Sunday Evening Jury, On the Charge of Murder You Find:

[gitana1]

I assumed we were voting on the Felony murder charge.

Thanks!!

You know, I bet jury consultants will be reading this thread. Like I said somewhere else, with the right jury, this guy can walk.

 

[gngr~snap]

Thanks!!

You know, I bet jury consultants will be reading this thread. Like I said somewhere else, with the right jury, this guy can walk.

Just make sure they are all UGA fans and he won't!

Move the trial to Athens! lol
I am kidding.

 

[Donjeta]

The sexting during that particular day day is not a gamechanger to me because it was his pattern to do this every day (I'm assuming) and if he thought about the police pulling his phone and chat records he could have realized that the damage was done ages ago and if he chose just this particular day that Cooper died to be the only one he did no sexting on it would have looked odd.

Not sure that made sense. I mean that it was probably way too late to cover up that he was sexting a lot and not sexting would have been a noteworthy change in behavior.

If it was a honest accident and he didn't know Cooper was going to die that day he'd have sexted so it would have made sense in a way to sext even if it wasn't an accident.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Could a scenario like this take place in jury deliberations?

Juror #1: I really do not think he planned to kill his child.
Juror #2: The pros does not need to show intent for us to find him guilty.
Juror #1: Yeah, but if we find him guilty, he is going to get at least 30 years in prison. I really don't think this was on purpose. I don't see the point in sentencing someone to 30 years for an accident.

How realistic is the scenario above? I really worry about jurors who will not find him guilty (even though the pros doesn't have to prove intent) b/c they think 30+ years in prison is excessive.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K_Z]

Snipped by me for space.

That's my question. I mean, he is currently charged with felony murder which does not necessitate intent to harm or kill. So, is the poll asking whether we would find him guilty today of premeditated murder or felony murder?



Felony murder? Or first degree premeditated murder? TIA!!!!

Do you know if felony murder requires a unanimous verdict, or a simple majority? That seems key to me.

Majority, and he will be found guilty, IMO. Unanimous, and there is the possibility of hung jury, because all it takes is one person.

IMO, the "social benefits" (not sure what else to call it-- not sex, but sympathy) extended to Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony for being attractive young women will not extend to Ross Harris. Nor Leanna Harris, should she be charged with anything. They just are not sympathetic characters anymore, IMO, after the info that came out in that preliminary hearing. I don't even think their church community will be very vocal or sympathetic anymore.

I voted guilty. No reasonable doubt for me, whether premeditated murder or felony murder. I think he killed the baby, planned it, and meant for him to die. And I also think LH was a big part of the whole plan, if not the mastermind. JMO, MOOOOO, and all.

IDK if it's possible to plead before being indicted, but RH should plead guilty. Now, IMO. It will only get worse for him in the minds of the public as time goes on.

 

[gritguy]

Could a scenario like this take place in jury deliberations?

Juror #1: I really do not think he planned to kill his child.
Juror #2: The pros does not need to show intent for us to find him guilty.
Juror #1: Yeah, but if we find him guilty, he is going to get at least 30 years in prison. I really don't think this was on purpose. I don't see the point in sentencing someone to 30 years for an accident.

How realistic is the scenario above? I really worry about jurors who will not find him guilty (even though the pros doesn't have to prove intent) b/c they think 30+ years in prison is excessive.

As of now, all they will have to show is criminal negligence. Intent is relevant, because it makes it a slam dunk. Recklessness or knowing indifference would get you there too. But the jury - the fact-finders - will be asked to consider as a reasonable person whether RH was criminally negligent which is “an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby.” OCGA 16-2-1

Next poll will track more closely to that as it seems to me so far the only operative question in the case.

 

[gitana1]

Do you know if felony murder requires a unanimous verdict, or a simple majority? That seems key to me.

Majority, and he will be found guilty, IMO. Unanimous, and there is the possibility of hung jury, because all it takes is one person.

IMO, the "social benefits" (not sure what else to call it-- not sex, but sympathy) extended to Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony for being attractive young women will not extend to Ross Harris. Nor Leanna Harris, should she be charged with anything. They just are not sympathetic characters anymore, IMO, after the info that came out in that preliminary hearing. I don't even think their church community will be very vocal or sympathetic anymore.

I voted guilty. No reasonable doubt for me, whether premeditated murder or felony murder. I think he killed the baby, planned it, and meant for him to die. And I also think LH was a big part of the whole plan, if not the mastermind. JMO, MOOOOO, and all.

IDK if it's possible to plead before being indicted, but RH should plead guilty. Now, IMO. It will only get worse for him in the minds of the public as time goes on.

Unanimous. http://www.gabar.org/newsandpublications/consumerpamphlets/juror.cfm

And while he won't get the attractive girl sympathy vote, there are many who just refuse to believe a father who looks loving in photos, could murder his son. Then, there are also many who just get a thought and stubbornly adhere to it, regardless of jury instructions or evidence: "I don't care. I just feel he didn't do it." or "I don't care. They will have to prove more than is required for me to vote guilty."

It's a problem.

 

[renah]

Can we define "reasonable doubt"? I know that it isnt "beyond ANY doubt", but before I could vote on this I would need a clear & unambiguous understanding of the term, before I sent someone away for 30+ years.

Since the jury's decision has to be unanimous, I think this will end up being a pretty key issue.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Can we define "reasonable doubt"? I know that it isnt "beyond ANY doubt", but before I could vote on this I would need a clear & unambiguous understanding of the term, before I sent someone away for 30+ years.

Since the jury's decision has to be unanimous, I think this will end up being a pretty key issue.

Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true.

however, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Reasonable+Doubt




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gritguy]

Can we define "reasonable doubt"? I know that it isnt "beyond ANY doubt", but before I could vote on this I would need a clear & unambiguous understanding of the term, before I sent someone away for 30+ years.

Since the jury's decision has to be unanimous, I think this will end up being a pretty key issue.

At least in NC, a jury might be instructed on the definition like this, "Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you of the defendant's guilt." It doesn't make it totally clear (not sure if GA instructions are better), and it is something you have to search your own heart and mind to find the line, I think.

 

[knt]

As of this moment, I would acquit, because I have not heard enough evidence to meet the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict JRH on an intentional murder charge. Yes, I have questions about some of his odd behavior, but these questions do not add up to solid, unshakeable proof that JRH intentionally killed Cooper. But we'll see how I feel after more evidence comes forward.

Believing someone is guilty of murder and stating your opinion on a forum is one thing, and is perfectly legitimate. Serving as a a juror and finding someone guilty of murder based on evidence and the law is another thing.

Some things I'd like to know: Did JRH complain to anyone (in person or online) about having a child, or express any frustrations about raising his son? Did he talk about leaving his wife? Are there witnesses who will say he was a neglectful or uninterested father, or only witnesses that will report he was a loving, attentive father? Is there any evidence Cooper was abused? Was Cooper involved in any other "accidents"? Had either JRH or his wife recently checked on Cooper's insurance policy?

In addition to my skepticism that a tech-savvy web developer would send incriminating texts while his son was dying in his car, I think that there are much more foolproof ways to kill a small child and make it look like an accident. Leaving a child in your car in an employee parking lot would carry a lot of risk that someone would see or hear the child, or that he would survive but be permanently disabled. Granted, neither of these arguments proves he's innocent - he could be a stupid, impulsive or arrogant criminal. But in our judicial system, you do not need to prove your innocence - a jury needs to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or find you not guilty.

I am curious as to why LE charged JRH that very evening -- the swiftness is unusual. Either they have much more evidence than we know, or maybe they rushed to judgment. Time will tell!

In any case, I enjoy the civil debate here, even if it is one-sided. Strangely enough, you usually find me on the guilty side of the fence. Are there any others, like me, who think it is possible that this was an accident?

Well, there are items of "evidence" that I would have to dismiss as a juror. Like switching back to a rear facing car seat in the last couple of weeks is supposed to prove guilt. I have a grandson the same age as Cooper and am familiar with this transition stage between rear facing and front facing seats. JRH's wife apparently moved the new front facing seat to her car a few weeks ago to go to Alabama. That makes sense to me. So JRH had the old seat back in his car. We have been doing the same routine among our family members as we all transition car seats, it took a couple of months for all of us (2 parents plus 5 grandparents) to finally have the new front facing model in all of our cars. Actually I think our son may still have the rear facing model in his truck. It's a process.

The most incriminating point in the case IMO is the comment LH made to her husband. Did you say too much? The only innocent thing I can think of is she meant, Did you tell them about our personal problems, your cheating? But who cares at a time like that? Her baby was dead. So that comment sounds horrible.

Also leading a double life seems to consistently end up being a motive for murder time and time again. So that one is big to me.

I do need to hear the actual police tapes myself in context to feel 100% convinced.

JRH not remembering making those 3 calls at the scene isn't super conclusive either. People in traumatic events often report not remembering anything they did during the trauma.

I'm convinced enough to think the evidence will probably show he's guilty, but as a juror I'd need more information(which I'm sure they'll have).

 

[gitana1]

At least in NC, a jury might be instructed on the definition like this, "Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you of the defendant's guilt." It doesn't make it totally clear (not sure if GA instructions are better), and it is something you have to search your own heart and mind to find the line, I think.

I really like this definition from Merriam Webster: "solid doubt about the actual guilt of a defendant that arises or remains after careful and impartial examination of all evidence." http://i.word.com/idictionary/reasonable doubt

 

[gitana1]

Well, there are items of "evidence" that I would have to dismiss as a juror. Like switching back to a rear facing car seat in the last couple of weeks is supposed to prove guilt. I have a grandson the same age as Cooper and am familiar with this transition stage between rear facing and front facing seats. JRH's wife apparently moved the new front facing seat to her car a few weeks ago to go to Alabama. That makes sense to me. So JRH had the old seat back in his car. We have been doing the same routine among our family members as we all transition car seats, it took a couple of months for all of us (2 parents plus 5 grandparents) to finally have the new front facing model in all of our cars. Actually I think our son may still have the rear facing model in his truck. It's a process.

The most incriminating point in the case IMO is the comment LH made to her husband. Did you say too much? The only innocent thing I can think of is she meant, Did you tell them about our personal problems, your cheating? But who cares at a time like that? Her baby was dead. So that comment sounds horrible.

Also leading a double life seems to consistently end up being a motive for murder time and time again. So that one is big to me.

I do need to hear the actual police tapes myself in context to feel 100% convinced.

JRH not remembering making those 3 calls at the scene isn't super conclusive either. People in traumatic events often report not remembering anything they did during the trauma.

I'm convinced enough to think the evidence will probably show he's guilty, but as a juror I'd need more information(which I'm sure they'll have).

I think people get caught up in individual pieces of evidence rather than the picture as
a whole. Any one piece of evidence in a case may not and should not prove a case. Any one ppiece of evidence may be meaningless on its own. But as part of a mosaic? I always think that when you find yourself having to reason away and excuse one fact after another, eventually it veers from coincidence to incrimination.

 

[DeDee]

Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true.

however, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Reasonable+Doubt

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is the qualifier for finding this defendant guilty. IMHOO. The jurors will also need to define for themselves the phrase: "clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt".

It has been written in one of the threads that JRH was, in the least, negligent in his care of Cooper. cough cough

"In criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") element required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offense. It is defined as an act that is:
careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

What is considered gross negligence by GA law?

GA Supreme Court ruling on the definition of gross negligence is shown at the bottom of page 7:

https://docs.google.com/gview?url=h...ourt/s13g0553.pdf?ts=1384524143&embedded=true

"...the Supreme Court of Georgia had defined “gross negligence” as “the absence of even slight diligence, and slight diligence is defined…as that degree of care which every man of common sense, however inattentive he may be, exercises under the same or similar circumstances. In other words, gross negligence has been defined as equivalent to the failure to exercise even a slight degree of care….”

We know JRH deleted much of his online history and, as much as was possible, has deleted his internet footprints, accounts, etc. This incriminating step indicates to me preplanning when coupled with his online video viewing of people dying and of the Dr. Ward's, the veterinarian advocate's youtube, video only 5 short days before Cooper is left behind in a very hot car. Also, there are those keyword searches that he openly told LE about researching because of his fear of it happening to Cooper.

Without further provocation, the judge who presided over the PCH stated this case could become a death penalty case.

Then, the brother's interview was published by AJC, a few days ago, giving a different take on the most incriminating evidence from the PCH. However, Dan Abrams [remember him from the early Court TV days?] said yesterday, July 22, in an interview on GMA, that the revelations from the brother's interview would not be enough to sway a judge to grant bail. IOW, IMW, it doesn't matter because the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming.

"...It just involves recklessly or being grossly negligent in leaving his child in the car and the child, therefore, dying, so in that sense, it may not affect the case as much as the article seems to suggest.”

http://www.dan-abrams.com/dan-on-evidence-in-hot-car-death/

DAs entire interview with Robin on GMAs report of the discrepancies:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/geo...tab=9482930&section=1206852&playlist=24663206

 

[Linda7NJ]

Exactly. Clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is the qualifier for finding this defendant guilty. IMHOO. The jurors will also need to define for themselves the phrase: "clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt".

It has been written in one of the threads that JRH was, in the least, negligent in his care of Cooper. cough cough



What is considered gross negligence by GA law?



We know JRH deleted much of his online history and, as much as was possible, has deleted his internet footprints, accounts, etc. This incriminating step indicates to me preplanning when coupled with his online video viewing of people dying and of the Dr. Ward's, the veterinarian advocate's youtube, video only 5 short days before Cooper is left behind in a very hot car. Also, there are those keyword searches that he openly told LE about researching because of his fear of it happening to Cooper.

Without further provocation, the judge who presided over the PCH stated this case could become a death penalty case.

Then, the brother's interview was published by AJC, a few days ago, giving a different take on the most incriminating evidence from the PCH. However, Dan Abrams [remember him from the early Court TV days?] said yesterday, July 22, in an interview on GMA, that the revelations from the brother's interview would not be enough to sway a judge to grant bail. IOW, IMW, it doesn't matter because the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming.



DAs entire interview with Robin on GMAs report of the discrepancies:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/geo...tab=9482930&section=1206852&playlist=24663206

Sounds like it's clear & convincing to me...

But I'm not one to get easily confused by smoke or mirrors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nosysw]

Why is the poll closed?

 

[gritguy]

Why is the poll closed?

Just did it for the day (or the shortest time it let me) since it was just to take a snapshot of opinion at that point. It might be interesting to do another one later and see if the general thinking on guilt/innocence changes as information is disclosed and processed.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Guilty!

 

[costalpilot]

Yes. It would also be great if they could somehow show in real time what a child would go through as they suffer in a hot car as the fathers day at work eating and sexting at the same time is flashed along side.

that could only be "great" if he was in fact guilty. otoh, I doubt any judge in his right mind would allow it, as the video would have no evidentiary worth whatsoever. otoh, I'm sure its a reassuring image----- if you are convinced he is guilty.