But don't forget many marriages are contentious or crumbling but not every marriage ends up with one spouse killing another one. This trial is not about whether Barry was a faithful husband or Suzanne an unfaithful wife, it is not about whether Barry is a good or bad businessman or whether he provided well for his family or not....it is about did Barry murder his wife. That is what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You could be the most obnoxious person in the world or the worse husband in the world and not murder your spouse. The prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt the how, when and perhaps where and not just the "why". We have only seen the bare essentials of the case and we have only seen the prosecution side of the case. Prosecution technically doesn't even need the why in most cases...perhaps in this case they will leave that impression as much as they are allowed by law with the jury since the how, when and perhaps where is a little shaky. Voir dire will take care of the jury selection in terms of both sides figuring out who has "followed" the case and perhaps pre formed an opinion. Personally, in my opinion, the composition of the jury is going to be a very important element of the case for both sides. Honestly I don't think any of the lawyers are going to come off "dirty or disgusting" as court is run pretty tightly and for the most part the trial will be seasoned attorneys or at least we hope that happens on the prosecution side. Remember the tip point goes to prosecution in the preliminary days and the tip goes to the defendant at trial. What can and can't be admitted at trial the tip point goes to the judge in my opinion.
BBM. I disagree with the bolded statement.
The prosecution doesn't have to prove how or why BM killed SM, and they don't have to prove precisely where or when. The standard jury instruction says what the prosecution must prove, and this is all they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
"3-1:01 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (AFTER DELIBERATION)
The elements of the crime of murder in the first degree are:
1. That the defendant,
2. in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged,
3. after deliberation, and with intent to cause the death of a person other than
himself, caused the death of _______________ .
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree.
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree"
The preliminary hearing presented more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable jury that BM killed SM at the PP residence on the afternoon of May 9, 2020, that he intended to do so, and that he deliberated about killing her before he did it. That's all the DA needs to prove, and that's not just my opinion.
Judge Murphy, misled by the defense's demonstrably false claim that DNA evidence pointed to someone else, commented that the case could go either way, but since that myth has been dispelled it's clear - even the bare bones of the prosecution's case is enough to convict IMO.
I think BM disgusts some people, yes. But again, sometimes disgusting things aren't illegal.
