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

[SteveS]

"2 The Defense had issues with how Indictment was written. Not sure what the issue is."
"#2 No am not referring to proceeding closing arguments, but to 2nd day of trial, (link for reference is post #335 thread 1)"

The issues about how the indictment was written were from closing arguments. Item 2, answered.

What you now label as #2 and some tweets was the issue previously marked as 3 ("3 I remember at one point they wanted the Indictment entered in as evidence. Judge ruled no, that was just an accusation by Grand Jury and not from law enforcement iirc. Jmho)

Those tweets in question were referencing the defense's attempt to make the state's detectives defend the wording in the indictment, as if they had written it. (For better understanding, you should look at how others tweeted the same info, in your post 336).

So the first thing they did was just ask them to answer to the wording of the indictment itself, which the state objected because the indictment was not entered as evidence. So then the defense tried to have the indictment entered as evidence into the trial record so they could then get the detectives to answer questions about it. But, it is not evidence but rather an opinion/accusation by the grand jury, so the judge said no.

Frankly, the defense was trying to pull a fast one here legally. But the prosecutor objected, and the judge properly sided with the state. It's not even a borderline decision, legally. The indictment was NOT written by any of the detectives, but rather by jurors, so it's not the detectives' words or thoughts being expressed in it, nor is it evidence of anything other than the grand jurors' collective opinions on what EA did. And in regards to the detectives, at best it would be "hearsay" of someone else's opinion.

The chance that this is put into an appeal is essentially zero - the defense would have to be doltish to put legal nonsense like this in an appeal, and I trust they aren't that stupid.

 

[SteveS]

Can't quote it to bump it here, so reposting Roadrunner's incredibly helpful list of the various witnesses in this trial. Thanks so much for compiling this.

Trial of Enrique Arochi for charges of aggravated kidnapping of Christina Morris
State’s Witnesses
Day 1 - Wed Witnesses 09/07/2016
1. (W1) Carrie Peele worked with CM, knew CM & HF having relationship problems.
2. (W2) Taylor Shelton, worked with CM, hired her. CM got texts that concerned her.
Day 2 - Thurs Witnesses 09/08/2016
1. (W3) Mark Morris, Christina's father
2. (W4) Officer Christopher Semrau with Plano Police
3. (W5) Sidney Robertson, friend of Christina
4. (W6) Ariel Hammer, friend of Christina.
5. (W7) Teighlor Stegman. Says Morris was her best friend.
6. (W8) Lt. Jeff Wise, Plano PD, Crimes Against Persons, assisted w disappearance
7. (W9) Susan Hassan, Plano PD, crime scene investigator
8. (W10) Det Jerry Minton 31yrs w Plano PD. Assigned to forgery dept
9. Hunter Foster, attorney advised his client to invoke the 5th and not testify.
10. Attorney for Taylor Barry, man with Foster on night also plead the 5th
11. (W11) Paulina Petrosky, friend, was her apartment
12. (W12) Sabrina Boss. Friend, was among the group gathering.
Day 3 - Fri Witnesses 09/09/2016
1. (W13) Brea/Arielle Lofton, part of group, met CM that night.
2. (W14) Justin Hill, was w Lofton and group on 8/29/14, knew CM/EA.
3. (W15) James Nyawera. Part of group, knew CM/EA from school.
4. (W16) Steven Nickerson. He was at the apartment where all were hanging out.
5. (W17) Scott Epperson, Plano Police detective, helped investigate the case.
6. (W18) Logan Prendergast, CM Ex boyfriend.
7. (W19) Erica Scott, hair stylist at Shops of Legacy, where Morris was last seen
8. (W20) John Belcher, asst. GM at Henry's Tavern, bar.
9. (W21) Michael McGowan, manager of Scruffy Duffies, bar.
10. (W22) Fras Alhdamni, security manager at the Shops at Legacy.
11. (W23) Jason McCain is an IT specialist at bank off Legacy.
12. (W24) Blake Sawyer, digital specialist with Plano PD.
13. (W25) ??name?? Sprint custodian of records.
Day 4 - Mon (half day) Witnesses 09/12/2016
1. (W26) Pete Evans. Radio access engineer for AT&T.
2. (W27) Kiran Prakash. Radio frequency engineer for Sprint Network.
3. (W28 #1) Detective Aaron Benzick of Plano PD, from CAPERS.
Day 5 - Tues Witnesses 09/13/2016
1. (W28 #2) Detective Aaron Benzick of Plano PD, from CAPERS. CONT’D
2. (W29) Robert Jacobson, NTTA (North Texas Tollway Authority) records custodian.
3. (W30) Corey Carr, an IT specialist with NTTA (North Texas Tollway Authority).
4. (W31) Hunter Foster. Christina’s boyfriend.
5. (W32) Anny Cruz, Kroger manager in Allen.
6. (W33) Det. Daniel Bryeans, Plano Police, got receipts from Kroger.
7. (W34) Shantanu Arora. Used Bank of America ATM at Shops at Legacy.
8. (W35) Vishwaneth Halameth - used Bank of America ATM 8/30/14.
9. (W36) Shawn McKinney, Sprint director of sales, EA’s boss/manager.
10. (W37) Detective Johnathan May of Plano Police Department/CAPERS unit.
11. (W38) Juan Ponce, worked at Sprint store in Wylie in August 2014.
12. (W39) David Leal, Sprint store coworker with Arochi.
13. (W40) Alex Buhidar, who has known Arochi since 7th grade in Allen.
14. (W41) Lashay Lanford, friend, went out with group.
Day 6 - Wed Witnesses 09/14/2016
1. Jacob Talamantes, worked at Sprint, blabbed to media, on hold.
2. (W42) Catherine Foreman, Plano PD.
3. (W43) Traci Reavis. She's a project manager, lives next door to Arochi family.
4. (W44) Rand Aridi, Arochi's girlfriend at the time.
5. (W45) Detective Fred Garcia, Plano Police.
6. (W46) Officer Daniel Caballero, Plano PD, CAPERS.
7. (W47) Detective Elizabeth Spillman, Plano PD, CAPERS.
8. (W48) Detective Courtney Noel, Plano PD.
9. (W49) Michelle Boubel, criminalist supervisor Plano PD.
10. (W50-#1) Neil Carnes, Plano PD crime scene investigator.
Day 7 - Thurs Witnesses 09/15/2016
1. (W50-#2) Neil Carnes, Plano PD crime scene investigator. CONT’D
2. (W51) Britney Webb, former crime scene investigator for Plano PD.
3. (W52) Dixie Peters, tech at Center for Human Identification at Univ of North Texas.
4. (W53) Christina Capt, forensic analyst, UNT DNA laboratory.
5. (W54) Nicholas Bradford, DNA analyst for BODE.
6. (W55) Elise Caron, Forensic DNA analyst with Bode.
7. (W56) Dr. Rick Staub, CSI and property evidence manager for Plano PD.
8. (W57) Richard Schneider with Huffines Collision Center.
Day 8 - Fri Witnesses 09/16/2016
CAMARO VIEWING
1. (W58) Sgt. Patrick Mulkern, Plano PD
2. (W59) Barney Lipscomb, Research Botanist and author.
3. (W60) Barkley Sutton, with Texas Equusearch search party.
4. (W61) Officer Kevin Sasso, Plano PD.
5. (W63) Anna Morris, Christina’s stepmom.
6. (W64-#1) Detective Cathy Stamm, Plano PD with CAPERS.
Day 9 - Monday Witnesses 09/19/2016
1. (W64-#2) Detective Cathy Stamm, Plano PD with CAPERS. CONT’D
2. (W65) Jonni McElroy, mom of Christina Morris.
3. (W66) Detective Robyn Busby, the lead detective of case, Plano PD.
----------STATE RESTS-----------
DEFENSE WITNESSES:
Day 9 - Monday Witnesses 09/19/2016
1. (DW1) Paula Brumit, forensic dentist.
2. (DW2) Christy Wilson, evidence supervisor Plano PD.
3. (DW3) Latarance Dunbar, security contractor.
Day 10 - Tuesday Witnesses 09/20/2016
1. (DW4) Robert Aguero, cell phone expert.
----------DEFENSE RESTS-----------
STATE RECALLS:
1. (W28 #3) Detective Aaron Benzick of Plano PD, from CAPERS.
----------STATE RESTS-----------
----------DEFENSE RESTS-----------
----------EVIDENCE CLOSED--------
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

 

[DietDrPepper]

Arochi Faces Wide Spectrum Of Sentencing Possibilities
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/arochi-faces-wide-spectrum-of-sentencing-possibilities/
September 22, 2016 6:38 PM By Gabriel Roxas

Holan [attorney not associated with the Arochi case] said the average sentence for aggravated kidnapping is around 40 years, and she believes based on the 17 hours Arochi jurors spent carefully considering their verdict, they’re more likely to lean toward heavier punishment.

 

[DietDrPepper]

GUILTY: Here’s What’s Next for Enrique Arochi
http://cw33.com/2016/09/22/guilty-heres-whats-next-for-enrique-arochi/
POSTED 4:53 PM, SEPTEMBER 22, 2016, BY CHRIS SKUPIEN

We asked Dallas appellate attorney Chad Ruback for some insight.

"In theory, he could negotiate based on some information he has," Ruback told NewsFix. "However, I don't see that happening. He's steadfastly proclaimed his innocence for over two years now. All of a sudden, now that he's been convicted, is he going to turn around and say, 'You guys are right, I've been lying for the last two years, I did it'? I don't think that's going to happen."

Ruback says that would hurt Arochi's chances of appealing his conviction, which he's likely to do if the sentence is harsh.

 

[b.humble]

Arochi Faces Wide Spectrum Of Sentencing Possibilities
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/arochi-faces-wide-spectrum-of-sentencing-possibilities/
September 22, 2016 6:38 PM By Gabriel Roxas

Holan [attorney not associated with the Arochi case] said the average sentence for aggravated kidnapping is around 40 years, and she believes based on the 17 hours Arochi jurors spent carefully considering their verdict, they’re more likely to lean toward heavier punishment.

BBM; very interesting. I never knew there could be a positive correlation between time spent on verdict deliberations and severity of sentence. Excluding extreme examples, I would have assumed any relationship as being purely coincidental, but this isn't something I'm familiar with. Anyone who has any experinece with this, can you connect this thought up for me? How does the 17 hours spent deliberating indicate there will be a tendency to lean towards a heavier punishment?

Not doubting or questioning the accuracy of their statement, I'm just interested in learning more about what this means.

 

[Quailfoot]

I'm confused. You said HF's "whole description of her condition the night/morning she disappeared ran counter to what some prosecution witnesses had testified about her, i.e., the testimony that they were all drinking and doing various kinds of drugs except for her."

Was that his testimony? I never read anywhere he knew what her condition was that evening. Can you help clarify? TIA

He said he was concerned about her being too intoxicated to drive. Someone else who followed the trial every minute can dig back through his testimony and find it. It just stuck out to me because some of the first witnesses said she was sober. Later ones said she did drink and have an adderall.

HF, after immunity, then came with his testimony about their day, CM asking him for cocaine and other drugs, sounding intoxicated. Because he'd lived with her for two years, my guess is he knew better whether she was intoxicated. And...I think the friends were just covering their own butts about their own drug use that night.

The big picture to me is simply, bad friends. Bad choices. Bad friends.

But, if you follow criminal law with any regularity, that's just the way it is with drugs and alcohol. It's usually not the most upstanding members of society using and abusing them.

As written from the beginning, birds of a feather flock together. It's almost always the case with drug users because sober, serious people normally won't have anything to do with them.

 

[Quailfoot]

That surprises me. I suppose I can wrap my brain around it: when one needs a defense attorney, there's an outsized need for trust and confidentiality. If a client can't fully participate in their own defense by giving their attorney the unvarnished truth on events as they know them to have occurred, then their attorney cannot adequately or appropriately represent them. I'm glad to learn the legal system allows attorneys an out so as to not compromise their own internal morals post appointment/retention.

Who'd of thought lawyers and priests would be grouped into the same confidentiality constraint!

I have nothing against attorneys, I seriously considered going to law school but decided against it for the time being.

It's codified in Texas and backed by case law. Most often cited is Republic v Davis: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...is,+856+S.W.2d+158&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1

"The attorney-client privilege as embodied in TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 503(b) secures the free flow of information between attorney and client, and it assures that the communication will not later be disclosed. West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1978). Although the aim of the modern discovery process is to yield full and complete information regarding the issues in dispute, courts also recognize the importance of the attorney-client privilege. Confidential communications promote effective legal services. This in turn promotes the broader societal interest of the effective administration of justice. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 682, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981)."

That's the thought process behind not allowing attorneys to disclose. Doesn't have to be a defensive attorney. It can be any kind of attorney.

The exception is if someone come to an attorney and gives them information that leads the attorney to believe they are planning to commit a crime. In that case, the attorney is obligated/expected to contact law enforcement.

Let me say this about law school, it will open your eyes to many different areas of life. You see many, many Oz's behind their curtains - criminals, businesses, politicians, contracts, taxes. You see how the sausage is made legislatively and judicially as well.

Even if you never practice a day of law, law school is probably the most informative type of non-scientific/medical degree you can earn. The study is fascinating.

To the layperson, the law is vexing at times. But, once you study it, you see the reason for many, many things that keep the vast majority of people scratching their heads.

On the flip side - the darker side, I call it - that is why attorneys of all stripe, normally politicians and legislators protect each other/let themselves and others get away with things we common folk would be put in jail for.

 

[TCMom]

It's codified in Texas and backed by case law. Most often cited is Republic v Davis: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...is,+856+S.W.2d+158&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1

"The attorney-client privilege as embodied in TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 503(b) secures the free flow of information between attorney and client, and it assures that the communication will not later be disclosed. West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex.1978). Although the aim of the modern discovery process is to yield full and complete information regarding the issues in dispute, courts also recognize the importance of the attorney-client privilege. Confidential communications promote effective legal services. This in turn promotes the broader societal interest of the effective administration of justice. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 682, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981)."

That's the thought process behind not allowing attorneys to disclose. Doesn't have to be a defensive attorney. It can be any kind of attorney.

The exception is if someone come to an attorney and gives them information that leads the attorney to believe they are planning to commit a crime. In that case, the attorney is obligated/expected to contact law enforcement.

Let me say this about law school, it will open your eyes to many different areas of life. You see many, many Oz's behind their curtains - criminals, businesses, politicians, contracts, taxes. You see how the sausage is made legislatively and judicially as well.

Even if you never practice a day of law, law school is probably the most informative type of non-scientific/medical degree you can earn. The study is fascinating.

To the layperson, the law is vexing at times. But, once you study it, you see the reason for many, many things that keep the vast majority of people scratching their heads.

On the flip side - the darker side, I call it - that is why attorneys of all stripe, normally politicians and legislators protect each other/let themselves and others get away with things we common folk would be put in jail for.

Attorney-Client privilege is an interesting thing...and something that became an issue back in 2008 when Judge Rusch (yes, from EA case) signed an illegal search warrant allowing the police to search Keith Gore's (yes, EA's attorney) office for evidence in a murder trial for Mark Lyle Bell. Miers was also on that case. To say Rusch and Gore have a storied past is an understatement.

Here's an MSM link: http://starlocalmedia.com/mckinneyc...cle_61945bc2-1b4f-5407-94e8-c807b521dcec.html


You can also google and find blogs and other opinions on the subject.

 

[SteveS]

He said he was concerned about her being too intoxicated to drive. Someone else who followed the trial every minute can dig back through his testimony and find it. It just stuck out to me because some of the first witnesses said she was sober. Later ones said she did drink and have an adderall.

HF, after immunity, then came with his testimony about their day, CM asking him for cocaine and other drugs, sounding intoxicated. Because he'd lived with her for two years, my guess is he knew better whether she was intoxicated. And...I think the friends were just covering their own butts about their own drug use that night.

The big picture to me is simply, bad friends. Bad choices. Bad friends.

Maybe your take on his testimony is accurate, but I read it completely differently.

He had no contemporaneous impression of her situation, that night. He did not observe, did not talk to her at a relevant time, and had no first-hand way of knowing. He had more or less shut off his phone and gone off to do other things.

He did say that when he heard she was missing a few days later, he called to see if she was in the hospital from a DUI accident. But imo that leap was based more on "missing after a party, so where's a logical place to check if she's not with friends/family" than "I knew she was wasted that night."

As far as her texts about coke, when taken IN CONTEXT, imo they really come off as pure button-pushing on her part, a drama queen trying to do whatever she could to get his attention. She was being ignored, and she wanted to win. Many of us here got that impression, and TCMom's notes (way more extensive than the tweets) which had way more of her texts was key to seeing that. In fact, when asked to comment on those coke texts, HF said they were a "joke" which to me reinforces that he knew she was looking for attention, not coke, in texting him about coke. It was obviously her play on the fact that in the past she had had a problem with coke, and mentioning coke would have been a bit of a zinger at him. A female doing her thing.

His comment on her use of drugs was that she took something 2-3 times a week, usually Xanax or Adderall (prescription meds) rather than recreational ones.

Also FWIW only EA claimed she had taken Adderall that night. He of course lied about everything, so did she really? How come none of the people she was really with all evening observed her taking Adderall?

SN, when she left, believed her when she said she was ok to drive. The expert witness testified that her gait showed no signs of intoxication. To me they each had far better info than HF, who really had none at all.

 

[SteveS]

Attorney-Client privilege is an interesting thing...and something that became an issue back in 2008 when Judge Rusch (yes, from EA case) signed an illegal search warrant allowing the police to search Keith Gore's (yes, EA's attorney) office for evidence in a murder trial for Mark Lyle Bell. Miers was also on that case. To say Rusch and Gore have a storied past is an understatement.

Here's an MSM link: http://starlocalmedia.com/mckinneyc...cle_61945bc2-1b4f-5407-94e8-c807b521dcec.html

You can also google and find blogs and other opinions on the subject.

It wasn't an illegal search warrant. But there was an accusation, which was disputed, that the items found in the search were mishandled and that Rusch was involved in the mishandling.

 

[Steleheart]

Steleheart, I don't look at the defense's moves as threats or "attempts to implicate" which are terms that imply they would be claiming sort of malfeasance by the judge that could put him in trouble. If he made a mistake in a ruling, the case might get re-tried. But unless he did something deliberately against the law, it's not personal. Frankly, I think what they did and were asking him to do in many of their actions and requests was to violate the law, in order to create an impossible verdict from the facts of the case, and they knew it as well as him.

I see the tactic the defense was using. Thanks.

 

[Vail]

BBM; very interesting. I never knew there could be a positive correlation between time spent on verdict deliberations and severity of sentence. Excluding extreme examples, I would have assumed any relationship as being purely coincidental, but this isn't something I'm familiar with. Anyone who has any experinece with this, can you connect this thought up for me? How does the 17 hours spent deliberating indicate there will be a tendency to lean towards a heavier punishment?

Not doubting or questioning the accuracy of their statement, I'm just interested in learning more about what this means.

This isn't a precise answer to your question but I have a feeling it was not lost on the jury that this was supposed to be a murder trial and wasn't because Christina's body hasn't been found.

 

[2Hope4]

:woohoo: Some justice for Christina!!! Now to find her, and get him for murder as well!

 

[DietDrPepper]

'No stone left unturned' in case against the man convicted of kidnapping of Christina Morris
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...nvicted-of-kidnapping-of-christina-morris.ece
By Valerie Wigglesworth | Staff Writer
Updated: 23 September 2016 07:34 PM

Mitch Nolte, a defense lawyer not associated with Arochi's case, said a lot of the evidence deemed too prejudicial during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial makes its way into the punishment phase.

"It's usually anything goes in punishment," Nolte said. "It doesn't have to be criminal behavior. It can just be creepy stuff."

Psychological evidence, character, behavior and the impact of the family's loss are among the possibilities, Nolte said. The defense will try to bring evidence that would lessen his criminal responsibility.

 

[Happyshoes]

Am so happy for this result, still sad feelings for CM's family. I actually feel for EA's brother. I know my brother was not right but I never blamed my parents.
Sweet Christina, I think your fighting back helped tremendously in this trial. Rest in peace knowing you have helped the next girl and hopefully lots of other girls who give people they think are "nice" the benefit of the doubt. It breaks my heart that she chose to walk with him thinking it was a safe thing to do.

 

[RuthSleuth]

What would happen if EA were to ask for some type of lesser sentence in exchange for telling the authorities where CM is? If he knows.. .Can he do that or would that open him up for a murder charge? Assuming of course, that she is deceased. Not sure how this works.. Thinking he might just take his chances but wondering anyway.
This is of course just me speculating and wondering and my first ever post.. Be kind..

 

[SteveS]

What would happen if EA were to ask for some type of lesser sentence in exchange for telling the authorities where CM is? If he knows.. .Can he do that or would that open him up for a murder charge? Assuming of course, that she is deceased. Not sure how this works.. Thinking he might just take his chances but wondering anyway.

This is of course just me speculating and wondering and my first ever post.. Be kind..

A negotiated sentence is certainly possible.

In theory, such a deal would potentially provide incriminating evidence for other charges. But that's an obstacle that would be easy to overcome, as any deal for info on her location could (and undoubtedly would) include a resolution of and/or immunity from any and all other uncharged crimes for what he did to CM. So the idea of him not giving up her location because of the problem of incriminating himself further is not the impossible obstacle many try to make it out to be.

There are other issues that complicate such a negotiation, although none are truly deal-killers if they want to make a deal:
1 A MURDER TRIAL DOESN'T NEED A BODY - Both sides know he's already VERY vulnerable to a murder charge with DP, body or no body. At this point, for future legal reference, it is considered a fact that EA kidnapped CM and he INTENDED to also commit bodily injury or sexually assault her or terrorize her, making it next to impossible for him to argue that something accidental happened to her. With her permanent disappearance from that AK, that is further evidence of a murder, and the weight of that increases as time goes on and she's never seen or heard from again.
2 CLOSING THE DOOR ON AN APPEAL - The defense (and state) would assess the odds of a successful (and helpful) appeal from something in the trial process, or within the trial itself. An appeal is realistically a shot at a new trial, not a change to a not-guilty verdict, and it's based on claims of procedural/legal mistakes rather than a re-arguing of the evidence. But this trial has been pretty normal, and even a new trial isn't a promise of a different outcome.
3 IT WOULD TAKE MORE THAN A PROMISE - EA would have to give them info, and the state would have to actually find CM, before they accepted such a deal.
4 - THE MORE WORK YOU MAKE THE PROSECUTORS DO, AND THE BETTER IT IS, THE LESS OF A DEAL THEY WANT TO GIVE YOU - The point being, now that we're at the end, it's a little late for EA to make a deal and get much of a reduction in THIS sentence.
5 TIME IS AN ISSUE - There are multiple issues to resolve, and a body to actually locate. And once the jury rules on punishment, they can't undo that.

 

[arkansasmimi]

He said he was concerned about her being too intoxicated to drive. Someone else who followed the trial every minute can dig back through his testimony and find it. It just stuck out to me because some of the first witnesses said she was sober. Later ones said she did drink and have an adderall.

HF, after immunity, then came with his testimony about their day, CM asking him for cocaine and other drugs, sounding intoxicated. Because he'd lived with her for two years, my guess is he knew better whether she was intoxicated. And...I think the friends were just covering their own butts about their own drug use that night.

The big picture to me is simply, bad friends. Bad choices. Bad friends.

But, if you follow criminal law with any regularity, that's just the way it is with drugs and alcohol. It's usually not the most upstanding members of society using and abusing them.

As written from the beginning, birds of a feather flock together. It's almost always the case with drug users because sober, serious people normally won't have anything to do with them.

Agree. JMHO I think that is exactly what the friends were doing. Also, I wonder how truthful "Monday" is that he called? Sept 2, 2014 was a Tuesday and it was late that night that HF was called by M Morris, IIRC.

HF testified that he thought she may have been picked up, and started calling jails.

Scott Sidway ‏@ScottyWK 24s24 seconds ago McKinney, TX
Foster says at that point Monday he was worried, wondered if Christina got a DUI driving home and checked jails. #arochitrial http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...cused-of-kidnapping-2&p=12802158#post12802158

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 9m9 minutes ago
Foster testifies he first heard from Morris' dad - maybe Monday - that girlfriend was missing #arochitrial

Scott Sidway ‏@ScottyWK 10m10 minutes ago McKinney, TXFoster says at that point Monday he was worried, wondered if Christina got a DUI driving home and checked jails. #arochitrial http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...cused-of-kidnapping-2&p=12802197#post12802197

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 10m10 minutes ago McKinney, TX
Foster: thought he hadn't heard from Morris bc maybe she'd been picked up for DUI @FOX4 #arochitrial

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 10m10 minutes ago
Foster: Began to worry. Started checking jails to see if she got a DUI. Jonny McElroy also called. #arochitrial http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...cused-of-kidnapping-2&p=12802205#post12802205

 

[arkansasmimi]

:thinking:Curious if HF was released or possible recall?

Meredith Yeomans ‏@YeomansNBC5 Sep 21 Collin County Courthouse
Christina Morris' step-mom leaving courthouse: "We can breathe. I feel like the right thing happened." #arochitrial

@YeomansNBC5 @vlwigg I thought they couldn't talk to media until after punishment phase. Am I wrong on this?

Valerie Wigglesworth ‏@vlwigg Sep 21
.@XXXX @YeomansNBC5 Witnesses released from further testimony can talk to media. Some are not yet released. #arochitrial

Valerie Wigglesworth ‏@vlwigg Sep 21
.@XXXX Applies to all witnesses. After they testify, they either get released from rule or remain under rule to be re-called #arochitrial

 

[arkansasmimi]

He said he was concerned about her being too intoxicated to drive. Someone else who followed the trial every minute can dig back through his testimony and find it. It just stuck out to me because some of the first witnesses said she was sober. Later ones said she did drink and have an adderall.

HF, after immunity, then came with his testimony about their day, CM asking him for cocaine and other drugs, sounding intoxicated. Because he'd lived with her for two years, my guess is he knew better whether she was intoxicated. And...I think the friends were just covering their own butts about their own drug use that night.

The big picture to me is simply, bad friends. Bad choices. Bad friends.

But, if you follow criminal law with any regularity, that's just the way it is with drugs and alcohol. It's usually not the most upstanding members of society using and abusing them.

As written from the beginning, birds of a feather flock together. It's almost always the case with drug users because sober, serious people normally won't have anything to do with them.

Also, HF appears to be confused on the Immunity part.

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 2m2 minutes ago
Prosecutor asking about immunity agreement and that he can't be prosecuted for any drug and nonviolent offenses #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 2m2 minutes ago
"As long as I tell the truth I cannot be prosecuted," Foster testified about meaning of immunity. #arochitrial http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...cused-of-kidnapping-2&p=12802090#post12802090

On Cross from Def Attorney Gore:

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 1m1 minute ago
Gore asks if Foster's been promised never to be prosecuted for anything related to Morris? Yes, Foster says #arochitria http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...cused-of-kidnapping-2&p=12802291#post12802291

Foster was called to testify last week, but he invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Before he took the stand Tuesday, prosecutors announced they had secured an immunity agreement at the state and federal levels. The deal protects Foster from being charged with any nonviolent or drug crime related to his testimony in the Morris case.

Collin County prosecutor John Rolater told the judge that Foster is not a suspect in the Morris case and there are no plans to charge him. http://beta.dallasnews.com/news/cri...orris-willingly-got-suspects-camaro-kidnapped

One of the Det from PPD testified that it is perfectly legal to tell a Suspect that they are not a Suspect even if they are. Tweet from VW, appears HF thought the immunity included CM. :thinking:

(^^cant remember which possibly Stamm? or Busby? Maybe?)