The Grand Jury & Trial

[popsicle]

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 4m4 minutes ago
Juror 34, echoing all but 2 jurors interviewed today: "Hard to think this was an accident" #RossHarris #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 2m2 minutes ago
Juror 34, sales manager, says he did some research on #RossHarris case AFTER filling out juror questionnaire #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 50m50 minutes ago
Juror 33: Needs evidence that #RossHarris is innocent from defense #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 1h1 hour ago
Juror 33, bartender, overhearing ppl discuss #hotcardeath case, none have been favorable to #RossHarris

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 1h1 hour ago
Juror 33, a bartender, heard customers discussing #RossHarris case #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 2h2 hours ago
Juror 32: "You can't leave a kid in the car. It's unheard of" #RossHarris #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 2h2 hours ago
Juror 32 "angry" she may have to pay for someone else's "bad choices" if picked to serve on #RossHarris jury #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 2h2 hours ago
Juror 32 breaks down, says she'll lose a lot of her clients if picked to sit on #RossHarris jury #hotcardeath

If I was the defendant, listening to so many people thinking I am guilty or already leaning that way, I would be panicked and depressed. Though sometimes I think people say things just so they won't be picked for the jury.... and vice versa of course.

 

[flourish]

Once again, I was not referring to this defendant or to this specific case, nor to non-parent caretakers or custodians or incidentally responsible 3rd parties.

I am uncomfortable, disturbed, and bothered by laws which allow the State to press felony murder charges against a PARENT who made an incomprehensibly horrible ACCIDENTAL mistake that resulted in their child's death.

Well see though, this wasn't ruled an accident. It's not like it was ruled an accident then he was prosecuted anyway. The trial is to determine whether or not this will legally be considered an accident.

Of course people involved in the death of a vulnerable human will be investigated. If the evidence points to something more than an accident, there will be an issue.

I'm not sure I'm understanding how this is a case of persecution, when it's clearly a questionable death.

 

[gngr~snap]

I thought it was 30 seconds to come to the road where he had to turn left or right out of the Chik-fil-A parking lot, and then 2 to 3 minute drive to work.

That is probably correct. The building that housed the daycare could be see from the Chick-fil-A parking lot!

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 4m4 minutes ago
Juror 34, echoing all but 2 jurors interviewed today: "Hard to think this was an accident" #RossHarris #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 2m2 minutes ago
Juror 34, sales manager, says he did some research on #RossHarris case AFTER filling out juror questionnaire #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 50m50 minutes ago
Juror 33: Needs evidence that #RossHarris is innocent from defense #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 1h1 hour ago
Juror 33, bartender, overhearing ppl discuss #hotcardeath case, none have been favorable to #RossHarris

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 1h1 hour ago
Juror 33, a bartender, heard customers discussing #RossHarris case #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 2h2 hours ago
Juror 32: "You can't leave a kid in the car. It's unheard of" #RossHarris #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 2h2 hours ago
Juror 32 "angry" she may have to pay for someone else's "bad choices" if picked to serve on #RossHarris jury #hotcardeath

Christian Boone ‏@ReporterJCB 2h2 hours ago
Juror 32 breaks down, says she'll lose a lot of her clients if picked to sit on #RossHarris jury #hotcardeath

Wow, wow, and wow. It's sounding more and more like he might have a legitimate appeals issue about jury selection.

I'm amazed by the number of folks saying the defendant needs to prove his innocence. Hopefully what they mean is they've already decided he's guilty. And need to be excused.

Is this an uncommonly difficult voir dire for a high profile case in Cobb County?

 

[LyndyLoo]

That is considered torture and not cruelty.

And felony murder is if he was intentionally doing another crime at the same time frame while causing the death of his child.

But the added cruelty charge to help cement a felony murder theory seems like the D.A is just throwing stuff at the wall.

I rather they just went for negligent homicide due to him being negligent while focusing on his sexting.

I think Torture is the act of strapping one into a seat, making it impossible to get out..the the Cruelty is the RESULT of the action.

From the description of Cooper by the ME..Cooper had a lot of evidence of struggling to get out of his seat ( head injuries) and scratches to his face from trying to get straps off. No doubt this poor child fought to get free!! :tantrum:

BBM.

Me too. I think they could get a conviction for that charge.

I really am curious how the evidence is going to be laid out. I think the prosecutors have to be very good at telling their story.

I read up on Criminal Negligence and found an interesting explanation on how to apply to the accused. Since Ross Def. Team, are going to use the "Sex Addiction" as some form of diminished capacity. There is a portion that explains how a juror should review his culpability.
What do you all think about this?

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

Reasonable person standard[edit]
This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the ‘average person’ thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances.

The more contentious debate has surrounded the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a non autistic person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. Notwithstanding, those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable.

 

[Hope4More]

Well see though, this wasn't ruled an accident. It's not like it was ruled an accident then he was projected anyway. The trial is to determine whether or not this will legally be considered an accident.

Of course people involved in the death of a vulnerable human will be investigated. If the evidence points to something more than an accident, there will be an issue.

I'm not sure I'm understanding how this is a case of persecution, when it's clearly a questionable death.

He's charged with crimes. Until and unless he's convicted of a crime he is innocent, whatever the State has concluded.

But...I can't say it any more clearly that I was not referring to this specific case at all. I follow trials primarily because I have an insatiable interest in the law and the legal process.

Every state is different, GA's felony murder tie in to second degree child cruelty is not typical nationally, and is pretty new even in GA. I'm interested --and disturbed- in the ramifications of giving a State this kind of discretion.

 

[GA_Peach]

The immediate decision about lane choice is definitely interesting. Playing devil's advocate, though- he may have needed to get into a turn lane immediately, but that doesn't mean he was able to if there was a lot of traffic and/or unyielding drivers.

That said, if he was trying to get into a turn lane to go to the daycare and had to fight traffic, it's very unbelievable all the sudden mid-process he forgot he was headed that way.

But....are you sure that immediate choice was necessarily the only one available to him? Didn't I read that he would have had to make a U turn, do a clover loop? Or is that the turn you mean?

JRH actually could have bypassed the driveway and the Publix parking lot if he turned right out of the CFA and then made an illegal U-turn around the median. I assumed that he exited through the Publix parking lot because that is the only legal way to turn left out of the shopping center. However, it is entirely possible that he did make the illegal U-turn. However, JRH would have gone approximately 100 yards before the U-turn, and then he would have had to immediately choose his lane. It would have been an extremely short period of time before he had to make the decision.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the Home Depot SSC, which is the location of Cooper's daycare, looms over the entire intersection. Although the Home Depot SSC is on the other side of the highway, there is nothing obstructing the views of Home Depot's three building corporate headquarters. They are a commanding presence, and it is hard for me to imagine how he doesn't see those buildings as he drives through the intersection. If he was stopped at the light, which would be my assumption based on the fact that it took him 6 minutes to arrive at work, there is no way that he didn't see the daycare where Cooper was supposed to be.

 

[Hope4More]

I think Torture is the act of strapping one into a seat, making it impossible to get out..the the Cruelty is the RESULT of the action.

From the description of Cooper by the ME..Cooper had a lot of evidence of struggling to get out of his seat ( head injuries) and scratches to his face from trying to get straps off. No doubt this poor child fought to get free!! :tantrum:



I read up on Criminal Negligence and found an interesting explanation on how to apply to the accused. Since Ross Def. Team, are going to use the "Sex Addiction" as some form of diminished capacity. There is a portion that explains how a juror should review his culpability.
What do you all think about this?

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

Personally, if I were a juror in this case, I'd listen to the sexual addiction argument by the defence because I'd be obligated to, but I'd be pretty offended it was being served up as a defense. Jmo.

 

[gngr~snap]

I thought it was 30 seconds to come to the road where he had to turn left or right out of the Chik-fil-A parking lot, and then 2 to 3 minute drive to work.

You can clearly see the tall white buildings that house the daycare from the Chick fil a parking lot. You can also see how close the stop lights at the intersection are as well.
The buildings are almost "in your face".

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

JRH actually could have bypassed the driveway and the Publix parking lot if he turned right out of the CFA and then made an illegal U-turn around the median. I assumed that he exited through the Publix parking lot because that is the only legal way to turn left out of the shopping center. However, it is entirely possible that he did make the illegal U-turn.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the Home Depot SSC, which is the location of Cooper's daycare, looms over the entire intersection. Although the Home Depot SSC is on the other side of the highway, there is nothing obstructing the views of Home Depot's three building corporate headquarters. They are a commanding presence, and it is hard for me to imagine how he doesn't see those buildings as he drives through the intersection. If he was stopped at the light, which would be my assumption based on the fact that it took him 6 minutes to arrive at work, there is no way that he didn't see the daycare where Cooper was supposed to be.

That he might well not have "seen" it I can easily believe. I drive my son to and from school everyday, same route, same time, and I don't "see" any particular place or building or thing along the way because I don't need to. It's background noise because everything about the drive is so entirely familiar. My focus is almost always entirely on the conversation I'm having with my DS, and if he's too moody or tired or whatever to talk and we're silent, then I'm thinking about whatever, am internally focused, but definitely not noticing or paying attention to anything other than stop signs, traffic lights, and the traffic I'm in.

I think that's pretty typical.

 

[gngr~snap]

I'm tempted to make that drive to time it, I know where it is....but the thought of driving from my little bubble in Cherokee County to that area of Cobb (metro ATL traffic-wise) makes me want to stab myself in the eye! :gaah:

I think Google has an option to "drive" from point A to point B

Chick-fil-A
2455 Paces Ferry Rd SE, Atlanta, GA 30339
Little Aprons Academy
*2485 Cumberland Pkwy SE, Atlanta, GA 30339
Home Depot Treehouse
*2600 Cumberland Pkwy SE, Atlanta, GA 30339

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[MsMarple]

Wow, wow, and wow. It's sounding more and more like he might have a legitimate appeals issue about jury selection.

I'm amazed by the number of folks saying the defendant needs to prove his innocence. Hopefully what they mean is they've already decided he's guilty. And need to be excused.

Is this an uncommonly difficult voir dire for a high profile case in Cobb County?

I don't think the judge is going to let that happen. Right now each side has 9 free strikes once the jury pool is in place so technically they can off 18 jurors. I believe the judge can grant additional peremptory challenges if she wishes due to the high profile aspect of the case. So while it may take even longer to assemble a jury pool it isn't impossible to end up with a fair jury. JMO of course.

But I agree that some of the jurors make me want to smack myself upside the head - it's on Ross to prove he's innocent? Really? :banghead:

 

[Inthedetails]

Wow, wow, and wow. It's sounding more and more like he might have a legitimate appeals issue about jury selection.

I'm amazed by the number of folks saying the defendant needs to prove his innocence. Hopefully what they mean is they've already decided he's guilty. And need to be excused.

Is this an uncommonly difficult voir dire for a high profile case in Cobb County?

BBM

I am amazed too! That is a basic right in our country to be presumed innocent in a court of law until proven otherwise.

I am assuming that the judge is accepting jurors who don't know this aspect of our law because the judge can instruct them.

But...wow. This doesn't say much for an informed public, and that saddens me. A good way to lose rights is to not even be aware of them in the first place.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I saw a tweet that HLN is covering the opening statements gavel to gavel. I guess they haven't determined yet if they will cover the entire trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[popsicle]

I saw a tweet that HLN is covering the opening statements gavel to gavel. I guess they haven't determined yet if they will cover the entire trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hahaha we all know what they mean by "covering the trial gavel to gavel." They take breaks and are usually like ~3 hrs behind.

 

[Hope4More]

My two problems with this are 1) he also researched and looked at pics of dead ppl (murder and suicide) 2) his lack of any reaction and emotion. jmo

IMO what has been made public about his searches has been incomplete, contradictory, and misleading at times. Reserving judgement on all of that piece.

His lack of emotion could actually support IntheDetail's scenario, which IMO is plausible.

If he had a history of leaving Cooper in the car alone while he ran into stores or for even longer, I can believe the LeAnn I've been reading about could have pulled up a video on hot car deaths, insisted he watch it with her, and expressed her fear to him that she believed something terrible could happen to Cooper if Ross kept leaving him in the car.

I can believe the Ross I've been reading about would have resented her for "forcing" him to watch the video and for questioning his parenting. It's also possible that the video he/she watched discussed the legal consequences of leaving children in a hot car, perhaps even mentioned that term- malicious intent.

If that basic scenario is accurate (hypothetically), his lack of emotion could be because he knew- immediately- what the consequences were going to be, both legally and with Leanne, and sorry, it's difficult to think otherwise, that his immediate concern was for himself.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM

I am amazed too! That is a basic right in our country to be presumed innocent in a court of law until proven otherwise.

I am assuming that the judge is accepting jurors who don't know this aspect of our law because the judge can instruct them.

But...wow. This doesn't say much for an informed public, and that saddens me. A good way to lose rights is to not even be aware of them in the first place.

Amen.

 

[Niner]

I agree with all of this. While second-degree child cruelty and felony murder are definitely two different charges, there is no doubt that Copper's death was caused by being left in the car, the child-cruelty charge. Assuming that the jury finds him guilty of second-degree child cruelty, a felony, conviction of felony murder would be likely. However, juries are an interesting group.

I worked at the Home Depot Store Support Center, the location where the daycare is located, years ago and have been enamored with this case from day 1. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out in court. As for me, I am still on the fence.

:welcome6: to Websleuths and

:welcome4: to this thread!

:greetings:

 

[magnolia]

I don't think Ross forgot him on the drive, I think he forgot him while at work. I think he meant to leave Cooper in the car, but just for a minute or two while he made an appearance at work. He was late for work, again, and he wanted to "check in." I think he intended to return to the car and bring Cooper to daycare, but forgot.

His ex-wife claims she is the one who searched for hot-car deaths. I think she did this because Ross had used the car as a short-term babysitter in the past, and it scared his ex-wife. She wanted to prove to him how dangerous it was.

When she found out Ross didn't drop off Cooper, I think she knew what happened - he forgot him in the car.

***Snipped For Brevity***

This is my theory. Has been from the start of the case. It's what makes the most sense to me.

 

[Nali87]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160419/00ecc520e4eb14fa14b55fafa6dde2df.jpg
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160419/b34c990519d9dedb326ff9f970d1b7bf.jpg

You can clearly see the tall white buildings that house the daycare from the Chick fil a parking lot. You can also see how close the stop lights at the intersection are as well.
The buildings are almost "in your face".

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Thanks. Very handy. No way does he forget the kid in those 30 seconds.

And I don't agree with the "Leave the kid in the care in front of his work while he jumped in for a little bit" argument either. I think he would have opened a window or something since he googled and KNEW the risks involved regarding leaving children locked in a hot car.

I think he was late (and parked further away) on purpose just so that the majority of people would have already gone inside the buildings and wouldn't see Cooper in the car.