GUILTY AZ - Daniel Rodriguez, 29, fatally shot by Phoenix PD officer, 5 Oct 2010 #3

[MeeBee]

I am confused too. I asked Lindstrom we'll see if she answers.

Big kudos to those who called guilty on agg. assault! Wow! I guess they though he acted excessively but couldn't find that he committed murder or animal cruelty because it's possible the dog and Danny really were a threat and he was just...idk scared and didn't mean to kill? This is better than what I thought was going to happen. Taken into custody. It's a small form of justice. Why was juror #1 excused?

 

[geevee]

AZ Family ‏@azfamily 3m The aggravation phase in the #RichardChrisman trial will resume at 1 p.m. today.

 

[popsicle]

Trial Diva Sharee™ ‏@TrialDivasS 2m
He was going into custody then he was not and now they will take him into custody #Yay #richardchrisman

 

[Jewels53]

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. The landmark nature of the case (for good or ill) was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who "described the Court's decision as a 'Number 10 earthquake.'"[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blakely_v._Washington

 

[MeeBee]

Interesting, a Blakely trial lets the jury decide the sentencing instead of the judge.......

"Blakely deals with the right to have a jury – and not the judge – decide all facts
necessary for a sentence. If additional fact finding is necessary in order to sentence a
defendant above the presumptive sentence, that fact finding must be done by a jury. In
Arizona the sentencing laws have long allowed the judge – and not the jury – to find the
facts necessary to sentence an inmate to an “aggravated” sentence. Although Blakely was
not an Arizona case, it does seem clear that the Arizona sentencing laws violate the 6​

​

​

​

th​

Amendment right to a jury trial with respect to finding the facts necessary to impose an​

aggravated sentence or an enhanced sentence."

www.azjusticeproject.org/Assets/Docs/Blakely.pdf‎

Oh wow, thanks for finding this. There's something new we find out. I bet they will give him the minimum...

Wonder if we will hear from Danny's family?

 

[popsicle]

Blakely hearing is the prosecution wanting to sentence outside the prescribed sentencing time

 

[geevee]

I am confused too. I asked Lindstrom we'll see if she answers.

Big kudos to those who called guilty on agg. assault! Wow! I guess they though he acted excessively but couldn't find that he committed murder or animal cruelty because it's possible the dog and Danny really were a threat and he was just...idk scared and didn't mean to kill? This is better than what I thought was going to happen. Taken into custody. It's a small form of justice. Why was juror #1 excused?

Jewels called it just right.

I'm much more pleased with the verdict that I thought I would be, and JM can still retry him on the other counts, so RC may not have gotten away with anything just yet. And he will be in custody until JM decides one way or the other. :rockon:

 

[rose222]

I'm so confused. I always get a phone call when I'm watching a verdict!

 

[aa9511]

I am confused too. I asked Lindstrom we'll see if she answers.

Big kudos to those who called guilty on agg. assault! Wow! I guess they though he acted excessively but couldn't find that he committed murder or animal cruelty because it's possible the dog and Danny really were a threat and he was just...idk scared and didn't mean to kill? This is better than what I thought was going to happen. Taken into custody. It's a small form of justice. Why was juror #1 excused?

Meebee, see my post from about 2 posts above yours....I do not agree with their non-verdicts. There was no self-defense here. They think he felt threatened by a BIKE and so shot him two times?? I'm still disappointed in this, extremely disappointed.

 

[Thundar]

I wonder if they will live feed this afternoon? I really want to see what happens live!

 

[geevee]

Trial Diva Jen ™ ‏@TrialDivasJ 1m #RichardChrisman has been taken into custody..it wasn't very clear

 

[aa9511]

Meebee, you asked why was Juror 1 dismissed....because she said she couldn't agree with the jury's findings of Guilty on Agg. Assault!!!!!!!!!!!! Can u believe that????

 

[aa9511]

Ugh...just do not get what some of these jurors were thinking, do they honestly believe Danny picked the bike up to bash his brains out?? And what about Vergillo's testimony, who saw it, so did they not believe Vergillo????

 

[aa9511]

But thank goodness for the jurors who stood their ground and didn't go with NOT GUILTY, thank u!!!!! Better to be hung than not-guilty.

 

[Thundar]

Meebee, you asked why was Juror 1 dismissed....because she said she couldn't agree with the jury's findings of Guilty on Agg. Assault!!!!!!!!!!!! Can u believe that????

So they put an alternate juror on for the Blakely trial? How strange, the one thing they had a verdict on and this juror didn't agree with it, why didn't the juror just hang them on the aggravated charge too?

 

[MeeBee]

Meebee, see my post from about 2 posts above yours....I do not agree with their non-verdicts. There was no self-defense here. They think he felt threatened by a BIKE and so shot him two times?? I'm still disappointed in this, extremely disappointed.

I agree with you. But there's nothing can be done. I just think it's great that the ones who DID think he committed murder didn't budge and now Juan will have another chance to try him on the murder charge again. It's disappointing but he wasn't acquitted. I feel pretty good about that.

 

[Bernina]

Oh wow, thanks for finding this. There's something new we find out. I bet they will give him the minimum...

Wonder if we will hear from Danny's family?

You never know. Blakely gives Juan and Mehran's the opportunity to give additional testimony from witnesses not allowed in earlier.
I think the hung on the 2 other counts is because neither side fully convinced the jurors of their position, which is a good thing. If there is a re-trial, Juan can tweak his case to solidify any fuzzy areas.

Chrisman isn't going to last long if he gets put in GP in prison. BTW: Sheriff Joe hates animal abusers......and guess where Chrisman is until he gets sentenced? :floorlaugh:

 

[Jewels53]

Jewels called it just right.

I'm much more pleased with the verdict that I thought I would be, and JM can still retry him on the other counts, so RC may not have gotten away with anything just yet. And he will be in custody until JM decides one way or the other. :rockon:

Geevee after all of this weird way to follow this trial. Then the long deliberations, and then the announcement of verdict with 1 unanimous and 2 hung. I was worried about a Non-Guilty on the 1. I was just trying to logically figure it out. What I said earlier this morning made sense to me anyway. Maybe not so much to the jury.

I am happy they found him guilty of a charge that carries a sentence of 5 - 10 yrs. If that is all he gets it is better than no prison time at all. I hope the prosecuting office goes forward with the Murder 2 charge. lease:

 

[MeeBee]

So they put an alternate juror on for the Blakely trial? How strange, the one thing they had a verdict on and this juror didn't agree with it, why didn't the juror just hang them on the aggravated charge too?

I think juror 1 was an alternate and didn't deliberate. They needed to make sure that the alternates could continue and to do that he had to agree with the agg. assault verdict. He didn't so buh bye! Jen said she thought he was pro state too so that's interesting. He probably would have hung that charge too if he deliberated.

 

[popsicle]

Yvette ‏@Yvette___ 47s
RT @TrialDivasJ: #RichardChrisman wife is sobbing uncontrollably in the halls.../ Well, that's sad, but he acted very wrong.