MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer on trial for the kidnapping of Heather Elvis - June 20 & 21,2016 - #1

[pittsburghgirl]

I would think the prosecution would have grounds for appeal if there is an acquittal.

 

[Madeleine74]

Absolutely not. The big question is who is in that truck? Who do you convict? Hopefully the prosecution can place one or both in that truck. jmo.

• Who owned the black truck?
• Who regularly used the black truck?
• Who was the person having the affair with Heather?
• Who is the person who lied when asked by police if he had been in contact with the victim?
• Who was seen on video at the payphone making the phone call?
• Who did Heather speak to that night?
• Who got rid of the surveillance system and purchased a new one for the home?

I think both of them can be convicted although considering their cases are separate I'm not exactly sure how that will play out.

 

[ZooSleuth]

If what I found here is correct (not sure of the credibility of lawyers.com), the judge made the right decision. According to this, you could know the accused or the victim and be allowed on the jury if you could agree to be impartial.

Past Contact with a Trial Participant

Biases may be formed by a potential juror if he has had contact with a trial participant in the past. This may be the defendant, the defense attorney, the prosecutor, a witness or the victim. The potential juror is presumed to not be biased if he can assure the court that the prior contact won't affect his ability to be fair and impartial.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/reasons-for-rejecting-potential-jurors.html

 

[Madeleine74]

I would think the prosecution would have grounds for appeal if there is an acquittal.

There is no appeal the state can make if a defendant is acquitted.

 

[Cricket99]

Those witnesses were very credible. VERY!! I know I remember something about TM attacking HE outside of a Wal-Mart but I don't think a knife was involved. If not, why would HE make that up? I think the Defense is trying to paint her as a liar. Does anyone remember anything about a knife? Maybe this whole attack was just rumor - I don't know.

 

[Madeleine74]

I bet South Carolina has an "acting in concert" felony charge or something worded similarly. A jury could convict on that if that charge exists and attaches to this case. That would be one way that two separate individuals could be convicted of the same crime.

 

[Hatfield]

So Truslow by his own admission in opening statements puts Sid and Heather in contact THAT night. Supposedly the reason is so she'll 'stop leaving notes on his vehicle.' Why does it take over 4 minutes to say, "stop leaving notes on my car?" Why is that something that cannot be texted? Think how long 4 minutes is. And there wasn't just one 4 minute phone call... there were 2! One from the payphone and one when Heather called Sid's cell phone.


So isn't it just a bit more than a coinky-dink that Heather went missing that very night, never to be seen or heard from again AND there's video of SM's black truck on 2 different security cams AND Heather's phone was pinging showing she was headed towards PTL at the same time as the black truck?

You really going to ignore good old fashioned common sense and dismiss all of that as nothing but a mere coincidence?

Excellent points.

And if the reason was just about some notes on the car then would SM call at that hour of the night to talk with her about it?

I am hoping the friend will testify to the contents of the reason of the call. From my recollection the friend was told by Heather why he called and what he said.

I hope that is not considered heresay since it is coming directly from the friend hearing what Heather told her.

 

[Knox]

[FONT=&amp]Moorer started with the last day Heather Elvis was seen, recalling it was the same day she left notes on his car at work.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]"I called her and told her, 'Look, I don't know if these notes, whatever, enough is enough. Stop calling me, stop texting me, you know.'" Moorer said. "She said, 'I don't know why it has to be like this,' or something like that. I'm like, 'Look, this just needs to stop. It wasn't what you think it was. It was just...'"
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Moorer explained how he stopped the relationship months before, after his wife Tammy found out.
http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/31894794/sidney-moorer-speaks-about-case-against-him-before-trial[/FONT]

Someone asked what the four minute conversation was about ...

Heather was scared of Tammy. Who wouldn't be, clearly her shed is missing some power tools. Why then would Heather risk calling SM on his cell phone that night? Because something he said to her in that payphone call, led her to believe Tammy was no where around SM that night. I can't wait to hear Bri's testimony!!

 

[LBDunes]

I didn't dig too deep into South Carolina, but in Louisiana, Truslow's friend on the jury should have been dismissed for Implied Bias:

Implied bias is present when potential jurors have character traits ... that make it unlikely for them to be able to be impartial, regardless of what they say during voir dire

A juror who is a close friend or relative of a key party, a witness, the judge, or an attorney for either side will be dismissed for cause.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html

BBM - I do not believe it can just be implied bias in Louisiana. To me that implication is applicable in any state in the U.S. Also, as it has been said, but I am not sure it has been verified, if this friend is the jury foreman, that is just too unreal. I noticed the news outlets made note of this. I think this will be an issue for appeal, if the verdict is not satisfactory to the state.

 

[Madeleine74]

Excellent points.

And if the reason was just about some notes on the car then would SM call at that hour of the night to talk with her about it?

I am hoping the friend will testify to the contents of the reason of the call. From my recollection the friend was told by Heather why he called and what he said.

I hope that is not considered heresay since it is coming directly from the friend hearing what Heather told her.

Thanks!

It is considered hearsay, but I'm hoping there will be a clause to the hearsay rule in SC that will allow the state to get this in. They have it in my state and it's used quite often in order to get a victim's comments in through another witness.

 

[jillycat]

Still wondering if LE/The State are sticking to the "story" that it was a "different" Heather at the Conway Medical Center now that the "p" word is out of the bag?

That crossed my mind too.

 

[Madeleine74]

BBM - I do not believe it can just be implied bias in Louisiana. To me that implication is applicable in any state in the U.S. Also, as it has been said, but I am not sure it has been verified, if this friend is the jury foreman, that is just too unreal. I noticed the news outlets made note of this. I think this will be an issue for appeal, if the verdict is not satisfactory to the state.

There is no jury foreman at this point since that person is selected once a jury goes to deliberate, not during trial. Also, the state has no recourse to appeal a jury verdict.

 

[Hatfield]

BBM - I do not believe it can just be implied bias in Louisiana. To me that implication is applicable in any state in the U.S. Also, as it has been said, but I am not sure it has been verified, if this friend is the jury foreman, that is just too unreal. I noticed the news outlets made note of this. I think this will be an issue for appeal, if the verdict is not satisfactory to the state.

I don't think the state can appeal if he is found innocent. I think only the defendant can appeal verdicts and sentences.

I hate the fact the judge allowed this guy to be a juror. He has shown too many signs of favoring the defense already. It is getting very scary about the judge. All JMO

 

[ZooSleuth]

I didn't dig too deep into South Carolina, but in Louisiana, Truslow's friend on the jury should have been dismissed for Implied Bias:

Implied bias is present when potential jurors have character traits ... that make it unlikely for them to be able to be impartial, regardless of what they say during voir dire

A juror who is a close friend or relative of a key party, a witness, the judge, or an attorney for either side will be dismissed for cause.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html

Good find. I noticed it says "close" friend and not just friend. Did anybody read anything regarding the nature of the friendship between Truslow & the juror?

 

[Hatfield]

Good find. I noticed it says "close" friend and not just friend. Did anybody read anything regarding the nature of the friendship between Truslow & the juror?

Been trying to find anything that mentions more about the relationship and so far just found this below. I feel judge should have excluded him based on implied bias. You cant take his word for it. He is a friend of one side. Whether he knows it or not or believes it or not he will have thoughts about his friend as he deliberates.

The bottom line is with so many jurors available in the pool then why let there even be a chance of bias. Only one answer I can think of. Judge is also a little bias to defense. I think the judge should have recused himself a long time ago.

"One of the jurors is a friend of Moorer's attorney, Kirk Truslow. While the state requested that he be dismissed, the judge said no, because the man said his relationship would not compromise his decisions."


http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/32259...tify-they-believed-heather-elvis-was-pregnant

 

[jillycat]

Whether or not it's implied bias under the law or any protocols it nonetheless creates the appearance of bias or conflict of interest, and I think this case is spring-loaded enough without the addition of any such appearances.

I can buy that one can be mature and reasonable enough to perform his or her duties without bias, but I think this will pose a question in the minds of the public and the family if there's an acquittal. However, if the state can't deliver and the jury pretty swiftly reaches an acquittal verdict early into deliberations, then it can't be blamed on this one juror.

I think it's all up in the air right now. With this case, it seems anything can happen. But I do think it will be a short trial.

 

[Hatfield]

Sorry I need to try to stay positive. There is one good thing for the jury.

There are 3 possible scenerios and having SM go up for trial is one of the easier ones to accept for a jury IMO Because he can be found guilty in 2 out of the 3 scenerios based on the phone call of him on that call with HE. And of course video of the truck too.

Either..........

1-SM did it by himself
2-SM and TM did it together in collusion
3-TM did it by herself

If SM either did it by himself OR with TM in collusion then he is still guilty so I think having him go first is the easier scenario. Because of the evidence the state has on him. Its a little easier than if TM would have gone first.

I am going to have to force myself to stay positive through this.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Today is the first time I've heard about Heather and SS going to the movies on their date. Is that just me?

Also, I thought they stopped into the Tilted Kilt for a night cap before she was dropped off at home? No mentions of that from any of the TK witnesses? Who from TK served them?

 

[jillycat]

Today is the first time I've heard about Heather and SS going to the movies on their date. Is that just me?

Also, I thought they stopped into the Tilted Kilt for a night cap before she was dropped off at home? No mentions of that from any of the TK witnesses? Who from TK served them?

I thought they went to dinner and to look at Christmas lights and had a driving lesson.

 

[LBDunes]

I don't think the state can appeal if he is found innocent. I think only the defendant can appeal verdicts and sentences.

I hate the fact the judge allowed this guy to be a juror. He has shown too many signs of favoring the defense already. It is getting very scary about the judge. All JMO

BBM -Yes I agree. I misspoke. I really meant the case could be retried if the jury does not come to a verdict. I agree the judge is scary and imo very full of himself.