting up bile and liquid from your stomach.

Horrible subject, but it does happen.

All IMO
Click to expand...

I hear you. It's another oddity though that the jurors were asked if they could handle the graphic nature of the evidence. Then this juror causes the first strife with the defense. Then after the fact this juror says she wasn't prepared but no one could know how they would react ahead of time. It's all too predictable to my way of thinking. But Also, I haven't been right about much so far, there's that.
 
The jurer may not have had any breakfast, but that is not to say she did not have a coffee/tea or a glass of water.
 
kittythehare said:
Your final sentence nails it.
I am feeling this as well.
Almost like it was set up this way.
I'm so tired of them... so tired of their duplicity, dirty tricks and media prostituting..
Click to expand...


Do we know who the reporter for 20/20 is? Does she have any direct connection with the defense? It seems highly suspect that the basis of their motion to dismiss is prompted by the very same programme that they have actively participated in IMO.
 
Logic-lady said:
Do we know who the reporter for 20/20 is? Does she have any direct connection with the defense? It seems highly suspect that the basis of their motion to dismiss is prompted by the very same programme that they have actively participated in IMO.
Click to expand...

ABC is a large network. I have doubt the reporter from 20/20 has any connection with the defense. 20/20 reports true crime. They report many cases.
 
 
stmarysmead said:
http://criminal.lawyers.com/crimina...-try-again-when-is-a-retrial-a-good-idea.html


Retrials and Sentencing

When criminal defendants are retried, they are not guaranteed the same (or less) sentence that they received after the first trial. The double jeopardy clause does insure that they be given credit for time served pursuant to the now-reversed conviction. And in death penalty cases, if the jury in the first trial recommended against death and the defendant secures a retrial, the double jeopardy clause usually bars the court from sentencing the defendant to death if the second trial results in a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that a retrial could pursue 1st-degree murder?
 
Shortcloak said:
Does this mean that a retrial could pursue 1st-degree murder?
Click to expand...
I thought the double jeopardy rule was that a person cannot be charged/convicted with the same crime twice. However I'm sure there is plenty interpretation. And case law here. However the defence appear to want a retrial rather than just asking for conviction to be thrown out. Would the double jeopardy rule mean that murder, either 1 or 2 is off the table entirely and a lesser charge is all they could be looking at? Can't see them trying to pursue murder 1 in a retrial when they didn't have enough to pursue it without a doubt the first day. I must research the double jeopardy. Like say if a retrial is allowed, would the next step be for the defence to file a motion invoking the double jeopardy rule.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
 
[video=twitter;898220189170446336]https://twitter.com/alexrosenews/status/898220189170446336[/video]

Da answered
 
Hotchips said:
I thought the double jeopardy rule was that a person cannot be charged/convicted with the same crime twice. However I'm sure there is plenty interpretation. And case law here. However the defence appear to want a retrial rather than just asking for conviction to be thrown out. Would the double jeopardy rule mean that murder, either 1 or 2 is off the table entirely and a lesser charge is all they could be looking at? Can't see them trying to pursue murder 1 in a retrial when they didn't have enough to pursue it without a doubt the first day. I must research the double jeopardy. Like say if a retrial is allowed, would the next step be for the defence to file a motion invoking the double jeopardy rule.

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Double jeopardy is a situation like OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty of those murders. No matter what evidence shows up, he cannot be tried again for those murders.

But these defendants have been found guilty. Now they want a new trial. I am wondering if the State could look at the fact that perhaps her bipolar disease is now public knowledge, that they can impeach her credibility on the fact that the blood spatter shows she is lying when she says Jason was standing when they hit him. Maybe because her Bipolar is now public knowledge, KM can testify.

Maybe they could go for Murder One.
 
[video=twitter;898222697951485953]https://twitter.com/mhewlettwsj/status/898222697951485953[/video]

Also this just came up on my feed . People die in NC from asthma complications too . Also wanted to extend my condolences to you short cloak
 
Shortcloak said:
Does this mean that a retrial could pursue 1st-degree murder?
Click to expand...
I think on the last thread I inquired about this and the reply was that it would require vacating the verdict without prejudice. But think about this...the story has gone in the direction of MM being guilty of 1st degree and TM being guilty of 2nd degree or perhaps manslaughter, depending on when he got involved. MM has yet to tell her story of the crime and the real truth has escaped us. That's why the DA threw the book at them. IMO no one was really allowed to interrogate MM to get her to confess. To detectives that is the truth. And from what we know about TM and his statements to the Sheriffs, he wasn't going to be interrogated either. Such obfuscation has resulted in their incarceration. And, Only when they decide to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will the court want to hear from them again. MOO
 
Logic-lady said:
Do we know who the reporter for 20/20 is? Does she have any direct connection with the defense? It seems highly suspect that the basis of their motion to dismiss is prompted by the very same programme that they have actively participated in IMO.
Click to expand...
Don't know who she is but her facial expressions and tone of voice was so sarcastic with defence yet so sympathetic with the martens. Obviously not a great journalist imo. Asked nothing investigatory of either.

Jmo

Sent from my SM-T561 using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for your response Annelle.

This has my stomach in knots since I heard it a few days ago it has really taken legs from a simple news article.

What are your opinions on what will happen. Do u think there is any chance the verdict will be thrown out? If it is does that mean they get out until their retrial or would they remain in prison for new trial please tell me No!!!
 
How long will we have to wait for the judge to make a decision. Will he have to interview all the jurors. Also, would the journalists need to have the jurors on tape or how will they prove what was said word for word. Could have been taken out of context. I cant imagine ehat the Corbetts are feeling so soon after thinking it had come to a close.
 
Donnachain said:
How long will we have to wait for the judge to make a decision. Will he have to interview all the jurors. Also, would the journalists need to have the jurors on tape or how will they prove what was said word for word. Could have been taken out of context. I cant imagine ehat the Corbetts are feeling so soon after thinking it had come to a close.
Click to expand...

They included everything the jurors said in the motion https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-57e3-8011-3974fc96dfc1/5994ce75ec0b6.pdf.pdf
Where they got the the information about the Foreman and other juror meeting in the car is questionable. It also could be completely innocent. The way they obtained this information is what we are curious about . The only part that could cause concern would be as Frizby pointed out him saying private conversations in the interview outside the courtroom. They will be each questioned by the judge for clarification and the Da will file a motion to reject and on what grounds . Scott Peterson did this as well because a juror was pregnant (he murdered his pregnant wife) it was thrown out . I think it is a frequent occurrence .
 
Annela said:
I'm sorry to be so dim, but would someone please explain how to thank a post - I can't find info...
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Are you on tapa talk if you are scroll to the bottom and click switch to full site . I never see it on tapa talk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 2,326 (members: 74, guests: 2,252)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
2,252
Total visitors
2,326
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
615,519
Messages
18,337,108
Members
236,752
Latest member
ECUsqueeks27
Back
Top