GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 Aug 2014 - Enrique Arochi kidnapping trial #6

[Spiritecho]

We still search every Saturday and will begin again this Saturday I believe, if not next Saturday for sure.

I would like to ask, has a search ever been done in the area where EA lived?

 

[SaintGirl]

Wanted to send a quick note and say thanks for all of the time you have invested in Christina's case. Also for the support and continued prayers. Much appreciated. We still have work to do to bring Christina home. Our mission has not changed. That is the ultimate goal. We will not give up. I pray that he speaks now. I am not sure he has it in him to actually tell the truth or do the right thing, but I pray he does.

Thanks again! #FINDCHRISTINA <3

JMOM! Good to hear from you! Wishing you and all of Team Christina a little bit of peace and a lot of faith that she is found. I'll never forget her.

 

[b.humble]

This is in response to SteveS’s sentencing poll question from the previous thread:

If I were a juror, I would have had no problem finding EA guilty; I'm tremendously grateful 12 other citizens in Collin County agree.
It’s just a poll question, but I took it seriously. When it was first asked, I didn't know how to think about it outside of “no parole”. I knew 10 felt way too short. 30 felt better, but still wasn't right. “Maybe 40, no parole”, I thought, but then realized he would be in his late 60's. What options will he have as a 66-year old, freshly released, convicted felon, who spent more time in prison than years he had been alive at conviction and sentencing, and who likely has less years of life ahead, than years spent in prison?
I slept on it, which feels silly because it's just a poll, but as he said, 12 people who agreed on EA's guilt are going to be making the same decision so it feels like a legitimate question for consideration. Here’s what I thought about this morning:

I didn't know Christina nor do I know her family. Despite this, I still remember where I was and what day of the week it was when I learned (with all of you) that CM's DNA was found in EA's trunk. Processing what it likely meant was such an ugly reality that I felt sick to my stomach.
Prior to DNA, loss of life was the most likely explanation for what happened, but it was a sickening moment to get a glimpse of what her final moments may have been like. On a Friday afternoon in December of 2014, upon reading the arrest affidavit, I processed that a vibrant young woman who was known for her feistiness and who would have (and likely did) put up a hell of a fight to save her life, ended up in his trunk. Because EA's vehicle was a newer model, it would have a glow in the dark safety latch in the trunk and IMO, there’s no other compelling reason she didn't use it, other than she couldn't. To me, this meant she was incapacitated or worse. By the time she was in that trunk, it was too late; the fight was over. The DNA evidence revealed, IMO, an unavoidable confirmation that CM was likely deceased. IMO, what may have begun as AK evolved into a much more serious crime and I cannot separate the two. Because of this, I have my vote: no parole, max sentence.

 

[Leader6518]

Unless it is Life without Parole. A prisioner can get paroled or be given credit for good behavior off their original sentence. So for a sentence of years, they rarely do all of those years.

 

[Suthrnqt]

As Fortenberry noted in closing, the defense had no explanation and no answer for the DNA. And of course, that's because there was no explanation for it except the incriminating truth - he put her IN HIS TRUNK.

RSMB

There are not enough thanks buttons for this post. I cannot not think of one possible reasonable explanation for that amount of DNA to be inside his trunk besides..... SHE WAS IN THE TRUNK. I would like for the sentence to be 99 years, but think he'll probably get somewhere closer to 50 - 60 years. And as always, :cow:


On a more personal note, it's great to see so many familiar posters who have been here for Chrsitina since thread one. You know who you are.

 

[JMOM]

We don't really discuss search locations but around his home has been done extensively, without giving specific locations. Hope that helps.

I would like to ask, has a search ever been done in the area where EA lived?

 

[arkansasmimi]

The judge ordered jury not to read, watch or speak anything about the case from yesterday til they return Monday. I pray all can abide and do so. Jmho human nature will cause one to want to, even if wasn't so high profile. More so because it is. Quailfoot or Minor#4 what would possible happen if found out someone didn't follow judges order. Would the judge then decide sentence? Put the alternate in that left? Or is that alt already dismissed? If EA chose jury and that situation was compromised what then? Just an appeal used? *Just curious since local news will be all on it from now til then. TIA

 

[arkansasmimi]

He will appeal. That's what all the motions and objections are: getting things on the record.

The appellate process isn't a re-hashing of the trial. An appellate court simply checks to see that the law was applied properly. If they believe in any one area that the law was misapplied, they can have the sentence overturned, and possibly re-tried.

So, every motion and objection - whether accepted or denied - is on record for both the prosecution and defense. The appellate court goes through the motions and objections to make sure the judge correctly applied the law.

In court, non-lawyers view this as the defense counsel wasting time, going on and on, etc. But, as explained in other posts, the defense has to do that in order to get everything on record. If defense counsel doesn't do that, the appellate court could overturn the trial based on insufficient counsel for the defendant.

The United States' Constitution require defendants have the right to counsel. Over the years, across the country, the right to counsel has become the right to competent counsel.

When you read the case law, what is expected of defense counsel by appellate courts, supreme courts, and legislatures is vigorous counsel. And, I think we can all agree that EA's counsel gave a vigorous defense - therefore, I think there is zero chance the conviction is overturned on that issue.

Totally agree. Do you know possible case law or the judge used in reference to the second individual (judge went into chambers to look up about since allegedly EA spurned by SB then took out on CM paraphrase would have to go look up tweet about but that the next I got) minor#4? TIA just like to follow and read.

 

[arkansasmimi]

So, instead of being "slimy defense lawyers", as it's often insinuated, they are instead one of the most important parts of a guilty verdict? Their defense is picked apart and analyzed by third parties? Interesting.

They are important parts of the Justice system. You would want that if you had to have one right? Just when have opinions one way or other does one see the other side as "bad guy". Jmho

It's when State overcharge it bothers me.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Yes. If defense counsel doesn't do their job, appellate court overturn convictions and remand for re-trial.

The problem is, most people don't understand what they are watching or hearing in a courtroom. They watch a lot of television - or, go into the court with a preconceived notion about what happened or should happen.

At some points in the trial, Judge Rusch had to go look up case law himself. In doing so, he was making sure a case coming from his court isn't likely to be picked apart on appeal. It showed good lawyering all around; defense counsel kept him and prosecution on their toes.

Does it frustrate victims' families and friends? Of course. But, they need to understand that the workings ensure that the convictions aren't overturned.

Agree. The judge does not want it to be overturned because reflects on his decisions on issues he/she ruled on. Jmho.

 

[b.humble]

The judge ordered jury not to read, watch or speak anything about the case from yesterday til they return Monday. I pray all can abide and do so. Jmho human nature will cause one to want to, even if wasn't so high profile. More so because it is. Quailfoot or Minor#4 what would possible happen if found out someone didn't follow judges order. Would the judge then decide sentence? Put the alternate in that left? Or is that alt already dismissed? If EA chose jury and that situation was compromised what then? Just an appeal used? *Just curious since local news will be all on it from now til then. TIA

I can only speak for myself and I don't presume my truth to be the same for any or all of the jurors, but I really hope it is.
If I were a juror, I would follow the court's instructions to a T. I would not read anything pertaining to the case or search for information about the case. I also would not go anywhere near the Shops at Legacy. I would stay off social media, I would not discuss the trial or deliberations with my spouse, family, or friends. Luckily I have a spouse, family, and friends who would respect that boundary.
That's just me though. If I were a juror, I would fully understand the gravity of the task ahead and would do everything within my power to be compliant with the rules of the court. Personal integrity means something to most people. I'm hopeful it means something to these 12 jurors (+ 1 alternate) and I have no reason to believe it won't.

 

[arkansasmimi]

When I think of sentencing, I think of all the different scenarios there could be in an aggravated kidnapping.

(1) hold person for ransom or reward;
(2) use person as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury or violate or abuse sexually;
(5) terrorize victim or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

In some of the above, there could be a case of aggravated kidnapping where the convicted never intended ANY harm to the person kidnapped. Although vile, in some ransom situations, even hostage situations, the kidnapper could have every intention of keeping the kidnapped person safe, but wants to use them as a means to get money, drugs, political favors, etc. Car-jacking someone to flee from a crime, with every intention of letting them out as soon as they are clear of the initial crime scene. They may even be reassuring the victim that they will let them go unharmed...might even go out of their way to NOT scare the kidnapped person, if they are just using them to get money, secure their own freedom, etc. They could let the kidnapped person go, even without police forcing a rescue, once their demands or goals are met, and still be guilty of aggravated kidnapping. These (assuming the victim was unharmed) would probably get the lighter end of the sentencing spectrum (aside from whatever other crimes they were committing along with...)

There are cases where the kidnapped person is either rescued by an outside party (LE or other) or manages to escape on their own. They may or may not have been raped, injured, etc. during their ordeal. They were terrified and feared for their lives, but they lived. (I personally think a kidnapper with the intent to do horrible things, but was thwarted in their attempt, should be in jail just as long as the kidnapper who succeeded. But that doesn't seem to be what usually happens, so these kidnappers would possibly get a lighter sentence.)

Then there are the cases where the person is kidnapped (held against their will) for the intent of terrorizing them, sexually assaulting them, or doing them other bodily injury. This is what EA was convicted of. Every person on this jury found that EA kidnapped her (held her against her will, even if she initially got into the car voluntarily), and that his intent in doing so was either to terrorize her, sexually assault her, or do her bodily injury. When she resisted, he did not let her go. She did not escape and make it to freedom. No one rescued her. And she is almost certainly dead at his hands. I think this is the worst scenario for aggravated kidnapping, and would warrant the longest sentence. That's what I would be thinking, if I were a juror. And the fact that he has shown NO remorse or inclination to help her family in any way, wouldn't help matters any. JMO

Appears that the Grand Jury Indictment only went with #3&4 of statute. The Defense had issues with how Indictment was written. Not sure what the issue is. I remember at one point they wanted the Indictment entered in as evidence. Judge ruled no, that was just an accusation by Grand Jury and not from law enforcement iirc. Jmho

Eta: just making comment unsure how or if will reflect on sentencing or possible argument on appeal. Jmho

 

[zippixx]

I can only speak for myself and I don't presume my truth to be the same for any or all of the jurors, but I really hope it is.
If I were a juror, I would follow the court's instructions to a T. I would not read anything pertaining to the case or search for information about the case. I also would not go anywhere near the Shops at Legacy. I would stay off social media, I would not discuss the trial or deliberations with my spouse, family, or friends. Luckily I have a spouse, family, and friends who would respect that boundary.
That's just me though. If I were a juror, I would fully understand the gravity of the task ahead and would do everything within my power to be compliant with the rules of the court. Personal integrity means something to most people. I'm hopeful it means something to these 12 jurors (+ 1 alternate) and I have no reason to believe it won't.

Same here, I would go out of my way to follow the judge's orders.... I'd probably lock myself in a room until Monday...lol

 

[arkansasmimi]

*I have wondered if possible the (d) will be how State get EA to speak. Or hopes to. Jmho he would still have charge. So if say took stand and gave where left her for whatever reason it would be 2nd degree instead of first. It would be more info than have and no need for deal. Seems it built into statute. Could he still appeal the verdict? I thinking so but not a lawyer, also if did that would help him if told truth and explain away any of the charges of intent. I hope I understanding this (d) and that for whatever it could do to bring home Christina to her family. It believe he would have to explain some things factual. Jmho and hope

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm

 

[geevee]

*I have wondered if possible the (d) will be how State get EA to speak.

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm

I don't see how he can prove he released her in a safe place when she was never seen again after being in his vehicle. As to your question above, if for whatever reason the judge lacked 12 jurors to decide the sentence, I suppose he could declare a mistrial for the sentencing portion *only* and have 12 new jurors selected. Since I believe it's up to the defendant whether he wants the bench or a jury to sentence him, the defendant may find it advantageous to have folks who didn't hear the evidence and convict him deciding his punishment, if it came about that he had the choice.

But like zippixx, if I were a juror I'd lock myself in a room to avoid any and all media concerning the case.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I don't see how he can prove he released her in a safe place when she was never seen again after being in his vehicle. As to your question above, if for whatever reason the judge lacked 12 jurors to decide the sentence, I suppose he could declare a mistrial for the sentencing portion *only* and have 12 new jurors selected. Since I believe it's up to the defendant whether he wants the bench or a jury to sentence him, the defendant may find it advantageous to have folks who didn't hear the evidence and convict him deciding his punishment, if it came about that he had the choice.

But like zippixx, if I were a juror I'd lock myself in a room to avoid any and all media concerning the case.

I agree in part. I may be understanding wrong but I understood he hasn't spoken to LEO since those 1 phone call and 2 video interviews 9/3 & 9/4/14. Now this may be where the media interviews come in, I don't know what they say.

Thoughts on if he did meet up with someone and she went with them. Could be a possibility. Even if slim chance, and in that scenario he may have seen something and or threatened. Not saying what happened as I don't know (or anyone else but EA). For that provision he would have to give more then I just left her with xx at xx and she OK. Jmho

On juror I would too. They can be held in contempt of court for violating his order. So it effects more than just trial. Jmho

 

[geevee]

I agree in part. I may be understanding wrong but I understood he hasn't spoken to LEO since those 1 phone call and 2 video interviews 9/3 & 9/4/14. Now this may be where the media interviews come in, I don't know what they say.

Thoughts on if he did meet up with someone and she went with them. Could be a possibility. Even if slim chance, and in that scenario he may have seen something and or threatened. Not saying what happened as I don't know (or anyone else but EA). For that provision he would have to give more then I just left her with xx at xx and she OK. Jmho

On juror I would too. They can be held in contempt of court for violating his order. So it effects more than just trial. Jmho

I'm afraid that'll never be in the cards, he can't prove she was released safely as she is gone and presumed dead, he can't pin it on anyone else as there's no proof anyone else was ever connected to the kidnapping - he might try to make up another lying story but to what end? Inflame the jury further and guarantee the max sentence? He's better off keeping his mouth closed and hoping for an empathetic juror.

 

[b.humble]

*I have wondered if possible the (d) will be how State get EA to speak. Or hopes to. Jmho he would still have charge. So if say took stand and gave where left her for whatever reason it would be 2nd degree instead of first. It would be more info than have and no need for deal. Seems it built into statute. Could he still appeal the verdict? I thinking so but not a lawyer, also if did that would help him if told truth and explain away any of the charges of intent. I hope I understanding this (d) and that for whatever it could do to bring home Christina to her family. It believe he would have to explain some things factual. Jmho and hope

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm

Snipped by me to focus on question and subsection (d). I'm not a lawyer, but based on the statute and subsection's wording, EA would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he voluntarily released CM in a safe place.

I don't know what the legal definition for "safe place" is in the context of kidnapping, but I imagine it's somewhere a reasonable person would deem safe (ex: a hospital, a police station, back to PP's apartment, her dad's home, etc.) I also imagine this claim would require a witnesses (other than EA) or some kind of CCTV to confirm a safe release of CM. I don't think he could just say he let her out in a dark parking lot or on the side of the road in the middle of the night and have that be viewed as a "safe release".
Also, from my interpretation, it seems like raising this issue would require he admit to kidnapping or using deception to gain her compliance, which I don't see him doing.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure someone else here can give much more accurate or concrete insight*.

Posted this before I saw your response Geevee! I agree!

 

[Leader6518]

I'm thankful this wasn't a hung jury. I was worried about that because there must've been a hold out seeing as how it took them so long. I wouldn't want to be the one to decide his sentence either. I agree that it really should be up to the judge. Yikes. What an awful position to be in as a juror. I'm interested to hear testimony on Monday.

Are people still doing searches every Saturday? Does anyone know? In worried that he is too confident that she will never be found. Wth did he do with her that morning???? Where IS she?!?

You know, Cookie, that is a very true. With the questions the jury did ask, I felt they were not taking it lightly and wanted to prove or disprove the DTs case. Even if I felt he was guilty, I would want to validate any exculpatory evidence before sending EA off to prision. It would be the only way I could sleep at night. That is the key to reasonable doubt.

 

[Vail]

Well, whatever it was for, the hechizo jar didn't work in his favor did it