Verdict=**Guilty** & poll

[ChickenPants]

I have not posted until today in this trial. It's my belief that the defense was "inefficient" because they did not believe in Tammi's innocence. As a "juror", trying to keep an open mind, I did not hear anything from the defense to rebut that Tammi's actions were deliberately criminal. Because Tammi did not enter insanity plea, the Judge ordered that no inferences of mental pathology could be allowed in and she was not allowed medical experts to testify to her so-called "abusive childhood", and etc. HOWEVER, and in spite of that ruling, the prosecution came out of the gate with words like "obsessed", Rachel Hunter was allowed to testify and if you think about it, she had no connection to the charges. They wrapped up their closing argument with the entire focus on criminal intent. The defense had every opportunity to voice objections or ask the judge to strike testimony but they did not. Tammi's lead attorney, Anne Phillips, stated that she agreed Tammi "talked too much" and made comments such as "you don't have to like her", but presented absolutely no evidence or witnesses to indicate that Tammi did not have a criminal intent. It will be interesting to see what evidence of good character, if any, is presented in the upcoming hearing.

To me, sometimes what is not said is as important as what IS said at a trial. And in this case, the silence of the defense, their watery cross-examinations and their lame closing argument spoke volumes about the truth.

 

[SAgal]

I have not posted until today in this trial. It's my belief that the defense was "inefficient" because they did not believe in Tammi's innocence. As a "juror", trying to keep an open mind, I did not hear anything from the defense to rebut that Tammi's actions were deliberately criminal. Because Tammi did not enter insanity plea, the Judge ordered that no inferences of mental pathology could be allowed in and she was not allowed medical experts to testify to her so-called "abusive childhood", and etc. HOWEVER, and in spite of that ruling, the prosecution came out of the gate with words like "obsessed", Rachel Hunter was allowed to testify and if you think about it, she had no connection to the charges. They wrapped up their closing argument with the entire focus on criminal intent. The defense had every opportunity to voice objections or ask the judge to strike testimony but they did not. Tammi's lead attorney, Anne Phillips, stated that she agreed Tammi "talked too much" and made comments such as "you don't have to like her", but presented absolutely no evidence or witnesses to indicate that Tammi did not have a criminal intent. It will be interesting to see what evidence of good character, if any, is presented in the upcoming hearing.

To me, sometimes what is not said is as important as what IS said at a trial. And in this case, the silence of the defense, their watery cross-examinations and their lame closing argument spoke volumes about the truth.

I didn't get the impression that the Prosecutor's use of "obesessed" implied that TPS had any type of mental disturbance, complusion or phobia. I had the impression that the Prosecutor was saying TPS being "obsessed," meant TPS was determined, intent, persistent, tenacious. But, that was just my impression and my opinion.

 

[seattlechiquita]

So this isn't for her sentencing, right?

Nope -sentencing was scheduled for July 6, 1:30 Arizona time

 

[ChickenPants]

I didn't get the impression that the Prosecutor's use of "obesessed" implied that TPS had any type of mental disturbance, complusion or phobia. I had the impression that the Prosecutor was saying TPS being "obsessed," meant TPS was determined, intent, persistent, tenacious. But, that was just my impression and my opinion.

I agree with you but it is tricky. Even in the medical field, doctors are the only ones allowed to use specific terminology such as "obsessed" and it must relate to a clinical diagnosis. They have to refer to a specific behavior and say "as evidenced by...." said behavior. We know that in our politically-correct society we aren't allowed to label. You are not supposed to say a person is "autistic", but rather that the person "has autism", etc.

It was not only the specific terms used, it was amplified by the context and the repetitive statements. Personally I am convinced (IMO) the prosecutor knew exactly what she was doing, she did it from the beginning and wove it throughout the entire trial. The Motion for Re-Trial is based on Prosecutorial Misconduct and it mentions the prosecutor calling Tammi a "liar' and making vocal signals such as clearing her throat, etc.

In any event, the defense did nothing to object, rebut or redeem Tammi's character. You can't argue for your client after the prosecution's rebuttal but there were many, many times when an objection would have been appropriate IF you wanted to get your client off.....I got the impression her attorney did not even like her.

 

[saba]

I agree with you but it is tricky. Even in the medical field, doctors are the only ones allowed to use specific terminology such as "obsessed" and it must relate to a clinical diagnosis. They have to refer to a specific behavior and say "as evidenced by...." said behavior. We know that in our politically-correct society we aren't allowed to label. You are not supposed to say a person is "autistic", but rather that the person "has autism", etc.

It was not only the specific terms used, it was amplified by the context and the repetitive statements. Personally I am convinced (IMO) the prosecutor knew exactly what she was doing, she did it from the beginning and wove it throughout the entire trial. The Motion for Re-Trial is based on Prosecutorial Misconduct and it mentions the prosecutor calling Tammi a "liar' and making vocal signals such as clearing her throat, etc.
In any event, the defense did nothing to object, rebut or redeem Tammi's character. You can't argue for your client after the prosecution's rebuttal but there were many, many times when an objection would have been appropriate IF you wanted to get your client off.....I got the impression her attorney did not even like her.

bbm- Hi ChickenPants. Do you have a link that discusses the motion(s)? TIA

 

[ChickenPants]

bbm- Hi ChickenPants. Do you have a link that discusses the motion(s)? TIA

I saw and reviewed the original motion but did not save it. There has been a supplementary one filed as well that I have not seen.

 

[ChickenPants]

I was able to locate the document but can't cut/paste it. It is a Motion for a new trial and/or judgment of acquittal.

The main points are that prosecution failed to prove defendant's intent to defraud. It cites among other things that custody of Gabrial was not established for McQueary until December 17 and the baby was returned December 18.

It further cites prosecutorial misconduct and brings up supportive case law. States that prosecutor argued that Tammi did not rebut Rachel Hoover's testimony and also refers to prosecutor telling the jury that Tammi's clearing her throat indicated she was lying. It states that prosecutor is not a doctor and it was inappropriate to make that comment, etc.

Other that what I have mentioned, there is nothing significant. I don't see the judge granting it based on those grounds.

 

[artsy1]

I was able to locate the document but can't cut/paste it. It is a Motion for a new trial and/or judgment of acquittal.

The main points are that prosecution failed to prove defendant's intent to defraud. It cites among other things that custody of Gabrial was not established for McQueary until December 17 and the baby was returned December 18.

It further cites prosecutorial misconduct and brings up supportive case law. States that prosecutor argued that Tammi did not rebut Rachel Hoover's testimony and also refers to prosecutor telling the jury that Tammi's clearing her throat indicated she was lying. It states that prosecutor is not a doctor and it was inappropriate to make that comment, etc.

Other that what I have mentioned, there is nothing significant. I don't see the judge granting it based on those grounds.

If you can't cut and paste it, can you provide a link so we can see it, too? Otherwise, how do you have access to it unless you are connected to Tammi Smith?

 

[daisynae]

DOES anyone know how to go about changing my name? Of course I mis=spelled it.
I was trying to type Daisy Mae. If it is going to be a hassle I will just leave it that way.
Thank you, I am enjoying all of your post, cannot wait til Monday!

 

[seattlechiquita]

If you can't cut and paste it, can you provide a link so we can see it, too? Otherwise, how do you have access to it unless you are connected to Tammi Smith?

OHAAAAAAAAAAI artsy!!! arty:

If that is prosecutorial misconduct, I'm Salma Hayek. Wait. Never mind. :floorlaugh:

 

[ChickenPants]

If you can't cut and paste it, can you provide a link so we can see it, too? Otherwise, how do you have access to it unless you are connected to Tammi Smith?

I am friends with some people who have been involved in this case for a long time, who shared the document with me. I had deleted it from my computer and then when you asked, tried to Google and was unsuccessful, went back and was able to retrieve it. Actually I am not comfortable under the rules here to even try to post it in its entirety. It seems that a lot of people on this board are WAY more familiar with a lot of information I never knew, either.

I am aware that a supplement to the motion has been filed but do not know what is in it, nor do I have any source that can tell me.

I was on WS for another case a couple of years back; since there is no closure on this yet I wanted to check in and see what others had to say. And share my opinion based on what I observed about the legal aspects of the case. I'd like to hear anyone's opinions about what the Judge's decisions might be for the 703 and the sentencing based on all of the factors involved. Thanks.

 

[ChickenPants]

OHAAAAAAAAAAI artsy!!! arty:

If that is prosecutorial misconduct, I'm Salma Hayek. Wait. Never mind. :floorlaugh:

Have to agree with you there. However, that is what was submitted. It seems to prove my point that defense has been "going through the motions" (no pun intended) all along. I've seen some poor defenses, but this one is way up on the top of the list. The only possible reasons I could think of were (1) the public defender was assigned was just incompetent, disinterested, had better things to do; (2) didn't believe the client was innocent and couldn't bring herself to bring a strong defense, or (3) had a reason to WANT the client convicted.

Just my observations, purely from a perspective of watching litigators doing their jobs, it was strange. The two main attorneys (prosecution and defense) needed a What Not To Wear intervention, they both looked like they just rolled out of bed....the prosecutor's voice sounded like nails on a blackboard, monotone and whining....the defense looked like she was sleepwalking and had she said NOTHING it would have been more effective than throwing in a few token remarks that showed she didn't seem to care one way or another. Perhaps I am the only one who has this view.

 

[saba]

I have not posted until today in this trial. It's my belief that the defense was "inefficient" because they did not believe in Tammi's innocence. As a "juror", trying to keep an open mind, I did not hear anything from the defense to rebut that Tammi's actions were deliberately criminal. Because Tammi did not enter insanity plea, the Judge ordered that no inferences of mental pathology could be allowed in and she was not allowed medical experts to testify to her so-called "abusive childhood", and etc. HOWEVER, and in spite of that ruling, the prosecution came out of the gate with words like "obsessed", Rachel Hunter was allowed to testify and if you think about it, she had no connection to the charges. They wrapped up their closing argument with the entire focus on criminal intent. The defense had every opportunity to voice objections or ask the judge to strike testimony but they did not. Tammi's lead attorney, Anne Phillips, stated that she agreed Tammi "talked too much" and made comments such as "you don't have to like her", but presented absolutely no evidence or witnesses to indicate that Tammi did not have a criminal intent. It will be interesting to see what evidence of good character, if any, is presented in the upcoming hearing.

To me, sometimes what is not said is as important as what IS said at a trial. And in this case, the silence of the defense, their watery cross-examinations and their lame closing argument spoke volumes about the truth.

Well... a few thoughts. It's tough to discuss an issue when only one of us has access to the actual document. There have been a lot of closed group discussions, and the rumors (and screencaps) are flying.

I thought Rachel Hoover's testimony was admitted as a similar act. Isn't that different from character evidence? I was surprised that neither Tammi nor Jack contradicted her testimony that the Smiths wanted her to put Jack's name on the birth certificate. Just my opinion , but since we don't have the benefit of reading the motion, who knows what else might be there.

IMO "I meant well," isn't a defense to a criminal charge. Intent is to do the act, for whatever reason. Similarly, "Obsessed" is often used generally. For example, we are all obsessed with finding Gabriel.

Sad to say, many defendants can recount an abusive childhood. I expect to hear about it at sentencing but I think Judge K was right to exclude this evidence at trial.

All just my opinion.

 

[ChickenPants]

Well... a few thoughts. It's tough to discuss an issue when only one of us has access to the actual document. There have been a lot of closed group discussions, and the rumors (and screencaps) are flying.

I thought Rachel Hoover's testimony was admitted as a similar act. Isn't that different from character evidence? I was surprised that neither Tammi nor Jack contradicted her testimony that the Smiths wanted her to put Jack's name on the birth certificate. Just my opinion , but since we don't have the benefit of reading the motion, who knows what else might be there.

IMO "I meant well," isn't a defense to a criminal charge. Intent is to do the act, for whatever reason. Similarly, "Obsessed" is often used generally. For example, we are all obsessed with finding Gabriel.

Sad to say, many defendants can recount an abusive childhood. I expect to hear about it at sentencing but I think Judge K was right to exclude this evidence at trial.

All just my opinion.

I would have to go back and pull up the motion again and type it word for word here, it wouldn't give you any more information. It sets forth exactly what I said. It really doesn't have much force (cites some other cases) or merit, IMO.

As far as Rachel Hunter goes, my perspective is that she was peripheral to the spefiic charges, i.e., had nothing to do with Elizabeth Johnson, Gabriel or Logan McQueary, custodial interference or forgery related to Logan McQueary. Her being called appeared to set a scenario of a pattern of Tammi's behavior, from what I could tell. That was successful, but again she could give no testimony relevant to the charges.

The confusing thing about the forgery issue was not cleared up when Tammi's attorney testified that he told her to put a fictitious name. I am not sure I understand that issue. In Gabriel's case, there was Elizabeth saying the paternity was questionable and as I understand it, the attorney o-kayed the fictitious name UNTIL paternity had been established... and Arizona law says paternity for out of wedlock children must be established by DNA. Apparently Elizabeth and/or Logan could not afford to pay for that so she went ahead and named him as the father. As of this date he has never taken a DNA test as far as I know. This is another confusing issue which really has no specific bearing on Tammi's interference. It's just strange.

I totally agree that it seems as though everyone uses abusive childhood as excuse for entitlement to get away with anything. I don't argue at all with the Judge's decision to keep that out. Even if it had been allowed in, I'm not sure a jury would have bought it. All I am is saying is the prosecution got around it through inference and they were smart. It kind of blows my mind that the defense was either totally blindsided them or just chose not to deal with it.

So many players and agendas in this case and the poor baby got totally lost in it all. A lot of complicated information, but who was really ever looking out for this little one? So many people could have done SOMETHING.

As they say, if it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck....it's a duck.

 

[saba]

Have to agree with you there. However, that is what was submitted. It seems to prove my point that defense has been "going through the motions" (no pun intended) all along. I've seen some poor defenses, but this one is way up on the top of the list. The only possible reasons I could think of were (1) the public defender was assigned was just incompetent, disinterested, had better things to do; (2) didn't believe the client was innocent and couldn't bring herself to bring a strong defense, or (3) had a reason to WANT the client convicted.

Just my observations, purely from a perspective of watching litigators doing their jobs, it was strange. The two main attorneys (prosecution and defense) needed a What Not To Wear intervention, they both looked like they just rolled out of bed....the prosecutor's voice sounded like nails on a blackboard, monotone and whining....the defense looked like she was sleepwalking and had she said NOTHING it would have been more effective than throwing in a few token remarks that showed she didn't seem to care one way or another. Perhaps I am the only one who has this view.

bbm

"Had reason to WANT the client convicted" Really? An evil conspiracy to serve up her client? Please. Anne Phillips may not be the greatest attorney in the world but she had nothing to work with. Tammi Smith confessed to the particulars of the crimes she was charged with in the investigation stage of the case. Then, because she thought she was smarter than everyone else, including her attorney, she took the stand and sealed her fate.

I appreciate your perspective, Chicken, but I think an ineffective assistance of counsel argument is going nowhere fast.

moo

 

[ChickenPants]

bbm

"Had reason to WANT the client convicted" Really? An evil conspiracy to serve up her client? Please. Anne Phillips may not be the greatest attorney in the world but she had nothing to work with. Tammi Smith confessed to the particulars of the crimes she was charged with in the investigation stage of the case. Then, because she thought she was smarter than everyone else, including her attorney, she took the stand and sealed her fate.

I appreciate your perspective, Chicken, but I think an ineffective assistance of counsel argument is going nowhere fast.

moo

You mistake me. I disagree that Anne Phillips had nothing to work with, otherwise the jury would not have deliberated as long. It was a tricky trial, legally, because there were so many issues involved. Perhaps I mis-stated when I said she would WANT the client convicted....certainly she would not want to "serve her up"....but, she missed far too many opportunities to make objections to the most obvious things. Things that she is objecting to after the verdict. I have to wonder why.

The fact is, today's prosecutors are tomorrow's defense attorneys and vice versa. There are always politics involved. She did not fight for her client. The contrast between her and the prosecutor was extreme. That is what I saw.

I did not say that I agree with the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct for a retrial. IMO if defense thought prosecutors were unfair they had every opportunity to object during the trial and even the closing arguments, and if I was the Judge, that is what I would rule.

Thanks for the respectful discussions.

 

[ChickenPants]

I don't think this judge is going to amend any verdict because it is alleged that prosecutors did not prove the crimes. That would be like overturning the jury's verdict. IMO for him that would be kind of a career suicide. MO.

 

[artsy1]

I would have to go back and pull up the motion again and type it word for word here, it wouldn't give you any more information. It sets forth exactly what I said. It really doesn't have much force (cites some other cases) or merit, IMO.

As far as Rachel Hunter goes, my perspective is that she was peripheral to the spefiic charges, i.e., had nothing to do with Elizabeth Johnson, Gabriel or Logan McQueary, custodial interference or forgery related to Logan McQueary. Her being called appeared to set a scenario of a pattern of Tammi's behavior, from what I could tell. That was successful, but again she could give no testimony relevant to the charges.

The confusing thing about the forgery issue was not cleared up when Tammi's attorney testified that he told her to put a fictitious name. I am not sure I understand that issue. In Gabriel's case, there was Elizabeth saying the paternity was questionable and as I understand it, the attorney o-kayed the fictitious name UNTIL paternity had been established... and Arizona law says paternity for out of wedlock children must be established by DNA. Apparently Elizabeth and/or Logan could not afford to pay for that so she went ahead and named him as the father. As of this date he has never taken a DNA test as far as I know. This is another confusing issue which really has no specific bearing on Tammi's interference. It's just strange.

I totally agree that it seems as though everyone uses abusive childhood as excuse for entitlement to get away with anything. I don't argue at all with the Judge's decision to keep that out. Even if it had been allowed in, I'm not sure a jury would have bought it. All I am is saying is the prosecution got around it through inference and they were smart. It kind of blows my mind that the defense was either totally blindsided them or just chose not to deal with it.

So many players and agendas in this case and the poor baby got totally lost in it all. A lot of complicated information, but who was really ever looking out for this little one? So many people could have done SOMETHING.

As they say, if it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck....it's a duck.

BBM

Publicly, we don't know that Logan has ever taken a paternity test. However, IMHO, knowing that Tammi's defense has always been claiming that Logan was not Gabriel's father, I really suspect that LE or the prosecution has done a paternity test, maybe even without Logan knowing about it. I'm sure when Gabriel disappeared, hairbrushes, pacifiers, etc. that could have been used to prove Gabriel's identification had he been found was taken at some point by LE, and if Logan had submitted his own DNA, say at the time the landfill in SA was searched, it's possible that a paternity test had been done quietly at some point. Because if the prosecution could cut off the defense by providing Ms. Phillips a copy of the paternity, Phillips would have looked like an idiot if she claimed non-paternity by Logan if she had results that proved he was. That's why IMHO, I think one was already done.

As far as no one doing anything to look out for Gabriel - Logan tried, and IMHO, did everything he should have. He had tried to tell the judge at the custody hearing how EJ treated Gabriel, and the judge cut him off and wouldn't listen. He even called CPS to investigate, which resulted in nothing. When he went to pick up Gabriel, and EJ was gone, again, Logan called the court and was told to wait and see if she showed up. He contacted LE who told him it was a custody dispute that needed to be settled in court. He contacted LE again to say that EJ had run off with Gabriel and was in SA - but again was told it was just a custody dispute. It wasn't until EJ told Logan that she had killed Gabriel that anyone listened to Logan. So what else was he supposed to be doing?


ETA: And he had tried to keep Gabriel away from EJ, only to have her call LE and accuse him of kidnapping. And the fact the EJ called LE and accused Logan again of kidnapping after she gave him to the Smiths, IMHO, only prove what a liar EJ is, and/or how bad her mental problems are.

 

[saba]

I don't think this judge is going to amend any verdict because it is alleged that prosecutors did not prove the crimes. That would be like overturning the jury's verdict. IMO for him that would be kind of a career suicide. MO.

Ha- we agree on something. I do think Angela Andrews was on a mission
and it showed.

My favorite, though, was Mr. Lee, who said he has a wife and five kids.
He made it his business to never ever look at Tammi's cleavage. Hilarious.

:seeya:

Night all- there's a bball game I gotta watch.

 

[ChickenPants]

BBM

Publicly, we don't know that Logan has ever taken a paternity test. However, IMHO, knowing that Tammi's defense has always been claiming that Logan was not Gabriel's father, I really suspect that LE or the prosecution has done a paternity test, maybe even without Logan knowing about it. I'm sure when Gabriel disappeared, hairbrushes, pacifiers, etc. that could have been used to prove Gabriel's identification had he been found was taken at some point by LE, and if Logan had submitted his own DNA, say at the time the landfill in SA was searched, it's possible that a paternity test had been done quietly at some point. Because if the prosecution could cut off the defense by providing Ms. Phillips a copy of the paternity, Phillips would have looked like an idiot if she claimed non-paternity by Logan if she had results that proved he was. That's why IMHO, I think one was already done.

As far as no one doing anything to look out for Gabriel - Logan tried, and IMHO, did everything he should have. He called tried to tell the judge at the custody hearing how EJ treated Gabriel, and the judge cut him off and wouldn't listen. He even called CPS to investigate, which resulted in nothing. When he went to pick up Gabriel, and EJ was gone, again, Logan called the court and was told to wait and see if she showed up. He contacted LE who told him it was a custody dispute that needed to be settled in court. He contacted LE again to say that EJ had run off with Gabriel and was in SA - but again was told it was just a custody dispute. It wasn't until EJ told Logan that she had killed Gabriel that anyone listened to Logan. So what else was he supposed to be doing?

Everything you have said is interesting; some of it I've heard before and some of it is new. Some of it is speculation and we may never know, such as the DNA. I would think that even if defense did not, as you say, want to take the chance the DNA would prove Logan was the father, the prosecution would come out front - urge Logan to do it to CLARIFY once and for all that he is - end of that story. The DNA evidence would greatly bolster his case, seal it, as it were, and could do nothing to hurt him. I have always puzzled as to why he just didn't do it.

The issues with Logan's specific participation or lack of in Gabriel's care aren't really relevant to the charges. As of December 17 he was awarded his custody. What happened PRIOR to that we only partially know, and it wasn't discussed at trial. It wasn't put into evidence. We know as he admitted he was in and out of jail and even news commentators have questioned why he kept going back to Elizabeth following her violent outbursts and her neglect of the baby...I must say I wondered why somebody wasn't more vigilant, knowing about what he states was her unstable personality and violent tendencies.

When I stated that nobody cared about the baby I was referring to the bigger picture. Elizabeth apparently never wanted to have a baby, but she had him, and he was born into a volitale relationship....it's pathetic when you think he was only 7 months old and so innocent while these 2 were going at it with the breaking up and making up and etc., left with strangers for nine days, shuttled here and there.....apparently her grandmother didn't want him and I don't see where his (Logan's) father did anything to help care for the baby when he was in jail, etc., his mother literally giving him away, I see this little guy being shoved around by a bunch of adults who all had their own agendas first. Well now the trial is over and one adult in the scenario has been convicted. We will have to wait and see what the judge decides.