TX - Moriah Wilson, 25, Cyclist Fatally Shot Before Race, Austin, 2022 *arrest* #7

[arielilane]

-- Justice for Mo Wilson!


-- Justice will prevail.





7:17 PM · Nov 8, 2023

https://twitter.com/x/status/1722408156125397414

 

[knla]

This just occurred to me and would love to hear from anyone who has watched or studied trials where convicted defendants have argued Crime of Passion as a mitigating factor at sentencing. Especially cases where the defendant either remains silent during trial after pleading NG to murder or takes the stand to deny the charges, rather than cases where, for eg, defense is pushing for manslaughter not murder or invoking insanity - ie where it is not at issue from the get go that defendant was involved in the death.

I know we haven't seen the guts of KA's defense yet, only opening statement and insinuations/innuendo (possibly re SODDI?) during cross. But if the thrust of her defense ends up being the evidence is faulty, LE got it wrong etc etc,which I think it will be because SODDI (an actual named one) does not appear feasible to me, how exactly does her D argue Crime of Passion at sentencing if she is convicted (which I believe at present she will be)? Would that have to involve KA testifying post conviction at sentencing that yes, I did it but it was Crime of Passion? In other words an admission? Or is it argued on her behalf by the D with KA maintaining her right to remain silent? And if KA herself testifies in trial and denies the allegations, how does Crime of Passion as mitigating factor play out in sentencing hearing? Would she remain silent whilst lawyers a \argue it or would she testify herself?

KA was really triggered by CS's relationship with MW, but not his past intimate relationships with other women. Not sure she coldly murdered MW to just eliminate a rival, or because of jealousy. Something about the relationship caused her to lose it. Just my opinion. Or that's the only time she could get MW alone and eliminate what she considered a threat to her relationship with CS.

 

[Sundog]

This just occurred to me and would love to hear from anyone who has watched or studied trials where convicted defendants have argued Crime of Passion as a mitigating factor at sentencing. Especially cases where the defendant either remains silent during trial after pleading NG to murder or takes the stand to deny the charges, rather than cases where, for eg, defense is pushing for manslaughter not murder or invoking insanity - ie where it is not at issue from the get go that defendant was involved in the death.

I know we haven't seen the guts of KA's defense yet, only opening statement and insinuations/innuendo (possibly re SODDI?) during cross. But if the thrust of her defense ends up being the evidence is faulty, LE got it wrong etc etc,which I think it will be because SODDI (an actual named one) does not appear feasible to me, how exactly does her D argue Crime of Passion at sentencing if she is convicted (which I believe at present she will be)? Would that have to involve KA testifying post conviction at sentencing that yes, I did it but it was Crime of Passion? In other words an admission? Or is it argued on her behalf by the D with KA maintaining her right to remain silent? And if KA herself testifies in trial and denies the allegations, how does Crime of Passion as mitigating factor play out in sentencing hearing? Would she remain silent whilst lawyers argue it or would she testify herself?

If KA is found guilty at her trial and crime of passion is presented by her defense team during sentencing phase, then it is likely that the defense will present expert witnesses to the jury that testify about the psychological and physical issues involved. KA's sister might also testify, KA won't take the stand during the sentencing phase, IMO, because there are likely to be appeals related to her case by her defense team related to the trial verdict.

I do think it is possible for the defense to connect with one or two sympathetic jurors during the sentencing phase (if not before). Given that mitigating factors are purely subjective for each juror, then that is certainly possible.

 

[charminglane]

KA was really triggered by CS's relationship with MW, but not his past intimate relationships with other women. Not sure she coldly murdered MW to just eliminate a rival, or because of jealousy. Something about the relationship caused her to lose it. Just my opinion. Or that's the only time she could get MW alone and eliminate what she considered a threat to her relationship with CS.

I believe the affinity to be cycling.
KA knew CS thought she was not up to his standard in it and didn't really want to share that with her anymore.
Mo was of the same cycling mindset as CS.
Mo's got to go.

 

[jepop]

If KA is found guilty at her trial and crime of passion is presented by her defense team during sentencing phase, then it is likely that the defense will present expert witnesses to the jury that testify about the psychological and physical issues involved. KA's sister might also testify, KA won't take the stand during the sentencing phase, IMO, because there are likely to be appeals related to her case by her defense team related to the trial verdict.

I do think it is possible for the defense to connect with one or two sympathetic jurors during the sentencing phase (if not before). Given that mitigating factors are purely subjective for each juror, then that is certainly possible.

What are the psychological and physical issues involved in your opinion? Would they conflict if premeditation is proven?
ETA: And what guidelines would be provided to the jury (if a judge does not decide sentence in this case) to help them differentiate the 'provocation' of sudden passion from no such provocation?

 

[Sundog]

What are the psychological and physical issue involved in your opinion? Would they conflict if premeditation is proven?

With regard to the premeditation issue, the defense has already established that CS purchased the gun for KA because of various dangers, including while out driving, shopping, etc. So maybe she kept her gun in the glove box of her car at times when she felt at risk. The latter hasn't been established as fact, and may be just left hanging out there until the defense brings it up again, if they do.

During the sentencing phase, while the defense presents mitigating factors, the state will present aggravating factors. Mitigating factors are subjective for each individual juror, but aggravating factors have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I assume that psychologists and/or other expert professional witnesses could speak to the impact of lies and infidelity and the physiological response, etc. in the moment related to crimes of passion.

Just throwing out there some possibilities of the mitigation and aggravation cirumstances that could come up at sentencing.

Also issues related to the probablity of future crime of violence. When the jurors deliberate on sentencing, they will also have to consider this issue. Not the "possibility" of future crime of violence, but the "probability" of future crime of violence versus rehabilitation. KA doesn't have a background of violent crime, and this should work in her favor.

 

[jepop]

KA was really triggered by CS's relationship with MW, but not his past intimate relationships with other women. Not sure she coldly murdered MW to just eliminate a rival, or because of jealousy. Something about the relationship caused her to lose it. Just my opinion. Or that's the only time she could get MW alone and eliminate what she considered a threat to her relationship with CS.

If so, to me none of that sounds like it contains any reasonable mitigating factors for a reduced sentence owing to sudden passion? It could be different if KA's defense was actually arguing this in court but clearly they are not because, IMO, the evidence for premeditation is too much to overcome.Moo. I keep thinking that the time for her to argue mitigating factors would have been during the plea deal that she rejected? Its hard for me to understand how sudden passion plays out in sentencing if premeditation is established during trial and defendant is found guilty. Are there sentencing guidelines I'm wondering.

 

[BUF]

Although it is highly unlikely that KA will testify, I wouldn’t be surprised if she did. We have seen way too many defendants chose to testify when evidence has been stacked up against them.

I am quite sure her defense will advise her not to, but it is always up to the defendant. KA has shown a bit of defiance by not agreeing with her defense team about taking the plea deal and then choosing to plan an escape 2 1/2 weeks before her trial was to begin.

moo

 

[jepop]

Snipped respectfully for focus.

RBBM
I assume that psychologists and/or other expert professional witnesses could speak to the impact of lies and infidelity and the physiological response, etc. in the moment related to crimes of passion.

Hmm, could get messy, Imo. I assume that the Ds expert witnesses would be bound/limited in their opining by the actual evidence presented during the trial? Ditto for premeditation. I'm uncertain of what the verdict forms will be vis a vis premeditation, does felony murder preclude that as a specific part of the charges the jury will deliberate on to reach an actual verdict?

 

[Sundog]

If so, to me none of that sounds like it contains any reasonable mitigating factors for a reduced sentence owing to sudden passion? It could be different if KA's defense was actually arguing this in court but clearly they are not because, IMO, the evidence for premeditation is too much to overcome.Moo. I keep thinking that the time for her to argue mitigating factors would have been during the plea deal that she rejected? Its hard for me to understand how sudden passion plays out in sentencing if premeditation is established during trial and defendant is found guilty. Are there sentencing guidelines I'm wondering.

The defense can shift gears in the sentencing phase (change their strategy) if KA is found guilty. Of course that is what any defense team would do in an effort to reduce their client's sentence. The state, during sentencing, will present their evidence to show that premeditation is an aggravating factor. They have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the jury to consider it.

IANAL, but did some research on Texas law related to sentencing phase of murder trials, and this is my understanding of what I read.

It also may be that Texas sentencing phase requires 10 jurors to agree on the sentencing. I am not absolutely clear on this, maybe an attorney who is familiar with Texas law regarding sentencing can weigh in. If that is the case, then the defense will have to convince two jurors that their are mitigating circumstances that should be taken into consideration in KA's sentencing.

KA's sister, parents will likely also be witnesses for the defense during the sentencing phase.

 

[Walela]

If so, to me none of that sounds like it contains any reasonable mitigating factors for a reduced sentence owing to sudden passion? It could be different if KA's defense was actually arguing this in court but clearly they are not because, IMO, the evidence for premeditation is too much to overcome.Moo. I keep thinking that the time for her to argue mitigating factors would have been during the plea deal that she rejected? Its hard for me to understand how sudden passion plays out in sentencing if premeditation is established during trial and defendant is found guilty. Are there sentencing guidelines I'm wondering.

Sudden passion in Texas is in the punishment phase only. It's not presented as a mitigating factor in the guilt/innocence phase and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the sudden passion. There was a trial in San Antonio, State vs. Francis Hall where she was found guilty of murder and sudden passion was introduced by the defense in the punishment phase. The jury agreed and she was sentenced to 2 years. I haven't found a whole lot of articles on this case but if you scroll down in the link to "Convicted of Murder, Widow Insists......" it reads as if she testified in both the guilt and the punishment phases.

KA testifying in the guilt phase of this trial IMO won't happen but could in the punishment phase.

Francis Hall gets lightest sentence...

Edited to add: I just pulled this trial up as an example of what could be considered as an example of crime of passion. The woman in this example had way more provocation than KA had (if she had any at all other than what she created in her own head).

 

[Megnut]

At least, at sentencing, on Kaitlin's behalf, the defense could argue this was a one-off, crime of passion, totally out of character, no criminal record.

Oh, except for the unpaid botox. And using her sister's passport to enter a country illegally. And all the stalking beforehand and the attempts to disguise herself after. And the custody escape. And....

Welp.

Kaitlin Kait Kai Ari

I guess it's not so much out of character. It is her character.

Veneer deep.

JMO

 

[jepop]

Sudden passion in Texas is in the punishment phase only. It's not presented as a mitigating factor in the guilt/innocence phase and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the sudden passion. There was a trial in San Antonio, State vs. Francis Hall where she was found guilty of murder and sudden passion was introduced by the defense in the punishment phase. The jury agreed and she was sentenced to 2 years. I haven't found a whole lot of articles on this case but if you scroll down in the link to "Convicted of Murder, Widow Insists......" it reads as if she testified in both the guilt and the punishment phases.

KA testifying in the guilt phase of this trial IMO won't happen but could in the punishment phase.

Francis Hall gets lightest sentence...

Edited to add: I just pulled this trial up as an example of what could be considered as an example of crime of passion. The woman in this example had way more provocation than KA had (if she had any at all other than what she created in her own head).

Thank you.When you say the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove sudden passion in the punishment phase does that means beyond a reasonable doubt? I understood from another poster that sudden passion as a mitigating factor is "subjective to each juror" as opposed to aggravating factors in punishment phase where the P must prove them BARD. I'm confused re the differences here.

Also I wonder if KA testifies re sudden passion in the punishment phase if that would amount to an open admission of guilt (post conviction).

 

[Sundog]

Hmm, could get messy, Imo. I assume that the Ds expert witnesses would be bound/limited in their opining by the actual evidence presented during the trial?

I don't think that expert witnesses offering mitigation evidence would be limited to any evidence presented during the trial. For example, in the sentencing phase for the Ethan Crumbly case (school shooter in Detroit), the defense called expert witnesses who testified to the impact of childhood trauma and impulse control later in life, and also issues related to rehab ability. This was all related to the sentencing issue regarding time to serve.

Issue of drug use could also be a mitigating factor if that is an issue. It doesn't have to be introduced at trial. The sentencing phase is pretty much wide open with regard to mitigating circumstances. Much of what will be discussed will likely not be discussed at trial.

 

[Sundog]

Thank you.When you say the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove sudden passion in the punishment phase does that means beyond a reasonable doubt? I understood from another poster that sudden passion as a mitigating factor is "subjective to each juror" as opposed to aggravating factors in punishment phase where the P must prove them BARD. I'm confused re the differences here.

Mitigating circumstances are subjective to each individual juror as to how it relates to the sentence recommended. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" for mitigating factors. It is the state's role to argue against these mitigating factors with aggravating evidence and that evidence has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt either at the trial or at the sentencing hearing in order for the jury to consider it. The state has to provide evidence for aggravating factors. And can argue against any mitigating factors presented by the defense and/or their witnesses with their own witnesses, expert and otherwise.

In the end, the jury will decide on the appropriate sentence. I would expect that a defense team would pull out all the stops at the sentencing phase if their client was found guilty at the trial.

 

[Walela]

Thank you.When you say the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove sudden passion in the punishment phase does that means beyond a reasonable doubt? I understood from another poster that sudden passion as a mitigating factor is "subjective to each juror" as opposed to aggravating factors in punishment phase where the P must prove them BARD. I'm confused re the differences here.

Also I wonder if KA testifies re sudden passion in the punishment phase if that would amount to an open admission of guilt (post conviction).

It is my understanding that it is a "preponderance of the evidence" and that all 12 must agree for it to be so.

I don't think it does constitute an admission of guilt. It wouldn't matter anyway since the jury already found her guilty so she's legally guilty no matter what. She might have to testify if there isn't some vastly compelling evidence to convince these jurors without them hearing from her.

Edited to add: I'm referring to sudden passion only.

 

[arielilane]

It’s my understanding this would be more along the lines of an alleged case of premeditation and planning rather than crime of passion. The state has presented evidence of stalking and two different people's testimony indicted she wanted to kill her.

Speculation - she should have taken the plea deal.

All moo.

Yoga Teacher Kaitlin Armstong Turns Down Plea Deal in Love-Triangle Slaying of Cyclist

A Texas woman who allegedly fled to Costa Rica after killing her boyfriend’s love interest last year reportedly turned down a plea deal that could have reduced her prison sentence by decades. Sources told the Daily Mail that Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza offered accused murderer...

www.crimeonline.com

Crime of Passion - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Crime of Passion defined and explained with examples. Crime of Passion is the commission of a crime in the heat of passion.

legaldictionary.net

 

[arielilane]

RECENT COVERAGE

Day 5: 11/8/23

• Joan Gillcrest, Owner of 68 Degree Kitchen testified to surveillance video that showed a motorcycle driving past the restaurant on May 11, 2022 at 8:15:54 p.m.
• Detective Richard Spitler testified to other people officers investigated after Mo’s murder, including Gunnar Shaw, an ex-boyfriend.
  • Investigators determined that Shaw had been on a business trip on the East Coast at the time of the murder.
• Spitler said that DNA tested from the scene was positively compared to Kaitlin Armstrong.
• Investigators accessed the infotainment data from a Jeep that Armstrong had been driving and determined that an address near Mo’s apartment had recently been put into the vehicle.
• Spitler testified to a number of emails and internet searches conducted by Kaitlin Armstrong in the hours after Mo’s murder.
  • Purchased a Visa prepaid card, flights to Costa Rica under Christi Armstrong and a VPN
  • Search history included news stories about Mo’s murder, “Can IMEI track if on phone call,” and “Can pineapples burn your fingerprints”.
• Nicole Mertz, Kaitlin Armstrong’s best friend, testified that she met Kaitlin through cycling and was one of her best friends.
  • Mertz said that Armstrong had access to Colin Strickland’s email.
  • Mertz said that Armstrong had been upset when she saw that Colin and Moriah had been together. Mertz described Armstrong as visibly angry and testified that Armstrong threatened to kill Mo.
  • Mertz said that immediately after learning of Mo’s death, her first thought was that Armstrong may have had something to do with it.
• Jacqueline Chastain, an acquaintance of Kaitlin Armstrong’s, testified that Armstrong had been very upset about seeing Colin with Mo and talked about wanting to kill her, and mentioned buying a gun.

TX v. Kaitlin Armstrong: Love Triangle Murder Trial

Posted at 9:25 PM, November 8, 2023






This photo provided by Matt Wilson shows his sister, pro-cyclist Anna Moriah ‘Mo’ Wilson. Mo Wilson was killed May 11, 2022. (Matt Wilson)

 

[arielilane]

Brianna Hollis' articles following her tweets. Keeping us informed.

Kaitlin Armstrong’s first interview with APD played during murder trial

The State continues calling witnesses Thursday for day six of Kaitlin Armstrong’s murder trial.

www.kxan.com

Updated: Nov 10, 2023 / 08:38 AM CST

Detective addresses Kaitlin Armstrong’s online searches in days, weeks after Wilson’s death

As the murder trial for Kaitlin Armstrong, accused of shooting and killing pro cyclist Anna Moriah “Mo” Wilson in May 2020, continues, the lead homicide detective on the case resumes hi…

www.kxan.com

Updated: Nov 10, 2023 / 01:45 PM CST

 

[dbcooper63]

A quick take by me....She hunted her down like a dog and fled...no mitigators...preplanned murder...fry her.