TN - Chris Newsom, 23, & Channon Christian, 21, murdered, Knoxville, 6 Jan 2007 #18

[wvjules]

Was it a landline phone, or a cell phone that allegedly had collect calls blocked?

Both.

 

[SuziQ]

VC just seated.

 

[Muffet]

I get the feeling dad doesn't get the respect he deserves from mom or the girls. Just a guess, but it seems he tries, but the mother has enabled the girls.

He might spoil them some, though; between Aja and VC, there is a distinct habit of playing coy, with the voices and all, to get away with things.

 

[SuziQ]

Everyone there, just no judge yet.

 

[SuziQ]

Court back in session.

 

[wvjules]

So it will be reading the charge then closing arguments?

 

[SuziQ]

Going to read the charge to the jury. I may disappear from time to time during this because frankly it's boring.

 

[Muffet]

Judge says he's ready to charge. zzzzzzzzz

Why can't he do that after the closing arguments? :sheesh:

 

[wvjules]

I hope the closing arguments are available online later.

Is there a copy of the charges anywhere?

 

[SuziQ]

Has anyone heard anything about closing arguments being done today?

 

[Muffet]

 

[Muffet]

I hope the closing arguments are available online later.

Is there a copy of the charges anywhere?

I hope so too.

I haven't found the charges online. It's basically a reading of the counts and what they mean. Most of it will be in these:

State's motion detailing specifics of alleged crimes
State's motion detailing specifics on alleged rapes
Grand jury presentment in Christian/Newsom case (WARNING: graphic details of the murders)

 

[Muffet]

Has anyone heard anything about closing arguments being done today?

Earlier, WBIR had a headline, reading

Update: Closing arguments set for Tuesday afternoon in Coleman trial
Vanessa Coleman could face the death penalty if convicted in the kidnapping, rape, and murders of Knoxville couple Chris Newsom and Channon Christian.

But around lunchtime, they removed the header and replaced it with just the sub-header.

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=121254&catid=2

 

[Muffet]

Talking about the all-important Criminal Responsibility.

Being there and friends with the perps isn't enough. The person must assist in some way. (I forgot the exact words, but they draw an important distinction.)

Now he's moved on to accessory after the fact, and says VC isn't charged with that.

Now talking about facilitation - in which knows the person is going to commit an offense and knowingly provides assistance.

 

[SuziQ]

http://twitter.com/jamiescoop

Judge is telling jurors charges against Coleman and elements of each b/4 we have closing arguments

 

[SuziQ]

brb soon

 

[Muffet]

I posted this in the GT trial, but didn't provide a link.

____________________________

Here are the sections from the instructions the jury was given yesterday:
​

Criminal Responsibility​

Under the doctrine of criminal responsibility a defendant is criminally
responsible as a party to the offenses charged in the Presentment – first degree felony
murder, premeditated first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, especially
aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, and theft, as well as their lesser-included offenses
– if the offenses were committed by the defendant's own conduct, by the conduct of
another for which the defendant is criminally responsible, or by both. Each party to
the offense may be charged with the commission of the offense.

The defendant is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct
of another if, acting with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense,
or to benefit in the proceeds or results of the offense, the defendant solicits, directs,
aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense.

A defendant who is criminally responsible for an offense may be found guilty
not only of that offense, but also for any other offense or offenses committed by
another, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the other offense or offenses
committed were natural and probable consequences of the original offense for which
the defendant is found criminally responsible, and that the elements of the other
offense or offenses that accompanied the original offense have been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.

In deciding the criminal responsibility of the defendant, the jury may also take
into consideration any evidence offered that the defendant attempted to thwart or
withdraw from any of the offenses that followed from the original offense.

A person cannot be held criminally responsible for the conduct of another if
that person has knowledge of the other’s crime yet fails to act, prevent the crime,
render aid, or report the crime. A person’s presence at the scene of a crime, along with
an association with the perpetrator of that crime, does not make one criminally
responsible.

Under a theory of criminal responsibility, an individual's presence and
companionship with the perpetrator of a felony before and after the commission of an
offense are circumstances from which his participation or criminal intent in the crime
may be inferred. No particular act of the defendant need be shown, and the defendant
need not have taken a physical part in the crime in order to be held criminally
responsible. To be criminally responsible for the acts of another, the defendant must in
some way associate himself with the venture, act with knowledge that an offense is to
be committed, and share in the criminal intent of the principal.


Further, you are instructed that a defendant may be guilty of facilitation of a
felony if, knowing that another intends to commit a specific offense, but without the
intent required for criminal responsibility as set forth above, the person knowingly
furnishes substantial assistance in the commission of the offense. Facilitation of
specific felonies will be explained in these instructions.

FACILITATION OF A FELONY​

Any person who commits the offense of facilitation of a felony is guilty of a
crime. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven
beyond a reasonable doubt the following essential elements:

(1) that the defendant knew that another person intended to commit the
specific felony, but did not have the intent to promote or assist the
commission of the offense or to benefit in the proceeds or results of
the offense;
and
(2) that the defendant furnished substantial assistance to that person in
the commission of the felony;
and
(3) that the defendant furnished such assistance knowingly.

"Intent", as used above, means that a person acts intentionally with respect to the
nature of the conduct and to a result of the conduct when it is the person's conscious
objective or desire to engage in the conduct and cause the result.

"Knowingly", as used above, means that a person acts knowingly when the
person is aware of the particular nature of the conduct and that the particular
circumstances exist and that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. The
requirement of "knowingly" is also established if it is shown that the defendant acted
“intentionally.”


Facilitation of a Felony is a lesser included offense of Counts 1 thru 44 and 46
of the Presentment as explained herein. The definition of facilitation of a felony
provided here should be referred to where indicated in these instructions.


-- If you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt of FIRST DEGREE
FELONY MURDER, [muffet - can be found guilty of this guilty either by committing the act directly or by being criminal responsible for it - the verdict is rendered the same] as charged in the presentment, then your verdict must be not
guilty as to this offense and then you shall proceed to determine his guilt or innocence
of FACILITATION OF FIRST DEGREE FELONY MURDER

-- If you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt of FACILITATION
OF FIRST DEGREE FELONY MURDER, as charged in the presentment, then your
verdict must be not guilty as to this offense and then you shall proceed to determine his
guilt or innocence of SECOND DEGREE MURDER
[...]
______________

 

[wvjules]

It all seems so complicated.

 

[Muffet]

Here is a link to the charge the judge read to the jury in the Davidson trial. I expect it's almost identical.

http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/2009/10272009carjack_davidson_charge.pdf

Here is the verdict form the jury was given to fill out:
http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/2009/10272009carjack_davidson_verdictform.pdf

 

[MCDRAW]

I wonder why VC decided not to testify since Lavit made a big deal about her testifying? Had I been her lawyer I never would have suggested that she testify.