Trial - Ross Harris #5

[DexterMorgan]

But the jury doesn't get to decide whether the search warrants were valid or legal or not. That was determined by the judge, pre-trial. The jury is not deciding the validity of the warrants. Which have to do with probable cause. Which was already ruled on. This is about guilt or innocence.

A better argument would be that if LE was dishonest in their warrants then their credibility as a whole should be in question, including everything they testified to. But I don't know what he defense argued and what the judge's reasoning was.

But. The jury doesn't get to call a mistrial either. So the defense is right to fight certain things for mistrial or appeal purposes.

 

[GA_Peach]

RBBM. Respectfully how in the heck are the jury suppose to decide on facts if they are not given all the FACTS of the case as known? These flipping SW are what got the information that the Defendant is charged with! False information! False infortation that was testified under oath as true, live streamed. archived, written about , saturated the local area so much that they had to move the trial 300 miles away to try get an unbias jury for a fair trial? And now can't use that false information fact? Giving a password on 6/18/14 to look into phone, then they used that information with FALSE information to get the iPhone 5 SW! That is BS. Sorry, not meaning towards you Peach personally.

ETA: I pray the jury does not do anything the Judge has ordered them not to. That would be very hard I would think. But still hope they heed to her orders.

Let me start by saying this - the jury should know all the FACTS of the case. 100% agreement on that.

With respect to the SW, I need to dig deeper into the issue. Admittedly, it has been a while since I have read the SWs so I am not familiar with each discrepancy. Here are my general thoughts. If the SW accurately stated that the car seat straps were in the middle position versus the lowest setting, would that have really affected whether or not there was probable cause? I don't think so. Likewise, if Detective Stoddard stated that JRH simply returned to his car at lunch rather than stating that JRH placed his head into the frame of the car, would that have affected the existence of probable cause? I am not convinced. While I don't condone LE's actions and believe that they should be held accountable, I think that a case could be made that probable cause existed and was demonstrated even if those "misstatements" were thrown out. I would need to see each SW discrepancy to decide if that is actually the case, and right now, I am too ignorant on the matter to make an educated determination.

Having said all of that, those "misstatements" are part of this case and part of the investigation, and the State should be accountable for them. The jury has a right to know about each inconsistency and decide for themselves if it impacted the case. There is no excuse to hide this from the jury, and frankly, with this afternoon's ruling, I believe that this "trial" has become a farce. If the DT cannot make arguments to cast reasonable doubt on the State's claims or cannot attempt to impeach witnesses, it's nothing more than a circus. I believe that JRH should be locked up for years, but I also will adamantly defend his right to a fair trial. It's disgusting what is happening.

The argument the defense is trying to present to this jury isn't about "mistakes" LE made on individual SW's, or a catalog of "mistakes" made in the collective sum of their dozens of warrants obtained.

Their argument is the mistakes on SW's reveal an absolute pattern (it's obvious, imo) of mistatements being used to obtain one batch, those misrepresentations being "corrected" on the next, only to be replaced by new misrepresentations, and so on til the end, ALL of the mistatements being inflammatory and made public, which ultimately poisoned the jury pool of Cobb County.

The "mistakes" are also relevant, imo, because they in fact reveal the mindset of tbe case's lead investigator, which if you'll forgive me for saying so, is a very dark place indeed.

I agree with this as well. The jury, and the jury alone, should decide what that pattern means.

But the jury doesn't get to decide whether the search warrants were valid or legal or not. That was determined by the judge, pre-trial. The jury is not deciding the validity of the warrants. Which have to do with probable cause. Which was already ruled on. This is about guilt or innocence.

A better argument would be that if LE was dishonest in their warrants then their credibility as a whole should be in question, including everything they testified to. But I don't know what he defense argued and what the judge's reasoning was.

BBM

I agree with the part in bold. The jury should be privy to the inconsistencies in the SW for exactly the reason you just mentioned. Do those inconsistencies affect any witness's credibility, and do those inconsistencies call into question the validity of the entire investigation? That sloppy work should not be allowed to be swept under the rug.

 

[arkansasmimi]

athy ‏@courtchatter 48m48 minutes ago
#RossHarris - Judge dismisses jury for the weekend. Defense moves for a mistrial, again. Judge denies. Court is adjourned.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 57m57 minutes ago
#RossHarris - Judge: "I stand by my previous ruling" Jury coming in

Cathy Retweeted
Michelle ‏@ChellesBells99 1h1 hour ago
@courtchatter if I was a juror, I would want to know this. Especially since some probably read the media reports about it

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Now State is up to rebut

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Def: The state is obstructing the jury from knowing this information.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - In Search Warrant Murphy listed to search the laptop for any searches on hot car deaths, testified Harris searched for that

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Murphy testified in 2014 "Mr. Harris did not see the child." after viewing the parking lot vid during lunch. Def wants to ask

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Def: Murphy in affidavit: Harris briefly attempted CPR on child. Def says this would go to impeach other witnesses

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Def: The State chose not to call Det. Murphy which forced us to do so. We couldn't get the info from Stoddard

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Def: We attempted to get this info from Stoddard who said he was not the one that got the info, it was Murphy.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris -In warrant hearing Murphy: Harris said "He had done researched on how hot it needs to be & long it takes for animals/child die"

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Testimony was given 10 times to obtain 10 search warrants saying Harris said he researched child deaths in inside vehicles

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Lumpkin listing what was stated to obtain warrants: That Harris researched hot child deaths inside vehicles (not true)

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Stmts: Murphy testified on June 18 to the court: Harris's are not showing much emotions to their child passing away.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Defense stating the incorrect info (now known) that was used to obtain many search warrants. #hotcardeath

 

[Rayemonde]

Like to be a fly on the wall when you and hubby make important decisions. It's likely to be akin to watching a Wimbledon tennis match.

Again, JRH dialed his wife's number but hung up and dialed LAA instead. hone: So, he had his opportunity to tell her himself and chose to end the call. While cradling Cooper, JRH could have asked to phone for his wife. I don't think JRH wanted LH to see her son dead. She didn't ask to see Cooper anyway.

Frankly, the phone call has mostly an insignificant role except that it, and the cursing at :cop:, led to JRH being placed in back of a patrol car. The PO :cursing:, by using the same language that JRH used, was an unnecessary response yet shows LEOs frustration with JRH not cooperating.

The GS, owner of the landscape lighting co., climbed into the front seat to assist JRH unfasten Cooper's straps and the buckle. JRH took his baby out of the carseat and placed him onto the hot pavement. The GS couldn't help do that part because the frame of the car was in his way at that point. I can't see that event any other way due to their positions inside the vehicle.

Several witnesses testified that JRHs actions were not true CPR attempts. GSs co-worker nudged JRH aside and attempted some puffs when he noticed JRH was too preoccupied to do it for Cooper because the co-worker had lost a child the year before, hence he really wanted Cooper to live. That is when JRH walked away from Cooper. Even the PO conducted about 100 tiny CPR with puffs without stopping, at Piper's urging, until medical personnel arrived because every one at that scene wanted Cooper revived except ....

But RH was the only one there who knew exactly how long Cooper had been in that car. He knew how long Cooper had been inside a hot car, and he knew from watching the veterinarian's video that Cooper would be long dead. He probably felt the rigor mortis too when he picked Cooper up, and realised that Cooper had been dead for a long time. Whereas the other witnesses on scene assumed that Cooper had only just died and it didn't register with them that he was in rigor and CPR would be futile.

I think that could explain why he "dreaded how Cooper would look", too - if he did genuinely forget that Cooper was in the car until he caught a glimpse of him on the way to the cinema, he would immediately realise that Cooper had been inside a hot cat all day and must be dead. He realises that he has to pull over and look at Cooper, and he dreads how he will look.

 

[gitana1]

Catching up- this is total BS! The state has already called him! He is on the whitness list. His name is on some of the warrants no? Why wouldn't they be able to discuss the warrants?!! Is this judge trying to get this reversed on appeal and make the county pay for a second trial becuase that's exactly where this is headed!! Unreal! At least the objections started in front of the jury and I hope the defense lets them have it on this topic in the closing!! Can they mention this and call attention to the fact they didn't want it heard? Anything goes in a closing right?

They made a huge tactical error in not asking these questions on cross. That would've been the time to do it. I recall some surprise that their cross was limited. (I think it was of this witness). And someone said,"well they can call him as their own witness). But I thought that was dangerous. What these witnesses saw and heard that went into the warrants was testified to on direct. They could've impeached them with the warrants if they testified to something different, on cross. That would be the time to do it and it would been allowed.

But to wait and try to get that out on direct as your own witness, is hard. Because they had no way of knowing whether the court would allow them to call the witness as adverse or hostile, and now stuff like lying or exaggerating or making mistakes on a search warrant may not be relevant. Before, when they were crossing him though, they could've impeached him with it then. At least if he testified differently about it on direct.

I would never give up cross, banking on being able to call someone as a hostile witness. You never know what the judge will rule and cops are supposed to be neutral, believe it or not.

 

[gitana1]

athy ‏@courtchatter 48m48 minutes ago
#RossHarris - Judge dismisses jury for the weekend. Defense moves for a mistrial, again. Judge denies. Court is adjourned.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 57m57 minutes ago
#RossHarris - Judge: "I stand by my previous ruling" Jury coming in

Cathy Retweeted
Michelle ‏@ChellesBells99 1h1 hour ago
@courtchatter if I was a juror, I would want to know this. Especially since some probably read the media reports about it

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Now State is up to rebut

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Def: The state is obstructing the jury from knowing this information.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - In Search Warrant Murphy listed to search the laptop for any searches on hot car deaths, testified Harris searched for that

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Murphy testified in 2014 "Mr. Harris did not see the child." after viewing the parking lot vid during lunch. Def wants to ask

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Def: Murphy in affidavit: Harris briefly attempted CPR on child. Def says this would go to impeach other witnesses

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Def: The State chose not to call Det. Murphy which forced us to do so. We couldn't get the info from Stoddard

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Def: We attempted to get this info from Stoddard who said he was not the one that got the info, it was Murphy.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris -In warrant hearing Murphy: Harris said "He had done researched on how hot it needs to be & long it takes for animals/child die"

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Testimony was given 10 times to obtain 10 search warrants saying Harris said he researched child deaths in inside vehicles

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Lumpkin listing what was stated to obtain warrants: That Harris researched hot child deaths inside vehicles (not true)

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Stmts: Murphy testified on June 18 to the court: Harris's are not showing much emotions to their child passing away.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 1h1 hour ago
#RossHarris - Defense stating the incorrect info (now known) that was used to obtain many search warrants. #hotcardeath

Ohhhh. That's why. They didn't make a tactical error. They had no choice. It wasn't this detective's cross I was thinking of. It was Stoddard's. That's right. The state never called this guy.

 

[minor4th]

Maybe because the warrants have to do with probable cause. Not guilt. They would be relevant to the probable cuase hearing not to trial. And the judge already issued rulings related to the discrepancies in the search warrants.

The judge was on solid ground to disallow relitigating the probable cause issue.

However, I think the defense should have been allowed to explore with Murphy the tunnel vision/confirmation bias of the investigation. On that note, I thought Lumpkin could have made stronger arguments along those lines.

It certainly wasn't hearsay, like the State claimed and Staley seemed to go along with. Hard to tell because she does not give reasons for her rulings.

 

[GA_Peach]

Ohhhh. That's why. They didn't make a tactical error. They had no choice. It wasn't this detective's cross I was thinking of. It was Stoddard's. That's right. The state never called this guy.

That's right. The DT was given no chance to introduce his shoddy work or to impeach him.

 

[gitana1]

This is why the state should have just tried him for negligence or involuntary manslaughter .

Because now they are doing too much reaching with some things .

Now the judge decides the sentence .

So they could have made a simple case and let the judge hand down the sentence if found guilty .

But they are truly drawing outside of the box for the murder charge and this isn't right for jurors to have to process some exaggerated/opionated lies.

Especially since negligence or involuntary manslaughter is much easier to prove . jmo

It's felony murder if the crime involves cruelty to a child. Per the code, criminal negligence is cruelty to a child. So Ross is guilty of murder if his conduct in "forgetting" his kid who is trapped in a hot car, due to mad amounts of sexting, including with an underage girl, is considered criminal negligence.

I think proving intent may be hard in this case. But felony murder doesn't require intent.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Ross actually has a smart defense team. Jmo

Because his team has now set up grounds for a guaranteed appeal if things doesn't go Rosses way.

So I'm not mad at the defense. But I am mad at how the state has a good basic case for negligent homicide; But they are so built on proving Premeditated Murder.

 

[gitana1]

But. The jury doesn't get to call a mistrial either. So the defense is right to fight certain things for mistrial or appeal purposes.

Yes of course. That's true.

 

[gitana1]

It wasn't quite that simple . The judge has locked down the DT's ability to present the PATTERN of investigative assumptions, errors and lies (and yes, the DT uses that word), and link it to the originator of all that-Stoddard.

If the lies were presented on direct, then they should've been able to impeach Stoddard with inconsistent statements or facts. But if the lies were in the search warrants which were not presented to the jury, then the search warrants don't come in during the defense's case. Stoddard testified at length. He's the one I recall people were surprised the cross was short on. Did he lie on direct?

 

[Zoobiegirl]

Trying to say RH and the good Samaritan should have looked around and chosen a different place to put Cooper down.

Someone else may have said this (I haven't read all the posts yet) but in order to do CPR effectively the individual has to be placed FLAT and on a FIRM surface. Now, I don't think RH was knowledgeable about CPR, but just in case anyone has to do it remember that.

I have wondered about the hot asphalt...........I'm not that savvy in emergency medicine. Maybe take your shirt off and put under a child? I would think a small child would have more of a potential to be injured by the asphalt.

 

[gitana1]

Ross actually has a smart defense team. Jmo

Because his team has now set up grounds for a guaranteed appeal if things doesn't go Rosses way.

So I'm not mad at the defense. But I am mad at how the state has a good basic case for negligent homicide; But they are so built on proving Premeditated Murder.

I don't see any guaranteed appeal. Appeals are super hard to achieve.

 

[DexterMorgan]

It's felony murder if the crime involves cruelty to a child. Per the code, criminal negligence is cruelty to a child. So Ross is guilty of murder if his conduct in "forgetting" his kid who is trapped in a hot car, due to mad amounts of sexting, including with an underage girl, is considered criminal negligence.

I think proving intent may be hard in this case. But felony murder doesn't require intent.

Imo. Most Felony murder charges have a higher standard.

Like if someone dies while you are robbing a bank or kidnapping or home robbery or malicious intent for your gain.

But imo. Sexting whomever while supposedly forgetting about your child is not a felony murder. Jmo

 

[DexterMorgan]

I don't see any guaranteed appeal. Appeals are super hard to achieve.

Agree. Nothing is guaranteed. But his defense does have some claims to why an appeal should be granted if their client is found guilty.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I thought we had proof that the seat was too small? It doen't matter how it looks, his measurements were outside of the parameters of the car seat limits. This is one of the few things we should be able to agree upon as it is a black and white fact.

I can say one thing with absolute certainty - the straps should have been on the highest setting.

 

[Hope4More]

If the lies were presented on direct, then they should've been able to impeach Stoddard with inconsistent statements or facts. But if the lies were in the search warrants which were not presented to the jury, then the search warrants don't come in during the defense's case. Stoddard testified at length. He's the one I recall people were surprised the cross was short on. Did he lie on direct?

The DT impeached the bejeebers out of Stoddard on direct, on individual pieces of evidence, and certainly called into question his credibility and "confirmation bias."

I know this relates to probable cause, already litigated, etc. But, as an example of how Staley's rulings on hearsay are restricting the DT's ability to show how pervasive that bias was, and it's source.

The DT couldn't cross Stoddard on what was written in SW affadsvits, because he didn't write them himself. Hearsay.

But Murphy won't be allowed to be examined on what was in the search warrants because though he wrote them, he didn't receive the info in them firsthand. Stoddard interrogated RH, Murphy didn't. Hearsay, no exceptions .

 

[Zoobiegirl]

What if I the power to lock you up, had you in a closed room and was interrogating you, and had already handcuffed you and detained you for being "noncompliant" for not turning over the phone? When asked again, essentially, for the phone, am I likely to "voluntarily " hand over my password, or have I been coerced into agreeing?

Imo RH didn't "willingly" turn over his password, but it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. Fact is, the boy should have said no and invoked right then, but it's easy to say that from the safety of my cozy chair in my own house.

I have been wondering so maybe you know? Everything he said BEFORE they read him his rights.......is that admissible? Did someone read him his rights when he was handcuffed? If so I missed that.

 

[DexterMorgan]

It's felony murder if the crime involves cruelty to a child. Per the code, criminal negligence is cruelty to a child. So Ross is guilty of murder if his conduct in "forgetting" his kid who is trapped in a hot car, due to mad amounts of sexting, including with an underage girl, is considered criminal negligence.

I think proving intent may be hard in this case. But felony murder doesn't require intent.

But. You are only right if the cruelty to the child was proven intentional.

So if it was actually an accident; Then that is wrong. Jmo