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

[MeeBee]

Do you also say it with the same tone as Juan? :floorlaugh: I do and it is so effective! It has a wonderful effect doesn't it! :floorlaugh:

I try not to but it just comes out that way lol. My husband has started doing it and even my 3 year old daughter, which is hilarious.

 

[MeeBee]

Does anyone know if there are any lesser includeds? I didn't hear. I do remember from Jodi's trial that the max sentence for second degree murder is not as harsh as in some other states at all, where you could get life for second degree. In AZ it's something like 10-22 years.

Trying not to worry about the two groups. That can often happen in juries, where there's a divide, but they are usually able to hash it out. There was quite a divide in the Zimmerman jury but they were eventually able to move to a unanimous decision. I think they'll get there, and I think it'll be second degree.

I wonder why Juan didn't go after the meth levels in Danny's system? Why didn't he call someone to say that it was actually a low level? Maybe he didn't think it'd make a difference, or he wasn't sure what he'd find if he called an expert and worried about discovery. IDK. Hopefully, the jury will get the picture.

 

[Jewels53]

I don't think I heard a lesser charge.

A second-degree murder conviction carries a 15- to 22-year prison sentence, but mitigating factors could reduce it to 10 years. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the charge for allegedly putting the gun to Rodriguez's head, carries a 5- to 15- year sentence. The misdemeanor animal cruelty charge carries no jail time.

snipped from the article



http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...-trial-lawyer-attacks-key-witness-his-partner

 

[josie1986]

I don't think I heard a lesser charge.




snipped from the article



http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...-trial-lawyer-attacks-key-witness-his-partner

and add onto that the aggravated assault and animal cruelty. if it was me he'd get between 35-40 years min until he could be paroled. murder is murder

 

[Jewels53]

Josie my post above from the article says no jail time for the animal cruelty. Sad I know it can be in some states, I guess not in AZ.

 

[aa9511]

Hi ladies!! Looking forward to.....waiting.....today.

 

[josie1986]

Josie my post above from the article says no jail time for the animal cruelty. Sad I know it can be in some states, I guess not in AZ.

oh well just the agg assault then,i'd still give him 35-40years min.

 

[LambChop]

Does anyone know if there are any lesser includeds? I didn't hear. I do remember from Jodi's trial that the max sentence for second degree murder is not as harsh as in some other states at all, where you could get life for second degree. In AZ it's something like 10-22 years.

Trying not to worry about the two groups. That can often happen in juries, where there's a divide, but they are usually able to hash it out. There was quite a divide in the Zimmerman jury but they were eventually able to move to a unanimous decision. I think they'll get there, and I think it'll be second degree.

I wonder why Juan didn't go after the meth levels in Danny's system? Why didn't he call someone to say that it was actually a low level? Maybe he didn't think it'd make a difference, or he wasn't sure what he'd find if he called an expert and worried about discovery. IDK. Hopefully, the jury will get the picture.

BBM: Not sure it would have made a difference since RC did not know for sure if DR was high on anything. jmo

 

[Bernina]

Josie my post above from the article says no jail time for the animal cruelty. Sad I know it can be in some states, I guess not in AZ.

I didn't catch the actual charge by A.R.S. but, no, it can be a class 6 Felony also: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/search/oop/qfullhit.asp?CiWebHitsFile=/ars/13/02910.htm&CiRestriction=%22cruelty+to+animals%22
A. A person commits cruelty to animals if the person does any of the following:

8. Intentionally or knowingly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment that results in serious physical injury to the animal.

9. Intentionally or knowingly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment.

10. Intentionally or knowingly interferes with, kills or harms a working or service animal without either legal privilege or consent of the owner.

11. Intentionally or knowingly allows any dog that is under the person's custody or control to interfere with, kill or cause physical injury to a service animal.

13. Intentionally or knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over a service animal with the intent to deprive the service animal handler of the service animal.

G. A person who violates subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 12 of this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. A person who violates subsection A, paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 or 13 of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony.

H. For the purposes of this section:

2. "Cruel mistreatment" means to torture or otherwise inflict unnecessary serious physical injury on an animal or to kill an animal in a manner that causes protracted suffering to the animal.

I think on a Maricopa County level, Animal Cruelty has some even stiffer charges. Sheriff Joe is a big time animal activist.

 

[MeeBee]

BBM: Not sure it would have made a difference since RC did not know for sure if DR was high on anything. jmo

Well, no but he says he did. He says he can tell just by looking at him...

But I think it would have made a difference. Or it could have.The defense's whole thing was that Danny was so high on meth that he was acting out of control violent and couldn't feel pain that much and Chrisman had no other choice but to shoot him. Dr. DiMaio said he had very high levels of meth in his system and talked about what that would do to a person. However, a little research and some anecdotes from Zuri show that what he had in his system was very low and that it would not be giving him the full effects at that time. I also believe Juan said it had been 16 hours since he'd smoked it. And I believe Zuri said (correct me if I am wrong Zuri) that at that low a level it would make the person sort of sleepy and maybe a little antsy and paranoid.

The defense needs you to believe he was so hopped up on meth that he was out of control. Juan could have diffused that a little but I am sure he had a reason why he didn't.

 

[MeeBee]

OT: Anyone wanna laugh while we wait?

Painfully awkward moments that I think have all happened to me...except for the parallel parking one 'cause screw that.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattortile/painfully-awkward-moments-that-make-you-want-to-crawl-into-a

 

[Bernina]

Well, no but he says he did. He says he can tell just by looking at him...

But I think it would have made a difference. Or it could have.The defense's whole thing was that Danny was so high on meth that he was acting out of control violent and couldn't feel pain that much and Chrisman had no other choice but to shoot him. Dr. DiMaio said he had very high levels of meth in his system and talked about what that would do to a person. However, a little research and some anecdotes from Zuri show that what he had in his system was very low and that it would not be giving him the full effects at that time. I also believe Juan said it had been 16 hours since he'd smoked it. And I believe Zuri said (correct me if I am wrong Zuri) that at that low a level it would make the person sort of sleepy and maybe a little antsy and paranoid.

The defense needs you to believe he was so hopped up on meth that he was out of control. Juan could have diffused that a little but I am sure he had a reason why he didn't.

In closing, Juan said the effects where similar to someone taking a certain prescription, starts with an "A", can't remember what it was called but similar to Ritalin) but 16 hours after the fact, DR would have been tired, maybe agitated, mostly "bark but no bite". It would actually be easy to get a person to respond verbally to suggestions or commands because at that point, they just want to chill out and sleep. DR had already reached his peak high within the first 2 hours, +/-. To maintain that high, he would have had to be smoking or snorting meth every 4 hours after the initial use.

 

[geevee]

MC Superior Court ‏@courtpio 13m Jury deliberations continue today in State v. #RichardChrisman. We will tweet when they reach a verdict.

 

[MeeBee]

In closing, Juan said the effects where similar to someone taking a certain prescription, starts with an "A", can't remember what it was called but similar to Ritalin) but 16 hours after the fact, DR would have been tired, maybe agitated, mostly "bark but no bite". It would actually be easy to get a person to respond verbally to suggestions or commands because at that point, they just want to chill out and sleep. DR had already reached his peak high within the first 2 hours, +/-. To maintain that high, he would have had to be smoking or snorting meth every 4 hours after the initial use.

Thank you so much Bernina, I heard some of that but not the parts about the effects it would have on him.

I just hope the jury believes him. Would it have helped if he had brought in an expert to say all that, or maybe it's just splitting hairs? Bringing in an expert just to talk about meth levels? IDK. Maybe he realizes the battle of the expert can be become confusing and frustrating for people. Maybe he just didn't think of it in time. But in any case, thanks for that, I hope the jury gets that, I really do. I think juries just generally trust Juan more anyway. Banking on that.

ETA: Is it possible he had someone testify to that in his CIC and I just missed it? I missed a lot due to the lack of cameras, as I'm sure we all did.

 

[aa9511]

MC Superior Court ‏@courtpio 16m Jury deliberations continue today in State v. #RichardChrisman. We will tweet when they reach a verdict.Details Expand Collapse Reply

Omg, they started early....surprise! It say 15m, so I assume that means it was posted 15 min ago, which would be around 8:50 am AZ time.

 

[geevee]

Thank you so much Bernina, I heard some of that but not the parts about the effects it would have on him.

I just hope the jury believes him. Would it have helped if he had brought in an expert to say all that, or maybe it's just splitting hairs? Bringing in an expert just to talk about meth levels? IDK. Maybe he realizes the battle of the expert can be become confusing and frustrating for people. Maybe he just didn't think of it in time. But in any case, thanks for that, I hope the jury gets that, I really do. I think juries just generally trust Juan more anyway. Banking on that.

ETA: Is it possible he had someone testify to that in his CIC and I just missed it? I missed a lot due to the lack of cameras, as I'm sure we all did.

Yes, I don't know who testified but there was testimony that the level in Daniel's system would be considered a therapeutic level if it were Adderal or another similar medication. Not sure how (or who) arrived at the 16 hours using meth before death but that was in testimony also. I'm watering the beds now (cursed lack of rain here) but will look back over the threads and see if I can find who testified to the meth level and all that.

 

[geevee]

Verdict Watch:

9-10-13: 3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. (1 hour)
9-11-13: 8:45 a.m. -

 

[MeeBee]

Yes, I don't know who testified but there was testimony that the level in Daniel's system would be considered a therapeutic level if it were Adderal or another similar medication. Not sure how (or who) arrived at the 16 hours using meth before death but that was in testimony also. I'm watering the beds now (cursed lack of rain here) but will look back over the threads and see if I can find who testified to the meth level and all that.

Thanks so much!!! I missed that. Whew, ok. The thought just occurred to me, because why would Juan be saying that unless it was testified to? Thank you again. I feel a lot better now.

 

[aa9511]

I think Juan's whole point with not calling his own drug witness or whatever you call it, is 'cause #1. he didn't want to draw extra attention to it, #2. he doesn't think it makes a difference to the case b/c it is pretty obvious that Chrisman was the aggressor the entire time and Danny was not the aggressor. If he had called his own witness, that would give the impression that he thought it was important to the case. I think he really tried to just focus on the forensic evidence and Vergillo's testimony so that the jury would see that Chrisman was being aggressive from the start.

 

[aa9511]

Verdict Watch:

9-10-13: 3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. (1 hour)
9-11-13: 8:45 a.m. -

Thank u geevee...that makes it so much easier, I always lose track of the deliberation times.