GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #40 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
While I've made it clear how I see the case (EA was clearly the last person she was ever seen with, he put her IN HIS TRUNK, she's never been seen again, and I think and pray he'll get the allowable 99-years for what he did), I have to say that the various motions being made to dismiss evidence don't tell us anything about the defense's thinking. This is not "wish and a prayer and a sign of desperation" but rather a good lawyer doing what a good lawyer does.

Is there an actual chance that he could get some evidence tossed? Yes. Every search warrant and piece of evidence gets scrutinized for procedural mistakes, and sometimes (but not often) they happen to the degree that some of the evidence is barred from being seen by the jury. That's frustrating, to see a trying to skate on evil deeds by keeping the trial from airing all the facts, but it can happen, and it's up to the whims of a single judge. In addition, such motions are only the first shot at attacking evidence, as the defense can also attack it during the trial, and even if that doesn't work they'll try to make it look unreliable or somesuch. When your guy is guilty and stupidly left neon signs pointing at himself, you may not have an answer for that mountain, but your hope is to whittle a bit away here that never makes it to trial, a bit more after the trial begins, then use cross-examination and shady "experts" to deal with what's left, and hope you create some holes in the case where the jury notices the missing evidence and wonders why it's not there. It doesn't make EA less guilty, of course, and it isn't true justice if a predator like EA is allowed to walk the streets and do this sort of stuff to more women, but that's how the trial game is played if there isn't a negotiated deal.

Fortunately, many judges are sensitive to the aims of justice and wary of excluding evidence, preferring to let the jury decide guilt on the basis of ALL the evidence. And they may have daughters and nieces and sisters and wives they are protective of, too, and thus have that strong human incentive to keep predators locked away, where they can't harm more. We'll see how it unfolds here.
 
SteveS said:
While I've made it clear how I see the case (EA was clearly the last person she was ever seen with, he put her IN HIS TRUNK, she's never been seen again, and I think and pray he'll get the allowable 99-years for what he did), I have to say that the various motions being made to dismiss evidence don't tell us anything about the defense's thinking. This is not "wish and a prayer and a sign of desperation" but rather a good lawyer doing what a good lawyer does.
Click to expand...

*snipped by me for brevity.
Great post.
Speaking only for myself: I got carried away in the immediacy of processing "new" informaiton and reading way too much into it, which isn't wise given that I'm not a lawyer or knowledgeable enough on the topic to just start freestyling about it :) It's been so long since new information has been made available and I suppose the strain of wanting answers (which I'm certain we all feel), combined with the fact that trial is approaching makes me a little stir crazy.
In hoping to identify something telling in a lawyer's actions, I was impulsive and didn't do anything other than make wild speculations about something that in reality, turns out to be fairly routine. Thanks for adding clarity and IMO helping reign conversation back to a grounded focus. I appreciate it.

I do have a quick question though: does the fact that a motion was filed to suppress Shop Vac evidence mean the Shop Vac evidence is in and likely conclusive?
 
b.humble said:
*snipped by me for brevity.
Great post.
Speaking only for myself: I got carried away in the immediacy of processing "new" informaiton and reading way too much into it, which isn't wise given that I'm not a lawyer or knowledgeable enough on the topic to just start freestyling about it :) It's been so long since new information has been made available and I suppose the strain of wanting answers (which I'm certain we all feel), combined with the fact that trial is approaching makes me a little stir crazy.
In hoping to identify something telling in a lawyer's actions, I was impulsive and didn't do anything other than make wild speculations about something that in reality, turns out to be fairly routine. Thanks for adding clarity and IMO helping reign conversation back to a grounded focus. I appreciate it.

I do have a quick question though: does the fact that a motion was filed to suppress Shop Vac evidence mean the Shop Vac evidence is in and likely conclusive?
Click to expand...
I have the same disclosure. Not anyone with expertise. But I think the shop vac findings were significant enough to warrant being admitted into evidence, which delayed the trial.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 
b.humble said:
*snipped by me for brevity.
Great post.
Speaking only for myself: I got carried away in the immediacy of processing "new" informaiton and reading way too much into it, which isn't wise given that I'm not a lawyer or knowledgeable enough on the topic to just start freestyling about it :) It's been so long since new information has been made available and I suppose the strain of wanting answers (which I'm certain we all feel), combined with the fact that trial is approaching makes me a little stir crazy.
In hoping to identify something telling in a lawyer's actions, I was impulsive and didn't do anything other than make wild speculations about something that in reality, turns out to be fairly routine. Thanks for adding clarity and IMO helping reign conversation back to a grounded focus. I appreciate it.

I do have a quick question though: does the fact that a motion was filed to suppress Shop Vac evidence mean the Shop Vac evidence is in and likely conclusive?
Click to expand...

"does the fact that a motion was filed to suppress Shop Vac evidence mean the Shop Vac evidence is in and likely conclusive?"

Not necessarily. They'll try to find an excuse here or another there that works, to get as many pieces of evidence excluded, regardless of how big or how small. The less you have to deal with at trial, the better, and the only limit to their trying is their creativity and persistence, until the judge decides he's had enough.
 
zippixx said:
04/04/2016

Comments: Motion For Juror Questionnaire


04/06/2016
Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Obtained by Declaration of an Exigency Concerning the Defendant's Electronic Consumer Data Including Bank Reocrds, Financial Records, and Cell Phone Records

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail
Click to expand...

rbbm
Not surprising. I'd guess defense figures it will be hard to find an impartial jury after all the publicity the case has gotten. This would help weed more people out during the selection.

moo
 
04/07/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Surpress: Defendant's Toll Road Recordds and Historical Toll Road Data Obtained By Warrant of December 29, 2014

4/07/2016 Motion

Comments: First Amended Motion to Surpress: Defendant's Toll Road Recordds and Historical Toll Road Data Obtained By Warrant of December 29, 2014 At 3:50PM AND December 29, 2014 AT 4:01PM

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail
 
zippixx said:
04/04/2016

Comments: Motion For Juror Questionnaire


04/06/2016
Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Obtained by Declaration of an Exigency Concerning the Defendant's Electronic Consumer Data Including Bank Reocrds, Financial Records, and Cell Phone Records

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail
Click to expand...

Does anyone know, is the Declaration of an Exigency different or a result of the Brady request regarding exculpatory evidence?
 
"is the Declaration of an Exigency different or a result of the Brady request regarding exculpatory evidence?"

Not even remotely related. One (Brady request) was a request for MORE info, the other was a request to HIDE evidence from being seen by the jury because of the means by which it was obtained. An "exigency" in this context is basically an urgent crisis of some sort, that was used to justify an end run around a request and need for a search warrant. The defense is now taking a stab at the idea that LE overstepped their bounds.
 
I understand that the defence is trying to make lots of this evidence not to be used in court. I have a couple of questions.
Does the defence need to give a valid reason that they don't want it used? They can't just say they don't like it or its incriminating can they?
And when does it get decided if it will or will not be used? Before the trial?

From reading previous post this is routine? Standard defence tactics?

I guess in my head I just think if he had nothing to hide why hide these things? If he went home why care what his toll records say? His bank records etc...
 
And also experian records? What's that? In the UK that's like your credit file company? Is it different in Texas?
 
1 "Does the defence need to give a valid reason that they don't want it used?" ....Absolutely, and such "reasons" (which may be super strong, or may be as flimsy as cotton candy) will be filed as part of the motion.
2 "And when does it get decided if it will or will not be used? Before the trial?: ....Strictly speaking, the timing of a ruling is up to the judge. But given the nature of these specific requests and the impact any suppression of evidence has on trial preparation, the judge is virtually certain to rule before the trial starts, and I'd expect a pre-trial hearing (or perhaps several) to be scheduled to argue and deal with all the various motions.
3 "Standard defence tactics?" .... It's hard to answer that. It's not indicative of anything definitive about the defense's thinking. But it's highly aggressive lawyering, and takes time and energy that might better be spent elsewhere unless (a) the defense thinks they have truly found problems in the actions of LE in evidence-gathering, or (b) the defense is dealing with a mountain of compelling evidence that has them dead in the water and has no other angle to fight it (in which case, they would be taking wild swings here, hoping for some luck, and then perhaps have a fallback plan to try for a plea deal if these are "last resort" efforts that go nowhere).
4 "experian records? What's that?" ....Credit records. I'm not sure of the relevance to this case, but it sounds like (among other things) LE checked EA's credit records at some point for some unknown-to-us reason.
 
Thank you so much SteveS, amazing info as always.
It's really interesting seeing the case coming together.
There's no doubt EA knows how she ended up in the trunk!!!
 
I'll take 3b please! Would they possibly pull a credit report looking for prior addresses? Perhaps maybe to search more for Christina on familiar land to EA.
 
4/11/2016 Motion
Comments: Motion to Supress: Second Search Warrant for Defendant's Camero Vehicle Obtained by Warrant of December 12, 2014

04/11/2016 Motion
Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's House (1218 Harvard Lane, Allen, Texas) Obtained by Warrant of December 12, 2014

04/11/2016 Motion
Comments: Motion to Suppress: Search Warrant for Defendant's DNA Obtained by Warrant of December 13, 2014

04/11/2016 Motion
Comments: Motion to Supress: Defendant's Google Account Records and Data Obtained by Warrant of December 18, 2014

04/11/2016 Motion
Comments: Motion to Supress: Defendant's Hotmail Account Records and Data Obtained by Warrant of December 22, 2014

04/11/2016 Motion
Comments: Motion to Supress: Defendant's Yahoo Account Records and Data Obtained by Warrant of December 22, 2014

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail
 
Gosh golly it looks like they are using a stall tactic and submitting motion to supress literally everything.
 
Will these motions be argued in court or chambers? and when? Crossing my fingers for a June 2016 trial start date for at least some sort of closure to the CM family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 134 more.
Total: 3,099 (members: 135, guests: 2,964)

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
2,964
Total visitors
3,099
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,694
Messages
18,145,381
Members
231,494
Latest member
malik562
Back
Top