GUILTY CA - Erin Corwin, 19, pregnant, Twentynine Palms, 28 June 2014 - #14

[SeesSeas]

https://portal.sb-court.org/portal
https://portal.sb-court.org/Portal/Home/Dashboard/29
Superior Court Of California - County Of San Bernardino
Court Joshua Tree Criminal
Case Number FMB1400414
File Date 08/19/2014
LEE, CHRISTOPHER BRANDON
Charges
PC187(A)-F: Murder 187(A) Felony 06/28/2014
……………
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ivision=&title=8.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article=
CHAPTER 1. Homicide [187 - 199]
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite such awareness is included within the definition of malice.
^BBM

 

[SeesSeas]

I think CL is swimming upstream in swift current.

I don’t know how “malice aforethought” would be legally applied in CL’s case, but I think he is guilty of malice aforethought.
CL stated that he was ‘set off’ and strangled Erin because he “felt so much hate” and “I wasn’t going to let anyone hurt my daughter again”

CL exhibited malice.
Did CL exhibit aforethought? I think he did because he had the garrote quickly accessible.

http://m.hidesertstar.com/mobile/news/article_8a70e952-9da2-11e6-b2c2-6b557384b1a2.html
At the mineshaft, Lee said, Corwin told him she wanted to be a part of his life because she loved his daughter. “Something clicked,” Lee testified.
He said he asked Corwin, “Did you touch (his daughter)?” She did not respond. “Did you molest my daughter?” he asked her. He said she replied, “Yes, but….”
“It set me off,” Lee told the court. “I just felt so much hate.”
Lee said he began strangling Corwin. “I wasn’t going to let anyone hurt my daughter again,” he said.
“I looked, I didn’t see any rise and fall of her chest … I didn’t care.”

 

[thorpedo]

Texas here. white all year round, too. It was hard to break from my yankee ways, but i did it!

 

[SeesSeas]

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protection-ends.html
When Double Jeopardy Protection Ends
Determining when jeopardy terminates is no less important than determining when it begins, but it is a little more complicated.
[…]
A jury can also implicitly acquit a defendant. If a jury has been instructed by the judge on the elements of a particular crime and a lesser-included offense, and the jury returns a guilty verdict as to the lesser offense but is silent as to the greater offense, re-prosecution for the greater offense is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. For example, a jury that has been instructed as to the crimes of first- and second-degree murder will implicitly acquit the defendant of first-degree murder by returning a guilty verdict only as to murder in the second degree. A not guilty verdict as to the greater offense is inferred from the jury's silence.
[…]

^BBM

 

[SeesSeas]

http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=fac_pub
1984
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DOCTRINE
The lesser included offense doctrine in criminal law generally allows the trier of fact to convict a defendant of an offense that is less serious than the offense with which he was charged in the accusatory pleading.' While historically the doctrine developed as an aid to the prosecution when there was insufficient evidence to convict on the charged offense, today it is more often used by defendants seeking a conviction for an offense less serious than that actually charged. 3 Regardless of who invokes the doctrine in a criminal trial, however, its application has caused considerable confusion among courts and commentators alike. 4 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has said that the lesser included offense doctrine "[is] not without difficulty in any area of the criminal law." 5 In a similar vein the Supreme Court of Florida has stated "The [doctrine of lesser included offense] is one which has challenged the effective administration of criminal justice for centuries. It is as old as the common law."'6 Commentators have referred to it as a "Gordian Knot"7 and a "many-headed hydra." The confusion over the lesser included offense doctrine is due to various causes. One certain cause is the existence of several definitions of a lesser included offense, sometimes even within the same jurisdiction. 9 If the definitional concept were the sole problem with the doctrine, it could perhaps be resolved by simply adopting a definition and then strictly applying it. Adding to the definitional confusion, however, is the fact that at least three different constitutional principles may interact, under certain circumstances, to limit how, and if, each lesser included offense theory may be applied. Since a defendant has a constitutional right to notice of the charges against him, a problem can obviously arise in trying to convict a defendant of a lesser included offense of which he has not specifically been given notice.10 A second problem confronting a court when it attempts to apply its chosen lesser included offense theory is the effect that the double jeopardy clause will have on the process. Because a conviction or acquittal of a greater offense may bar further prosecution or punishment on a lesser included offense, a court must determine what offenses are lesser included ones.II Finally, the Supreme Court has only recently raised the question of whether the failure to instruct a jury on a lesser included offense may unfairly invite the jury to convict on the greater offense by a standard of proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby violating the defendant's due process rights.,2
^BBM

 

[SeesSeas]

I don’t know the detailed nuances of Double Jeopardy, but here is some information about Mistrial, Reprosecution, Manifest Necessity justification of a second trial following a mistrial, and more:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation03.html
Annotation 3 - Fifth Amendment
Reprosecution Following Mistrial

 

[smc1225]

Double Jeopardy applies in a case where a conviction or acquittal has occurred. The defendant can then not be tried for the same or similar crime again once he is acquitted or convicted. Basically they can't be tried for the same crime twice is how I learned it.

Mistrial means that there was no finding - defendant was never convicted or acquitted of the crime. Something occurred that prevented the jury from making a finding (hung jury) or the judge declared a mistrial based on some issue. Therefore, the trial can be held again.

 

[SeesSeas]

Double Jeopardy applies in a case where a conviction or acquittal has occurred. The defendant can then not be tried for the same or similar crime again once he is acquitted or convicted. Basically they can't be tried for the same crime twice is how I learned it.

Mistrial means that there was no finding - defendant was never convicted or acquitted of the crime. Something occurred that prevented the jury from making a finding (hung jury) or the judge declared a mistrial based on some issue. Therefore, the trial can be held again.

Re: “the judge declared a mistrial based on some issue. Therefore, the trial can be held again.”

Not necessarily so that “the trial can be held again” after a mistrial. There are some tangles, according to:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation03.html
Reprosecution Following Mistrial
[…] Therefore, if after jeopardy attaches the trial is terminated for some reason, it may be that a second trial, even if the termination was erroneous, is barred. 68 The reasons the Court has given for fixing the attachment of jeopardy at a point prior to judgment and thus making some terminations of trials before judgment final insofar as the defendant is concerned is that a defendant has a ''valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.'' 69 The reason the defendant's right is so ''valued'' is that he has a legitimate interest in completing the trial ''once and for all'' and ''conclud[ing] his confrontation with society,'' 70 so as to be spared the expense and ordeal of repeated trials, the anxiety and insecurity of having to live with the possibility of conviction, and the possibility that the prosecution may strengthen its case with each try as it learns more of the evidence and of the nature of the defense. 71 These reasons both inform the determination when jeopardy attaches and the evaluation of the permissibility of retrial depending upon the reason for a trial's premature termination.
^BBM

 

[Meemaw12]

Double Jeopardy applies in a case where a conviction or acquittal has occurred. The defendant can then not be tried for the same or similar crime again once he is acquitted or convicted. Basically they can't be tried for the same crime twice is how I learned it.

Mistrial means that there was no finding - defendant was never convicted or acquitted of the crime. Something occurred that prevented the jury from making a finding (hung jury) or the judge declared a mistrial based on some issue. Therefore, the trial can be held again.

Exactly, that's how it works


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SeesSeas]

Exactly, that's how it works


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: “Exactly, that's how it works”

But that is not exactly how it works all of the time.

See: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation03.html

 

[Meemaw12]

Re: “Exactly, that's how it works”

But that is not exactly how it works all of the time.

See: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation03.html

The only time I have ever heard of no retrial in the case of a hung jury or mistrial is when the St chose not to retry. However I don't know of all the cases tried in the US.

I'm not a lawyer just been following cases for a long time.

OJ, Casey Anthony both found not guilty by the jury. Can never be retried for the charges. Double jeopardy applies. Uggg!

Death penalty case:

Jodi Arias found guilty in the guilt phase by 12-0. Hung in sentencing phase iirc 11-1. Judge declared (hung) mistrial. Retried in sentencing phase. Jury came back iirc 10-2 for death. Judge declared (hung) mistrial. Death penalty removed. Then the case was left to the Judge to decide sentencing either life with parole or life without. The ole $itch got life without.

That's a couple off the top of my head.

Maybe not what your looking for. Dunno.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smc1225]

Re: “the judge declared a mistrial based on some issue. Therefore, the trial can be held again.”

Not necessarily so that “the trial can be held again” after a mistrial.

What I said was correct. The trial can be held again. There are circumstances when a second or third trial do not happen - usually due to prosecutorial misconduct or judicial overreach.

I didn't say that it guarantees a new trial but more than likely in the event of a mistrial - another trial will be held.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

Because a murder prosecution must prove the defendant's state of mind, premeditation becomes the most important aspect of the state's case in a first-degree murder case. To convict the defendant of first-degree murder, the prosecution must show that the defendant committed the crime only after giving it some thought. It is this mental exercise, the weighing of what one is going to do, that gives the special edge to first-degree murder. Unlike manslaughter, discussed below, in a charge of first-degree murder, the state must show that the defendant had the time to consider what he was about to do and then took another person's life. This pause to consider his actions is crucial because it shows the "malignant heart" of the killer.

-Criminal Law and Procedure For The Paralegal, Neal Bevans, 2014

In determining time to consider, one must appreciate not only the amount of time, but the quality of the time. After forming his intent to kill, did the accused not only have the time to think it over, but also have the mental state which would afford him the proper faculties to do so, so as to reasonably satisfy the conditions of "aforethought"?

If the jury believes his story, he went into a blind rage, got the garrote and strangled her immediately. Not much time to think there. Just sayin'.

 

[Voice4theSilent]

I am confused. Are people on here arguing that CL is innocent and should not be convicted of the crime in which he has confessed to?

 

[smc1225]

I am confused. Are people on here arguing that CL is innocent and should not be convicted of the crime in which he has confessed to?

I believe so. I personally believe he is guilty. I do believe his wife is less than innocent but as to the extent of her involvement, I don't know.

 

[Meemaw12]

I am confused. Are people on here arguing that CL is innocent and should not be convicted of the crime in which he has confessed to?

Strange isn't it? But looks like that is what is happening.

I have no doubt he is guilty as charged. Hoping the Jury agrees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nikb]

So much going on in this case. I've been reading but haven't had a chance to post much. Erin's poor family and loved ones must be in agony hearing those details and reliving her final moments. I hope it does bring them some kind of closure.

As far as the confession I do believe personally that CL is guilty but something seems off, or fishy. I guess maybe he's trying to angle for not getting the death penalty? (y'know, because it's totally normal for him to drive around with a garotte, propane, etc. in his vehicle, so he wasn't lying in wait he just happened to have those supplies...uh huh, right) I still think Nichole is involved somehow too, just can't put my finger on how, or why he just suddenly confessed. Was it to help himself, smear Erin's name, or what? I really wish they had mentioned Nichole as one of the people whose DNA was excluded, either because they didn't find hers, or she had such a solid alibi they didn't even test it. I'm not sure if the courts would've allowed that but I still can't shake that weird feeling I got when I read the DNA part and Nichole wasn't mentioned. In my mind there are 3 people who had pretty good reasons to be considered suspects at first - JC, CL, and NL. Again all MOO.

Another interesting point I haven't seen brought up is that there are two Propositions on the ballot for this year's election in California related to the Death Penalty. One of them basically eliminates the DP, including changing the sentences for those already on death row to LWOP (Prop 62). The second (Prop 66) keeps the DP, but to quote comedian Ron White, essentially puts in an "express lane" by expediting the followup appeals process. There's lots more to both of them, of course, but I thought it might be of interest to people following this case outside of California who may not know those Propositions are on the ballot for November. Here's the basic info about all the propositions: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/ and of course plenty of sites for/against each of them if you want to Google. I don't want to get into a big political discussion on them, but wanted to mention them since I know not everyone may be aware of these.

And one other thought that's come to mind a few times. I don't think there's any way at all they could prove or even pursue anything about this ridiculous accusation that Erin molested the Lees' daughter. How totally disgusting, and then to say Erin did it but their only follow up was to say nothing, let her keep on babysitting, and eventually murder her??? What??? Makes absolutely no sense. But the other thing I thought of is doesn't their daughter LL also ride horses at the ranch? Not to get too detailed but depending on this redness and irritation Nichole supposedly saw, and where specifically it was located, it's entirely possible it came from horseback riding. It's a very logical and innocent explanation for why LL might have irritation there, and I think it should at least be mentioned if that goes any further.

I know it took them forever to get this trial started but it sure seems to be moving quickly now. For everyone's sake I hope it's done soon and justice is served.

 

[katydid23]

BBM
.


[Snipped for focus: ]
That's what's going on here. Whether he did it or not, Chris isn't confessing because it really is the truth. He's doing it because at this moment, when his back is up against the wall it is absolutely in his best interest to say he did kill Erin, because it allows him to introduce evidence that greatly reduces his culpability and besides, everyone already thinks he did it anyways. And if he gets a jury to buy the story, he can actually walk free of this completely. The charge of first degree murder, the only charge, is locked in. Double Jeopardy is attached. If they find he didn't plan it, Chris walks away a free man. So whether or not he did this horrific thing, it makes perfect sense to confess. The only place for a confession in court is what comes after the guilty act (actus reus) has been proven: the mens rea phase.

He is not going to be walking free. The jury will not buy this version of events he is desperately trying to sell. They will not believe Erwin sexually abused the little girl, imo. Nor will they believe that , if she had, she would have said so to him, while they were alone in a remote desert and he was armed and dangerous. They are not going to believe that he just happened to have a garrote in his hands, right when he 'needed' to snap his pregnant lovers neck. NO---he will not be walking free. :no:

 

[SeesSeas]

I am confused. Are people on here arguing that CL is innocent and should not be convicted of the crime in which he has confessed to?

Not quite sure anyone here is “arguing that CL is innocent and should not be convicted of the crime in which he has confessed to”.

As I see it, 77DarkHorse7 is playing the role of a good juror or defense attorney. For true justice, even with a confession, the evidence presented during trial must prove the defendant is guilty of the crime for which he is charged ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. 77DH7 is poking holes where the evidence and testimony don’t coincide. That’s where ‘reasonable doubt’ comes into play.

With the evidence presented, and now with CL’s confession, is there any Reasonable Doubt that CL murdered Erin?

Did NL murder Erin and CL is protecting NL?

It’s unfortunate that more isn’t divulged about Nichole’s DNA and her alibi. But she isn’t on trial.

 

[katydid23]

Not quite sure anyone here is “arguing that CL is innocent and should not be convicted of the crime in which he has confessed to”.

As I see it, 77DarkHorse7 is playing the role of a good juror or defense attorney. For true justice, even with a confession, the evidence presented during trial must prove the defendant is guilty of the crime for which he is charged ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. 77DH7 is poking holes where the evidence and testimony don’t coincide. That’s where ‘reasonable doubt’ comes into play.

With the evidence presented, and now with CL’s confession, is there any Reasonable Doubt that CL murdered Erin?

Did NL murder Erin and CL is protecting NL?

It’s unfortunate that more isn’t divulged about Nichole’s DNA and her alibi. But she isn’t on trial.

Well, if so, then they are still in it together. So finding him NOT GUILTY at this trial would not be a good thing to do. I'd vote GUILTY and then hope the DA went after her next.