Trial - Ross Harris #5

[GA_Peach]

I think he is getting a fair trial. He has a great team of high priced lawyers, working pro bono. They are doing a great job. And if the judge is using faulty legal precedents, he will win some appeals.

I am just really bothered by the fact that there are sworn statements, which were made under oath, being hidden from the jury. Although Detective Murphy was the second in command for this case, the State opted not to put him on the stand. In order to give the jury a complete picture, I believe that the DT should be able to enter those statements into evidence or question a witness about them. If not, I would love to hear a rational legal reason for excluding them.

 

[Hope4More]

Cabals and conspiracies and the persecution of LE rather than the prosecution of a defendant many seem to love to hate? A new trial vocabulary emerges, but not one based on anything any poster here I've read has alleged or said, including myself.

To Equally Divided and to Gitana, one example of that pervasive bias and yes, ED, of exculpatory evidence being ignored, buried, denied by Stoddard, take your pick, but watch his testimony, lied about on the stand.

The 6 minute call. RH didn't make that call. It was impossible for him to make that call. RH in fact told the truth when he said that he hadn't spoken to anyone, and wasn't speaking to anyone, when LE told him to get off the phone.

This isn't a trivial detail, it was, according to Stoddard, one of RH's actions at the scene that raised his suspicion about RH.

Thing is, once Stoddard received the call records, he knew RH was telling the truth. There was no 6 minute call by RH, and he had not in fact been speaking to anyone when LE ordered him off the phone.

Neither fact was acknowledged by Stoddard in the course of his investigation, OR ON THE STAND during direct. Stoddard even browbeat Ms. Gray , trying to get her to admit to taking a call from RH that Stoddard knew RH DID NOT MAKE.

Kilgore nailed Stoddard on cross with the call records, and the man STILL persisted that the 6 minute call remained a mystery to him.

Sometimes facts just suck.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by MzOpinion8d View Post I can say one thing with absolute certainty - the straps should have been on the highest setting

.

Agree. But how was the setting actually known if Ross already took cooper out of the carseat.

Because the SUV was towed to the Crime Scene Shed and processed by CSI Grimstead and the straps are shown. ** that is also how the Def pointed out and showed Grimstead how his measurements were off...that and his 2nd report showed the extension pulled out and the measurements missing from his report 7/2/14 vs the 6/18/14.

Murphy testified that it was his mistake in saying the straps were in the lowest setting. *State made a comment that they didn't object when he answered that --- but there was a couple objections to relevance during that bit of testimony. an over rule and a sustain ..

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by gitana1 View Post
Those are the typical cases. Yes. But felony murder is not limited to those scenarios. Now I can't say if sexting underage persons or obsessively sexting while driving around and caring for a kid who is strapped in your car, to the point you forget his existence in 40 seconds, is criminal negligence. The jury will have to decide. (Btw, I think the facts point to intent but the evidence isn't as strong probably as it needs to be to proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Cars and texting in general come up in criminal negligence homicide cases. Usually involving a car wreck though. The question is whether his conduct, which occurred while he had his vulnerable toddler in his care, in his car, totally dependent and strapped tightly down, rises to the level of the following:


(b) Criminal negligence is an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby.

I don't think they overcharged this guy.

And remember, involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included of felony murder in Georgia. So if they don't find felony murder, they can find involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter in Georgia is not a lesser included. This is why they're charging him with felony murder - there's no other homicide offense that even conceivably fits the circumstances of this case.

And they are going for a sentence that the law had already been amended, Gov signed in April and went into effect July 1, 2014 - 2 weeks after Cooper died. They are using the old sentence of Mandatory Life.

 

[catpatrol]

And ga falls under the 11th circuit and I'm not sure most understand how big a deal it is what circuit court you fall under. It makes all the difference in some cases.

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[gitana1]

It has to be "inherently dangerous"

I don't know. I think the element is either that the defendant was committing an inherently dangerous act or acted with reckless disregard. But either might be hard to determine absolutely. It may depend on whether the jurors feel anything that intensely distracts a parent while placing or transporting a child in a vehicle, which carries known risks of harm, is inherently dangerous behavior or behavior that indicates a reckless disregard for the safety of the child.

The jury instructions will tell us so much.

 

[katydid23]

I am just really bothered by the fact that there are sworn statements, which were made under oath, being hidden from the jury. Although Detective Murphy was the second in command for this case, the State opted not to put him on the stand. In order to give the jury a complete picture, I believe that the DT should be able to enter those statements into evidence or question a witness about them. If not, I would love to hear a rational legal reason for excluding them.

I don't think that mistakes on a search warrant request are that big of a deal. jmo

It happens in every case. If the EVIDENCE they are now offering is faulty, then it is important for the jury to know that.

But who cares if they made claims that turned out to be mistaken or incorrect, AFTER further investigation?

 

[Hope4More]

Snipped for focus by me.

LE's shortcomings do not absolve Ross of his. I despise what this case has become. Ross deserves a fair trial so that he can be judged for his actions.

Hear, hear, and only to add that conversely, Ross Harris's alleged crimes do not absolve LE from the responsibility of honoring their oaths to protect the rights of the accused.
---

And jumping off your post, what I find truly ironic is that those who believe LE is on trial don't seem to understand that STODDARD, the lead investigator, is the person who has virtually single handedly been responsible for LE witnesses being demolished on the stand and having their own credibility undermined and ethics challenged. He's thrown his own team under the bus.

 

[gitana1]

I am just really bothered by the fact that there are sworn statements, which were made under oath, being hidden from the jury. Although Detective Murphy was the second in command for this case, the State opted not to put him on the stand. In order to give the jury a complete picture, I believe that the DT should be able to enter those statements into evidence or question a witness about them. If not, I would love to hear a rational legal reason for excluding them.

The rational basis is they weren't offered into evidence by the state to convict Ross. So they don't disprove anything. Unless they include actual, exculpatory evidence, they're irrelevant.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think that mistakes on a search warrant request are that big of a deal. jmo

It happens in every case. If the EVIDENCE they are now offering is faulty, then it is important for the jury to know that.

But who cares if they made claims that turned out to be mistaken or incorrect, AFTER further investigation?

I care. Not about honest mistakes, we're all human. But if you read even the first 8 SW's you can see for yourself how a narrative emerged over the 3 or so hours the affadavits were written, submitted, and granted.

Once is a mistake, twice or three times is a problem, 10 misstatements on 10 search warrants is a bigger problem, and the same misstatements persisting even after contrary evidence has been found is a pattern of bias or disception or both.

 

[JudyBolton]

I am just really bothered by the fact that there are sworn statements, which were made under oath, being hidden from the jury. Although Detective Murphy was the second in command for this case, the State opted not to put him on the stand. In order to give the jury a complete picture, I believe that the DT should be able to enter those statements into evidence or question a witness about them. If not, I would love to hear a rational legal reason for excluding them.

The State can use or not use any witness it chooses. Sometimes, they decide at the last minute whether to use someone or not.

But look at the big picture. If these listed errors were corrected, do you believe the judge would still have issued the SW? I do because of the horrible circumstances and the strange behavior and facts known at the time. If you don't think so then I can understand why you think it is vitally important. IF the SW were not issued then the jury would not know what JRH was doing at 5 a.m. and during the breakfast and all day long as Cooper was dying.

I guess I'm more of a black and white person and this seems a gray technicality that should not be used to prevent the jury from knowing what was going on in JRH's life.

 

[ShHolmz]

Hear, hear, and only to add that conversely, Ross Harris's alleged crimes do not absolve LE from the responsibility of honoring their oaths to protect the rights of the accused.
---

And jumping off your post, what I find truly ironic is that those who believe LE is on trial don't seem to understand that STODDARD, the lead investigator, is the person who has virtually single handedly been responsible for LE witnesses being demolished on the stand and having their own credibility undermined and ethics challenged. He's thrown his own team under the bus.

<modsnip> not a lawyer but do believe the judicial system is set up to take care of these issues one way or another. JMO

 

[gitana1]

I don't think that mistakes on a search warrant request are that big of a deal. jmo

It happens in every case. If the EVIDENCE they are now offering is faulty, then it is important for the jury to know that.

But who cares if they made claims that turned out to be mistaken or incorrect, AFTER further investigation?

I do think such mistakes are a big deal. We are talking about officers at best recklessly taking liberties with requests for warrants to search private records, and at worst, willfully lying in order to get warrants. We have a constitution for a reason. I mean that's ineptitude or corruption. We don't live in a police state and I don't want to.

But that was dealt with at the probable cause hearing. And the judge found that it wasn't enough to eliminate probable cuase. With good reason, IMO.

If those statements had been introduced to convict the guy, we would have a massive problem. But they weren't introduced at trial. So they are not affecting the defendant in any way at this point.

 

[TexMex]

My legal knowledge (which I admit wouldn't fill up the shot glass I just emptied of its tequila) seems to have a recollection of "harmless error". That defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.

 

[katydid23]

I care. Not about honest mistakes, we're all human. But if you read even the first 8 SW's you can see for yourself how a narrative emerged over the 3 or so hours the affadavits were written, submitted, and granted.

Once is a mistake, twice or three times is a problem, 10 misstatements on 10 search warrants is a bigger problem, and the same misstatements persisting even after contrary evidence has been found is a pattern of bias or disception or both.

But none of those errors are now being offered as TRUTH in any kind of evidence in front of the jury. Stoddard tried to cling to a few faulty ones and the defense successfully showed he was full of bs. So how are the rights of this defendant being denied?

 

[katydid23]

I do think such mistakes are a big deal. We are talking about officers at best recklessly taking liberties with requests for warrants to search private records, and at worst, willfully lying in order to get warrants. We have a constitution for a reason. I mean that's ineptitude or corruption. We don't live in a police state and I don't want to.

But that was dealt with at the probable cause hearing. And the judge found that it wasn't enough to eliminate probable cuase. With good reason, IMO.

If those statements had been introduced to convict the guy, we would have a massive problem. But they weren't introduced at trial. So they are not affecting the defendant in any way at this point.

I agree with you that if LE lied or was reckless then it is a big problem. But I don't think that happened here.

They were mistaken, and they explained why they were wrong. They thought Ross had created those memes and done the searches. But once they had their experts go in and investigate the logs, they determined they were incorrect.

But none of those errors have that much to do with what he is being accused of now. There is ample evidence that he sexted minors, etc, so he is guilty of some of the serious charges. They had valid reasons to obtain the search warrants for those devices, in my opinion.

 

[kjpaw]

Few cases make it to SCOTUS so lawyers rely on what their district court will rule. Ga falls under the 11th district. It's not the easiest court to win an appeal in, particularly in a criminal case. I think they overturn aprox 10% of cases that make it to them. And very few cases it make to them. I was commenting on the chances of the appeals of this case overturning the verdict.

 

[GA_Peach]

The State can use or not use any witness it chooses. Sometimes, they decide at the last minute whether to use someone or not.

But look at the big picture. If these listed errors were corrected, do you believe the judge would still have issued the SW? I do because of the horrible circumstances and the strange behavior and facts known at the time. If you don't think so then I can understand why you think it is vitally important. IF the SW were not issued then the jury would not know what JRH was doing at 5 a.m. and during the breakfast and all day long as Cooper was dying.

I guess I'm more of a black and white person and this seems a gray technicality that should not be used to prevent the jury from knowing what was going on in JRH's life.

Let me clarify, and I thought that I said this above. My current concerns have nothing to do with whether the SWs are valid (as I tend to agree with your synopsis), and I am not suggesting (at this time) that the evidence collected should be thrown out. In fact, I think that it would be a travesty to have that evidence thrown out because of a legal misstep. Truly. To be perfectly blunt, I am not informed enough at the moment to know whether or not the misstatements on the SWs are material. From what I have seen, they are not.

My concern with respect to giving Ross a fair trial is that the judge's decision is potentially suppressing exculpatory evidence. I believe that the SWs do show a pattern of confirmation bias (or at the very least what could be construed as confirmation bias), and the jurors should be able to use that in their decision. I think that Ross is owed that. If I were a juror, it would not affect my decision, but I can see how it may affect other jurors. It is really bothering me, and it's not because I like Ross. I don't. I believe that every defendant should be judged by the evidence, and LE's sloppy work is part of that.

I do think such mistakes are a big deal. We are talking about officers at best recklessly taking liberties with requests for warrants to search private records, and at worst, willfully lying in order to get warrants. We have a constitution for a reason. I mean that's ineptitude or corruption. We don't live in a police state and I don't want to.

But that was dealt with at the probable cause hearing. And the judge found that it wasn't enough to eliminate probable cause. With good reason, IMO.

If those statements had been introduced to convict the guy, we would have a massive problem. But they weren't introduced at trial. So they are not affecting the defendant in any way at this point.

This makes sense, and I can understand this rationale. Thank you.

It's not clear to me that those misstatements are not currently affecting Ross. While I may not personally subscribe to this theory, I can see how a legitimate case could be made that the information contained in those SWs helps cast reasonable doubt. Something feels so wrong about hiding this information from the jurors.

I don't think that mistakes on a search warrant request are that big of a deal. jmo

It happens in every case. If the EVIDENCE they are now offering is faulty, then it is important for the jury to know that.

But who cares if they made claims that turned out to be mistaken or incorrect, AFTER further investigation?

BBM

I think that it speaks to the investigation itself. I believe that the jury should be able to decide if or how it matters.

 

[JudyBolton]

Few cases make it to SCOTUS so lawyers rely on what their district court will rule. Ga falls under the 11th district. It's not the easiest court to win an appeal in, particularly in a criminal case. I think they overturn aprox 10% of cases that make it to them. And very few cases it make to them. I was commenting on the chances of the appeals of this case overturning the verdict.

Unlike the 9th Circuit :facepalm:

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by Zoobiegirl View Post
I have been wondering so maybe you know? Everything he said BEFORE they read him his rights.......is that admissible? Did someone read him his rights when he was handcuffed? If so I missed that.

QUOTE=LyndyLoo;12897873]

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend :happydance:

Respectfully snipped for space : bold Orig Poster, Blue: mimi
Today, 04:43 PM#291 LyndyLoo http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?320192-Trial-Ross-Harris-5&p=12897873#post12897873

To my knowledge they didn't. Why? because he wasn't being arrested..but only knew this guy pacing around with phone at ear identified as father of child on ground found dead in his car. He was combative and uncooperative, so removed him from the scene. It's also my understanding they didn't actually interrogate him either. Ross may have asked questions and they may have answered..but whatever was said would still be considered "Excited Utterance" statements.

**Which witness testified that RH was combative and uncooperative, so he was removed from the scene? Folgia testified on Cross that he was uncooperative in not getting off the phone, but specifically asked by Kilgore if RH attacked and Folgia testified NO. jmho from listing to testimony 10/5/16


Then once at the station...the initial discourse, then right to the advising about the waiver to wanting an attorney ..and they knew ( since Ross advised them of his experience as dispatching in Police Department in another State. Ross signed it with no coercion whatsoever..Ross knew exactly what he was signing and why! Ross gambled he could explain it all away..and his answers, as well as his presentation to the detectives in the room ended up getting him charged with Cruelty to a child causing death. His actions or lack there of caused his death.

**RH knew what Miranda Rights were, correct. He was not told he was being charged for cruelty until right prior to his invoking at 7:31 p.m. Long after he was read his Rights JMHO from watching the video entered into evidence 10/21/16


The warrants may have contained mis-informations..but then again Ross did give some rather misleading information too. Detectives can't read minds ..so have to take his words given initially and their interpretation of what he presented in answer to their questions. Hearings pre-trial dealt with all the SW that Def. complained about and the information obtained.

**Respectfully you think its ok that the Search Warrants contained mis-information?? What misleading information did RH give? And to whom prior to his being told he was being charged with cruelty? That he worked as a dispatcher for 5 yrs instead of 3? That he forgot about going to HD? jmho

It's also in my recollection, that the probable cause info they use is to the best of their knowledge whatever information they were given by Ross, or any other's for that matter. No illegal..but Judge decided just what informations obtained thru these SW's CAN or CANNOT come in. It's not like the error's brought out actually allowed any fabrication of evidence, planting of evidence to get presented to the jury.

**Respectfully, I would encourage you to relisten to the PC Hearing on 7/3/14. There was information that was written in the Probable Cause Affidavit and sworn before the Magistrate was not true. Information that was Stoddards Theory and the State has went with it. It has been proven WRONG through evidence and testimony during the States case in chief. JMHO

Sorry, got a bit wordy here, but, I've spent the last 2days just reading here..and many do type their beliefs . I just don't necessarily buy into everything I have read. Implicit biases are however apparent...based on their viewpoint. That's the extent I'll do on critiquing ..

**Respectfully, that's true, many do type their beliefs. I know when I reference anything from the trial, personally it is from testimony and evidence that has been presented during the trial that day or prior / or one of the many Hearings. That is what has been going on in court since first week of October. Your not going to get all the facts or testimony from just reading peoples opinions and beliefs on these threads. Or from reading MSM articles for that matter. We have the ability to watch after hours thankfully as it is being archived. We have been discussing bits an pieces from those witness testimonies and evidence presented under oath. Which I know I for one am thankful to have a place to do that. JMHO from listening/viewing court preceedings Oct 10/4/2016 - 10/28/16 and PC hearing 7/3/14 and multiple Hearing thru 8/19/16.