The Sidebar - Harris Trial #3 *VERDICT - GUILTY*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
FinallyRegistered said:
Sure, but Stoddard had no right to enter RH's phone without a search warrant, and yet, he was asking for the password. Twice.

June 2014 Supreme Court Ruling
"The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought," the ruling said. "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant."

Quote from CNN: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that police may not search the cell phones of criminal suspects upon arrest without a warrant -- a sweeping endorsement for privacy rights.

"By a 9-0 vote, the justices said smart phones and other electronic devices were not in the same category as wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement."

[video=cnn;crime/2014/06/25/tsr-toobin-cell-phone-supreme-court-ruling.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/index.html[/video]
Click to expand...


It's not as simple as that, apparently, especially since there is the matter of the legality of the LE's initial seizure of his phone at the scene. Wheee is THAT a complicated issue, but crucial of course, because they couldn't search it without a search warrant if they didn't already have it their possession..


Two warrants are required - one for the phone itself, a second to search the contents of the phone.

LE already had the phone. The SW they obtained the same night for the phone, 3 hours after RH's interview with Stoddard ended, was for the phone itself, not for searches on the phone.

But...Staley ruled that RH gave implied consent for LE to search those contents when he agreed to give LE his passcode. I don't believe any Georgian appellate court is going to disagree with her interpretation of the applicable laws.
 
The double standards in this thread are astounding. On the one hand, 15 year old girls who are asked to send pictures of their genitals to an adult man share blame for their actions. It doesn't matter that these girls don't have fully formed brains and that the man's actions are illegal. The girls are not "blameness."

On the other hand, we have a grown man, who has experience in LE, give LE his phone password, and people are crying foul. If he didn't want his phone searched, Ross should not have given them his password. He would have been completely within his right to deny consent.
 
arkansasmimi - I can't quote your post from the last thread but wanted to say something about your comments on the search, warrants, probable cause and "fruit of the poisonous tree."

I think there is virtually no chance the search warrants will be invalidated on review or that any further acquired evidence will be suppressed.

Can you explain why you think this is an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Hope4More said:
I don't think there was any "escalation" either, though I surely do see why the State wanted to press that narrative.
Click to expand...

RSBM.

I don't know. He googled age of consent, so he presumably knew what he was doing was illegal, yet he carried on. If one of the underage girls had offered to meet up with him for sex, would he have said no? I find that hard to believe. But we will never know for sure.

I'm glad he got caught before he could meet up with any underage girls (as far as we know), but I feel very sorry for the girls and women who got dragged into this mess. How absolutely traumatic to have to testify in court about then sexting you did. Even if the underage girls willingly sent the pictures, they could not have foreseen the consequences! Their hormones are all over the place and they are discovering their sexuality and experimenting, and they probably though that what they were doing was harmless and completely anonymous, and I hope they have not been too traumatised by all this.
 
GA_Peach said:
The double standards in this tread are astounding. On the one hand, 15 year old girls who are asked to send pictures of their genitals to an adult man share blame forvgeir actions. It doesn't matter that these girls don't have fully formed brains and that the man's actions are illegal. The girls are not "blameness." On the other hand, we have a grown man, who has experience in LE, give LE his phone password, and prople are crying foul. If he didn't want his phone searched, Ross should not have given them his password. He would have been completely within his right to deny consent.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we could fill up a whole separate thread with posters accusing other posters of having double-standards, lapses in logic, opinions based on speculation or emotion rather than the facts or evidence , biases for and against the defendant....the list of possibilities is long, eh?

One's poster's double standard is another poster's perspective that two points like the ones you note, are in fact completely unrelated, both as matter of law and factually.

Fact check.. That 15 year old girl claimed she was 18 , and willingly exchanged sexually explicit photos with a man who thought she was 18. The exchange of photos wasn't the transgression. That came when RH found out she was a minor and didn't stop what he was doing, immediately.
 
GA_Peach said:
The double standards in this thread are astounding. On the one hand, 15 year old girls who are asked to send pictures of their genitals to an adult man share blame for their actions. It doesn't matter that these girls don't have fully formed brains and that the man's actions are illegal. The girls are not "blameness."

On the other hand, we have a grown man, who has experience in LE, give LE his phone password, and people are crying foul. If he didn't want his phone searched, Ross should not have given them his password. He would have been completely within his right to deny consent.
Click to expand...

Agree. I believe that some things morally wrong are different legally. I def think RH is wrong about the sexting minors. I def think the minors were wrong too. 2 different things to me (minors are not on trial here but are equally wrong. JMHO no way they can be justified not to know what they did was wrong) And again, on the phone, just going by what surely will be an appeal issue because Def has already brought it up in hearings. Why RH did or didn't assert his right to not give password /not give. We have no clue.

JMHO, my opinion doesn't make a hill of beans on any outcome of this case. Or the other either. I would think the State and Defense know more about what is what than any of us. I just following along.
 
[video=twitter;798183097602752512]https://twitter.com/DuffieDixon/status/798183097602752512[/video]
 
minor4th said:
Thanks for finding this.

It will be subject to appeal once there is a final judgment in the case. But it is almost impossible to have a search warrant invalidated on appeal.
Click to expand...

That's the whole enchilada doc, actually, the Jan 2016 denial of the DT's Motion to Suppress ALL evidence found on all phones and electronic devices.

It's also worth the read for Staley's narrative about how LE conducted their initial investigation.
 
arkansasmimi said:
Agree. I believe that some things morally wrong are different legally. I def think RH is wrong about the sexting minors. I def think the minors were wrong too. 2 different things to me (minors are not on trial here but are equally wrong. JMHO no way they can be justified not to know what they did was wrong) And again, on the phone, just going by what surely will be an appeal issue because Def has already brought it up in hearings. Why RH did or didn't assert his right to not give password /not give. We have no clue.

JMHO, my opinion doesn't make a hill of beans on any outcome of this case. Or the other either. I would think the State and Defense know more about what is what than any of us. I just following along.
Click to expand...

Additionally, the teen, "Chelsea" came forward to LE on her own. She's the one who told them she'd had contact with RH on June 18, the day Cooper was killed.
 
Vinnie says the jury appears happy and refreshed today.
 
minor4th said:
arkansasmimi - I can't quote your post from the last thread but wanted to say something about your comments on the search, warrants, probable cause and "fruit of the poisonous tree."

I think there is virtually no chance the search warrants will be invalidated on review or that any further acquired evidence will be suppressed.

Can you explain why you think this is an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Haven't a clue if they will or won't be. Just making not that Kilgore has raised the issue and that JMHO was putting on the record for appeals purposes. That was prior to the March 2016 indictments. I am not sure if they have had any hearing on those charges or not. Personally I was not aware of them until GA Peach told me and it was confusing at first looking at the docket. JMHO if Kilgore brought it up on these charges, do you think he will or wont't on those 8 charges?
 
Rayemonde said:
RSBM.

I don't know. He googled age of consent, so he presumably knew what he was doing was illegal, yet he carried on. If one of the underage girls had offered to meet up with him for sex, would he have said no? I find that hard to believe. But we will never know for sure.

I'm glad he got caught before he could meet up with any underage girls (as far as we know), but I feel very sorry for the girls and women who got dragged into this mess. How absolutely traumatic to have to testify in court about then sexting you did. Even if the underage girls willingly sent the pictures, they could not have foreseen the consequences! Their hormones are all over the place and they are discovering their sexuality and experimenting, and they probably though that what they were doing was harmless and completely anonymous, and I hope they have not been too traumatised by all this.
Click to expand...


The State wasn't referring to escalation of his sexual activities in general, they were referring to an overall escalation of everything, including his problems at work, in the very specific timeframe of May - June, 2014.

I don't see the evidence to support that contention about his sexual activities (he had sexted with minors going back as far as 2 years). His work, not even sure, because we weren't presented with evidence about just when it was he began slacking off. All we heard was that he demonstrated great promise as an intern, then not so much.

Do we know when he googled age of consent? I thought whatever witness said that couldn't be determined? In any case, I don't interpret that sesrch as an escalation of what he was already doing and continued to do, so much as a willful choice to disregard any potential consequences. Recklessness, perhaps?
 
[video=twitter;798187324693585920]https://twitter.com/DuffieDixon/status/798187324693585920[/video]
 
Hope4More said:
The State wasn't referring to escalation of his sexual activities in general, they were referring to an overall escalation of everything, including his problems at work, in the very specific timeframe of May - June, 2014.

I don't see the evidence to support that contention about his sexual activities (he had sexted with minors going back as far as 2 years). His work, not even sure, because we weren't presented with evidence about just when it was he began slacking off. All we heard was that he demonstrated great promise as an intern, then not so much.

Fo we know when he googled age of consent? I thought whatever witness said that couldn't be determined? In any case, I don't interpret that sesrch as an escalation of what he was already doing and continued to do, so much as a willful choice to disregard any potential consequences. Recklessness, perhaps?
Click to expand...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia...-taylor-justin-ross-harris-destroyed-my-life/

But Taylor spoke of her former husband in much harsher terms Tuesday after prosecutors questioned how well she really knew him. Evidence in the trial has shown Harris, not long before his son’s death, met a prostitute for sex. He went online seeking sexual encounters with men and women. The day Cooper died, Harris was swapping sexual text messages with a 17-year-old girl, asking for a photo of her breasts.

“Basically you had no idea how his behavior was escalating over the years,” prosecutor Chuck Boring said.

Taylor broke down. She had previously said sexual problems plagued her marriage to Harris and they sought counseling years earlier after he confessed to frequently viewing *advertiser censored*. Taylor said she hadn’t known until after their son’s death that Harris was having physical affairs.
 
GA_Peach said:
The double standards in this thread are astounding. On the one hand, 15 year old girls who are asked to send pictures of their genitals to an adult man share blame for their actions. It doesn't matter that these girls don't have fully formed brains and that the man's actions are illegal. The girls are not "blameness."

On the other hand, we have a grown man, who has experience in LE, give LE his phone password, and people are crying foul. If he didn't want his phone searched, Ross should not have given them his password. He would have been completely within his right to deny consent.
Click to expand...

I agree! I can't wrap my mind around being a RH apologist given all we know. In terms of the young girls sharing responsibility for the images they sent: NO. IMO: Girls who are seeking out attention from older men at such a young age likely do not have the best self esteem and may not have supportive families. They are looking for something to fill a gap and are much more vulnerable IMO. We've discussed cases of missing girls who had questionable online behavior and they don't get blamed for how their actions contributed to their situation. We don't blame girls for being groomed by predators. We know nothing about these girls or what has led them to think it is a good choice to send photos of their bodies to strangers.

They are victims of RH. We don't blame victims at WS, so stop blaming those girls.
 
popsicle said:
Vinnie says the jury appears happy and refreshed today.
Click to expand...

Maybe they had a decision Thursday and decided to take the weekend to make sure they felt it was the right choice.
 
Got started late and already taking a morning break.. never seen a jury like this
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 114 more.
Total: 3,376 (members: 115, guests: 3,261)

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
3,261
Total visitors
3,376
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,282
Messages
17,966,562
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top