GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 Aug 2014 - Enrique Arochi kidnapping trial #6

[Coldpizza]

Enrique Arochi found guilty of aggravated kidnapping
Jobin Panicker and Marjorie Owens , WFAA CDT September 21, 2016

link

link

A jury in McKinney has found Enrique Arochi guilty of aggravated kidnapping in connection to the disappearance of Christina Morris.

There was no reaction from Arochi as the verdict was read Wednesday night. After Arochi was escorted from the courtroom, Morris' family embraced.

Raw video of Judge reading the guilt verdict at link^^^


Media Thread

Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3 Thread 4 Thread 5

Gabriel Roxas CBS 11

Valerie Wigglesworth Dallas News

L.P. Phillips CBSDFW

Natalie Solis FOX4

Jobin Panicker WFFA

Alice Barr NBC5

Alex Boyer Fox4

The Mercury

 

[Coldpizza]

Please continue here

 

[suzyjackson]

Iv just woken up in the UK and the 1st thing if done is check here - I feel huge relief.
Well done to the prosecution and those jurors!!

I really hope EA just does the right thing for once, he's not only ruined Christina's family but his own and I do feel for his family too. There actions have spoken huge volumes to me.

Does anyone have previous knowledge of Gore in similar situations? Will he try and make a deal, or is he going to try and twist it and try for an appeal etc...

I really hope Enrique just does the right thing. Tell them what happened, where she is and accept punishment.

Wow. I woke up to this news this morning here in Europe. I'm so happy for Christina's family. I know they still doesn't have Christina back and can't say goodbye to her and are not able to give her a proper burial, but this is a step into the right direction. EA will hopefully pay a high price for what he did to Christina.

As to SteveS's question: I don't think I would give him maximum sentence as I can't be sure about what really went on, but I won't give him probation either. He does need to be punished with a sentence long enough that he won't be able to do this to anybody else's daughter again. What would scare me as a Juror is the ease he lied about everything. He showed no remorse what so ever, so my conscience wouldn't let me give him probation. What if he thinks he can get away with it without serious punishment again? He must feel this is not a joke, this is serious business.

I'm eagerly waiting what the prosecution still has to say in the sentencing phase. That would help to make up my mind about it.

If it would be possible I too would trade a tiny bit lighter sentence to get Christina back, although I realize this is out of the question as that would result in a murder charge for him, so no way he would do that.

Just woke up the best news i've heard all year, get in now all i need to hear is that they've given him the full 99 years.
Been here since day 1 with a lot of you its been a long time coming now they just need to find Christina.
:happydance:

Another one from across the pond who woke up and reached straight for my phone to check for a verdict.

The Texans who said their juries were harsh were right, I was doubtful that the DNA case had been made strongly enough for the jury but hoped that the undeniable lying would convince them.

If it's at all possible I'm hoping that at the moment Gore is convincing EA to give up the location for some kind of concession on future charges or sentencing.

When I follow a case it's always from human interest and wanting to see justice done, the finer legal arguements and technicalities aren't as important to me as they are to others but I'm glad today that we've all had the right result however the jury reached their decision.

Are the jurors allowed to discuss publically what went on on the jury room?

 

[Gigglingtoes]

Another one from across the pond who woke up and reached straight for my phone to check for a verdict.

The Texans who said their juries were harsh were right, I was doubtful that the DNA case had been made strongly enough for the jury but hoped that the undeniable lying would convince them.

If it's at all possible I'm hoping that at the moment Gore is convincing EA to give up the location for some kind of concession on future charges or sentencing.

When I follow a case it's always from human interest and wanting to see justice done, the finer legal arguements and technicalities aren't as important to me as they are to others but I'm glad today that we've all had the right result however the jury reached their decision.

Are the jurors allowed to discuss publically what went on on the jury room?

After sentencing.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

The question about what sentence I would give? I have zero desire to be on that jury and feel the heavy feeling of deciding someone's future. Its not because I think he is innocent, I just wouldn't want to be in that position on sentencing OR the verdict.

 

[suzyjackson]

The question about what sentence I would give? I have zero desire to be on that jury and feel the heavy feeling of deciding someone's future. Its not because I think he is innocent, I just wouldn't want to be in that position on sentencing OR the verdict.

Juries deciding sentences is a very odd concept to me and IMO just plain wrong.

Judges should be doing this, they know the law, they know the precedents and aren't as likley to be swayed by emotion or which side they prefer in the sentencing hearing.

I agree with you it's too much responsibility for men and women in the street

 

[CuriousinNY]

I hope he gets the max. Based on the jury deliberating for so long, I think it will be less. Maybe the 30-60 range. I have never sat on a jury. I have been called 4 times but something always happened that I didn't have to do it (like the case was settled out of court). I would imagine when they got settled in deliberations they would have said what is everyone thinking, lets start with a vote. There must have been some undecided or non-guilty jurors for the discussion to last as long as it did. (or maybe I have watched too many crime dramas, lol)

 

[minor4th]

I would give him life. The jury will consider the fact that he also killed her and she has not been found.

 

[CookieM]

I'm thankful this wasn't a hung jury. I was worried about that because there must've been a hold out seeing as how it took them so long. I wouldn't want to be the one to decide his sentence either. I agree that it really should be up to the judge. Yikes. What an awful position to be in as a juror. I'm interested to hear testimony on Monday.

Are people still doing searches every Saturday? Does anyone know? In worried that he is too confident that she will never be found. Wth did he do with her that morning???? Where IS she?!?

 

[brado]

Also glad it wasn't a hung jury. I hope he gets the max as he has done nothing to help the family find her. He should have struck a deal a long time ago.

 

[m_brown]

I too wish the jury did not decide his sentence. I would not want to be a juror in such a case. So much pressure for an everyday person/layperson. I'm sure the judge will give instructions, but still. What a weight to carry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[m_brown]

Thank you to everyone who weighed in on my question about his immediate family not being present.

I have mixed feelings about it. At first I was sure that it was a sign of his guilt. If you truly believe your loved one is innocent - you would support them publicly. BUT, the more I thought about it and considered the fact that really they are victims of his actions as well, I can understand it.

Whether he asked them not to come or it was their own decision as a family - I don't fault them for wanting to protect any sliver of privacy they have left. It seems from TCMoms account of the extended family that they have compassion for Christina and her family. If only they could convince Enrique to have an ounce of compassion and come clean about where she is.

Monday will surely be interesting. I hope Christina's family was able to rest a little easier last night knowing justice is coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

I was doubtful that the DNA case had been made strongly enough for the jury ...

The DNA evidence was actually incredibly powerful, although it didn't play that way in the tweets and some of the comments in this forum. But the jury got it. Her DNA was actually found on 3 (!) separate swabs in the trunk, was not scientifically possible to have been touch DNA, was a relatively large amount of DNA compared to how much is usually obtained in samples, and the defense really got nowhere in trying to explain it away.

The defense's only angle was in the form of trying to squeeze the DNA witnesses into answering questions along the lines of "How can you ever really know anything for absolute certain" in very broad theoretical terms. But even though the witnesses answered truthfully in the hypothetical, it didn't resonate - the jury also saw the extreme angles the defense had to go to to get an affirmation, and then their "point" (such as it was) was easily shot down on rebuttal by the same witness making clear what they were and weren't saying. As Fortenberry noted in closing, the defense had no explanation and no answer for the DNA. And of course, that's because there was no explanation for it except the incriminating truth - he put her IN HIS TRUNK.

Also, you think the jury here was "harsh" for ruling guilty? No disrespect intended at all, but Wow. I think that if this was set anywhere else, but with the same prosecutors trying the case, it still would have been a conviction. Although we want videos showing the crimes and eyewitnesses to all that happened and dramatic confessions in tears, few trials have any of those, and this was a whole ream of really solid evidence of guilt all piled up against EA. You can get to the truth, and get convictions, with MUCH less.

If you're instead think that 99 years would be harsh, what penalty do you think is proper for kidnapping someone permanently? That's an extreme crime, not a little one.

 

[Lolly85x]

Thank you to everyone who weighed in on my question about his immediate family not being present.

I have mixed feelings about it. At first I was sure that it was a sign of his guilt. If you truly believe your loved one is innocent - you would support them publicly. BUT, the more I thought about it and considered the fact that really they are victims of his actions as well, I can understand it.

Whether he asked them not to come or it was their own decision as a family - I don't fault them for wanting to protect any sliver of privacy they have left. It seems from TCMoms account of the extended family that they have compassion for Christina and her family. If only they could convince Enrique to have an ounce of compassion and come clean about where she is.

Monday will surely be interesting. I hope Christina's family was able to rest a little easier last night knowing justice is coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really feel for Enriques family. It's not only Christinas family that his been ruined but his own. I'm just glad non of them took that stand to lie for him!!

 

[Lolly85x]

Does anyone know what the chances of Enrique appealing his conviction?
I am delighted he was found guilty - but I can't help but think Gore will try and work his way out of it with technicalities and loopholes or something.

 

[suzyjackson]

The DNA evidence was actually incredibly powerful, although it didn't play that way in the tweets and some of the comments in this forum. But the jury got it. Her DNA was actually found on 3 (!) separate swabs in the trunk, was not scientifically possible to have been touch DNA, was a relatively large amount of DNA compared to how much is usually obtained in samples, and the defense really got nowhere in trying to explain it away.

The defense's only angle was in the form of trying to squeeze the DNA witnesses into answering questions along the lines of "How can you ever really know anything for absolute certain" in very broad theoretical terms. But even though the witnesses answered truthfully in the hypothetical, it didn't resonate - the jury also saw the extreme angles the defense had to go to to get an affirmation, and then their "point" (such as it was) was easily shot down on rebuttal by the same witness making clear what they were and weren't saying. As Fortenberry noted in closing, the defense had no explanation and no answer for the DNA. And of course, that's because there was no explanation for it except the incriminating truth - he put her IN HIS TRUNK.

Also, you think the jury here was "harsh" for ruling guilty? No disrespect intended at all, but Wow. I think that if this was set anywhere else, but with the same prosecutors trying the case, it still would have been a conviction. Although we want videos showing the crimes and eyewitnesses to all that happened and dramatic confessions in tears, few trials have any of those, and this was a whole ream of really solid evidence of guilt all piled up against EA. You can get to the truth, and get convictions, with MUCH less.

If you're instead think that 99 years would be harsh, what penalty do you think is proper for kidnapping someone permanently? That's an extreme crime, not a little one.

It was difficult to know from the tweets how things were coming across and I'm not very familiar will twitter but when I looked at what people were posting it seemed to me that there was a significant number of folk who didn't find the DNA convincing (although I did find the tweets very difficult to follow so may have misinterpreted some of the comments) and I was concerned that the jury who weren't steeped in 2 years of this case might also find the defence arguements convincing.

My point about Texas juries wasn't about this verdict it was that I've seen more than one local posters saying that as a rule Texas is state that likes to convict (I'm paraphrasing).

To UK posters a sentence of 99 years is unthinkable, we have very very few true whole life sentences so I have no frame of reference for what would be considered proper but if I'm honest I don't see the point of sentences that are longer than a person could possibly live, do you have a sentence of "life"?

 

[Quailfoot]

Juries deciding sentences is a very odd concept to me and IMO just plain wrong.

Judges should be doing this, they know the law, they know the precedents and aren't as likley to be swayed by emotion or which side they prefer in the sentencing hearing.

I agree with you it's too much responsibility for men and women in the street

In Texas, defendant can elect for jury sentencing before trial. That's likely what EA's attorneys did. If defendant doesn't choose jury sentencing, judge sentences.

 

[Quailfoot]

It was difficult to know from the tweets how things were coming across and I'm not very familiar will twitter but when I looked at what people were posting it seemed to me that there was a significant number of folk who didn't find the DNA convincing (although I did find the tweets very difficult to follow so may have misinterpreted some of the comments) and I was concerned that the jury who weren't steeped in 2 years of this case might also find the defence arguements convincing.

My point about Texas juries wasn't about this verdict it was that I've seen more than one local posters saying that as a rule Texas is state that likes to convict (I'm paraphrasing).

To UK posters a sentence of 99 years is unthinkable, we have very very few true whole life sentences so I have no frame of reference for what would be considered proper but if I'm honest I don't see the point of sentences that are longer than a person could possibly live, do you have a sentence of "life"?

In most Northern and Western Counties, yes. But, East Texas and South Texas are well known for being more liberal. There is a county in South Texas that has basically stopped prosecuting DWIs.

 

[geevee]

Does anyone know what the chances of Enrique appealing his conviction?
I am delighted he was found guilty - but I can't help but think Gore will try and work his way out of it with technicalities and loopholes or something.

I think 100% chance of appealing unless he makes a deal with the State to divulge her location and avoid a murder trial/possible death penalty sentence (in Texas they carry out executions regularly, unlike some other states). The defense has claimed wording problems with the indictment and search warrants so may feel they have some small chance of overturning the conviction but since this judge upheld the vast majority I think it would be a fool's errand to risk another trial and possible death penalty hoping an appeals court would see it their way and quash on a technicality.

 

[darring21]

I think 100% chance of appealing unless he makes a deal with the State to divulge her location and avoid a murder trial/possible death penalty sentence (in Texas they carry out executions regularly, unlike some other states). The defense has claimed wording problems with the indictment and search warrants so may feel they have some small chance of overturning the conviction but since this judge upheld the vast majority I think it would be a fool's errand to risk another trial and possible death penalty hoping an appeals court would see it their way and quash on a technicality.

Right. High chance they might appeal. It's very unlikely it would be successful from what we know. The judge seemed very competent and considered his decisions carefully. Both the prosecution and defense were also very good. Unless there is something that comes out in the future (ie. problems at the lab processing the DNA), I can't see an appeal being successful.