GUILTY AZ - Daniel Rodriguez, 29, fatally shot by Phoenix PD officer, 5 Oct 2010 #2

[aa9511]

I see that now,that is some piece of weaponry, but not something that could be easily grabbed and used.

Even though they found a knife on Daniel after he was killed,RC didn't know it was there so he still killed unlawfully. I'm actually becoming very anxious to how the jury will see this,and the verdict they will give. I fear if they find him not guilty and he is re-instated he will do it again.

Sent from my 'alternate reality' using my hippocampus

bbm

Josie, I have been thinking that why didn't Juan point out since Danny had this knife, WHY DIDN"T HE USE IT on Chrisman if the two were supposedly struggling and Danny was supposedly being so stubborn and messed up?

Why didn't Danny use it on Chrisman after Chrisman shot his dog for no reason (or even if for a reason, that the defense contends)?

Either way, whether Chrsiman's version or Vergillo's version, Danny had the opportunity to take out that knife and at least threaten Chrisman with it. Danny never did that. First of all, I think he was so scared he probably forgot about it. Secondly, Chrisman was pointing a gun at him and so knife would not have been a threat at that point, gun overpowers knife. Thirdly, Danny knew that would make the situation even worse and he could get in big trouble for it.

This point about not pulling out the knife, IMO, support Vergillo's version. if Chrisman was pointing the gun at him, Danny would have been scared, and even if he had thought of the knife, obviously that wasn't gonna help him. It does not support Chrisman's version, if Danny was the aggressor, he would have pulled out this knife and threatened Chrsiman with it.

IMO.

 

[aa9511]

I'm not saying it's fishy that Stephens was taken off the case and the current judge put on. I am just wondering why. It can't be that she has the Arias trial going, as she had many other trials and cases going while she was presiding over the Arias trial and it was never an issue save for occasional start time delays. The Arias trial is currently in limbo as it is so that cannot be it. But I am also not even close to saying it's some grand conspiracy to get Chrisman off. There are tough judges and lenient ones and fair ones and biased ones all the time. It's just the luck of the draw. I know that attorneys have their favorites and their not so favorites. Given his history with the MCCA's office, I'd say Juan is probably not a huge fan. But you deal. You press on. That's just what you have to do. It's still frustrating.

I just like Stephens. I never got any hint of bias from her, though at times she would become frustrated at one side or another. Her rulings were always fair and made with careful consideration. I respect her. I think she would have been more fair. In any case, I can see this judge's bias every time he looks at or speaks to Martinez. He just doesn't like him and it's affecting his rulings. But whatever. I am sure this is not the first rogue judge Juan has ever had to deal with. In fact, I know it's not. Juan still has enough to work with though and I am sure he will bring it all home tomorrow in his closings.

Meebee, agreed. Sometimes I waver back and forth, like when she annoyed me with her late starts, the long side-bars, delaying the penalty phase, slowwww pace of the trial, etc.. But I never ONCE saw her act annoyed with an attorney. Even with all that, she listened and did not raise her voice or speak with sarcasm.

 

[MeeBee]

bbm

Josie, I have been thinking that why didn't Juan point out since Danny had this knife, WHY DIDN"T HE USE IT on Chrisman if the two were supposedly struggling and Danny was supposedly being so stubborn and messed up?

Why didn't Danny use it on Chrisman after Chrisman shot his dog for no reason (or even if for a reason, that the defense contends)?

Either way, whether Chrsiman's version or Vergillo's version, Danny had the opportunity to take out that knife and at least threaten Chrisman with it. Danny never did that. First of all, I think he was so scared he probably forgot about it. Secondly, Chrisman was pointing a gun at him and so knife would not have been a threat at that point, gun overpowers knife. Thirdly, Danny knew that would make the situation even worse and he could get in big trouble for it.

This point about not pulling out the knife, IMO, support Vergillo's version. if Chrisman was pointing the gun at him, Danny would have been scared, and even if he had thought of the knife, obviously that wasn't gonna help him. It does not support Chrisman's version, if Danny was the aggressor, he would have pulled out this knife and threatened Chrsiman with it.

IMO.

Don't you worry, aa. I am sure he will cover that in his closings. The knife was in his pocket, Chrisman never even knew it was there. And if Danny was such a threat, why not wield the knife in his pocket as opposed to his bicycle.

Good points!

 

[geevee]

I'm not saying it's fishy that Stephens was taken off the case and the current judge put on. I am just wondering why. It can't be that she has the Arias trial going, as she had many other trials and cases going while she was presiding over the Arias trial and it was never an issue save for occasional start time delays. The Arias trial is currently in limbo as it is so that cannot be it. But I am also not even close to saying it's some grand conspiracy to get Chrisman off. There are tough judges and lenient ones and fair ones and biased ones all the time. It's just the luck of the draw. I know that attorneys have their favorites and their not so favorites. Given his history with the MCCA's office, I'd say Juan is probably not a huge fan. But you deal. You press on. That's just what you have to do. It's still frustrating.

I just like Stephens. I never got any hint of bias from her, though at times she would become frustrated at one side or another. Her rulings were always fair and made with careful consideration. I respect her. I think she would have been more fair. In any case, I can see this judge's bias every time he looks at or speaks to Martinez. He just doesn't like him and it's affecting his rulings. But whatever. I am sure this is not the first rogue judge Juan has ever had to deal with. In fact, I know it's not. Juan still has enough to work with though and I am sure he will bring it all home tomorrow in his closings.

I get what you're saying MeeBee, I like JSS also and was looking forward to seeing her try this case, I also agree that Judge Granville's facial and body language towards the prosecution leaves something to be desired.

Maybe it's more of a style thing, he may just prefer more peace and quiet in his courtroom and JM is anything but peace and quiet on the floor. lol

I just realized why I couldn't find more minute entries, I was searching under Granville when he didn't have the case until July 31st. lol Based on the docket and the minute search, it looks like the case bounced around between judges, or only some of the minute entries are showing up under JSS' name. There was a notice of change of judge (filed on 1/16/13 and docket date of 1/23/13 and an objection filed, but I can't find any minute entries about it, even though an entry shows on the docket.

 

[geevee]

bbm

Geevee, I'm afraid of that, too. I think everything happened real fast, that explains why Virgillo was at the breach a lot of the time, also as we see in the pics, the room was very small so it makes sense that he would have been there when he was not in action with pepper spray, taser, etc..

However, this real-time thing could be favorable for Chrisman too. For example, I'm a little apprehensive that Juan didn't go into TOO much detail on Chrisman's cross, detail about what exactly happened and movements of Chrisman and Danny, b/c then they might think that well, anything dissected like that no one is gonna rememeber exactly where their feet were and exactly what motions they arms took, etc.. So what if that causes them to sort of lessen the effect of Juan's cross on Chrisman?

Was there a picture shown of the knife he had in his pocket? Or who testified to finding it - the ME? I'll have to look at that testimony again, between football games (TG the NFL is back ).

I hope we'll get closing statements live streamed, I expect JM to do some sort of timeline and make sense of what happened to the jury, I really want to see that.

 

[Jewels53]

I get what you're saying MeeBee, I like JSS also and was looking forward to seeing her try this case, I also agree that Judge Granville's facial and body language towards the prosecution leaves something to be desired.

Maybe it's more of a style thing, he may just prefer more peace and quiet in his courtroom and JM is anything but peace and quiet on the floor. lol

I just realized why I couldn't find more minute entries, I was searching under Granville when he didn't have the case until July 31st. lol Based on the docket and the minute search, it looks like the case bounced around between judges, or only some of the minute entries are showing up under JSS' name. There was a notice of change of judge (filed on 1/16/13 and docket date of 1/23/13 and an objection filed, but I can't find any minute entries about it, even though an entry shows on the docket.

Not sure this will show up as the Minute Entry's. There were many Judge's assigned to this case before Granville ended up with it.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/JONamesearch.asp

Okay that didn't work, in the center section enter Chrisman Richard and it should show up all of the entry's for this trial.

 

[geevee]

Not sure this will show up as the Minute Entry's. There were many Judge's assigned to this case before Granville ended up with it.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/JONamesearch.asp

Okay that didn't work, in the center section enter Chrisman Richard and it should show up all of the entry's for this trial.

Thanks Jewels, I figured there must have been several since there are so many minute entries and only 3 under JSS (during the search periods I was looking under). The third mentions when the trial date was set that it was still under master calendar, so I guess subject to any judge having a clear enough calendar for it, and Judge Granville just..got..lucky.

 

[Jewels53]

Thanks Jewels, I figured there must have been several since there are so many minute entries and only 3 under JSS (during the search periods I was looking under). The third mentions when the trial date was set that it was still under master calendar, so I guess subject to any judge having a clear enough calendar for it, and Judge Granville just..got..lucky.

A couple of those Minute Entry's on the bottom of that page are related to a couple of divorce's for RC. I didn't realize this until just now when i decided to look at the bottom of the page. I think it is a couple in a 2 yr span. he sure gets around.

 

[geevee]

A couple of those Minute Entry's on the bottom of that page are related to a couple of divorce's for RC. I didn't realize this until just now when i decided to look at the bottom of the page. I think it is a couple in a 2 yr span. he sure gets around.

Really? More than one wife in two years? I only got the blank fill in boxes page when I clicked on the link, if I have time at halftime I'll try to pull them up. Thanks.

 

[Karmady]

Really? More than one wife in two years? I only got the blank fill in boxes page when I clicked on the link, if I have time at halftime I'll try to pull them up. Thanks.

I'm assuming the two in 2006 are the correct Richard Chrisman since I don't know his middle name or DOB. The docket shows that the two divorce proceedings are not separate divorces. A complaint was filed first by the wife against Chrisman and was not served. The second was later filed against the same wife by Chrisman. The one in 2009 is a totally different Richard Chrisman as evidenced by the DOB's provided in the docket.

So now you can enjoy your nachos and the re-cap at halftime

jmo

 

[geevee]

I'm assuming the two in 2006 are the correct Richard Chrisman since I don't know his middle name or DOB. The docket shows that the two divorce proceedings are not separate divorces. A complaint was filed first by the wife against Chrisman and was not served. The second was later filed against the same wife by Chrisman. The one in 2009 is a totally different Richard Chrisman as evidenced by the DOB's provided in the docket.

So now you can enjoy your nachos and the re-cap at halftime

jmo

LOL Thanks Karmady. MC docket has DOB: 11/1973 and lists no middle name.

 

[Karmady]

LOL Thanks Karmady. MC docket has DOB: 11/1973 and lists no middle name.

If you click through to the next page from the case number hyperlinks, the docket for one of the 2006 cases lists Allen as the middle name and the other lists his middle initial as "A" -- both of those have the 11/73 DOB's.

 

[geevee]

AZcentral posted a fairly decent timeline:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...urder-trial-timeline-prog.html?nclick_check=1

 

[josie1986]

looking forward to closings today. fingers and toes cross we have a live stream that isn't intermittent

 

[geevee]

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 30m The #RichardChrisman trial resumes today with closing arguments. We should have a live stream for you at 10:30am PT hopefully
---

Hope WAT is right.

'Morning everyone - you up yet, Jewels?

 

[Jewels53]

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 30m The #RichardChrisman trial resumes today with closing arguments. We should have a live stream for you at 10:30am PT hopefully
---

Hope WAT is right.

'Morning everyone - you up yet, Jewels?

Yes I am up and I think I am ready. I sure hope Juan can put all of this together for the jury today. Listening to the testimony this weekend I wondered at times how invested Juan was really in this trial.

You were right geevee he didn't personalize with the victim. This is a different kind of trial than the JA, maybe personalizing the victim isn't necessary.

 

[aa9511]

Was there a picture shown of the knife he had in his pocket? Or who testified to finding it - the ME? I'll have to look at that testimony again, between football games (TG the NFL is back ).

I hope we'll get closing statements live streamed, I expect JM to do some sort of timeline and make sense of what happened to the jury, I really want to see that.

Yes, there was a pic of the knife, but I'm not sure when. I think when all the crime scene pics were taken, b/c I believe the ME emptied his pockets and camera girl took pictures of the stuff. IIRC it just looks like a pocket knife. I can't remember if it was attached to the back of his pants or in his pocket.

 

[geevee]

This is on the docket this morning:

9/6/2013 MTD - Motion To Dismiss - Party (001) 9/6/2013
NOTE: MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT 3 OF THEINDICTMENT


On the docket the 3rd count is the animal cruelty but I don't know if that's the count referenced in the motion.

 

[aa9511]

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 30m The #RichardChrisman trial resumes today with closing arguments. We should have a live stream for you at 10:30am PT hopefully
---

Hope WAT is right.

'Morning everyone - you up yet, Jewels?

Morning all! Hopefully WAT can pull some strings for us today!!

 

[aa9511]

This is on the docket this morning:

9/6/2013 MTD - Motion To Dismiss - Party (001) 9/6/2013
NOTE: MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT 3 OF THEINDICTMENT


On the docket the 3rd count is the animal cruelty but I don't know if that's the count referenced in the motion.

Hmm...that would make sense. They're thinking if they get a NOT GUILTY, they don't want him to get the other animal cruely charge and then he still (I'm assuming) has to serve some time for that. They're trying to get him to just walk out the door....