Sunday Evening Jury, On the Charge of Murder You Find:

[Lovejac]

RH got Cooper ready for the day, strapped him in his car seat, drove him to CFA, unstrapped him, took him into CFA, ate breakfast with him, strapped him back into his car seat, kissed him and then forgot about him in 30 seconds.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Thank you.

I thought there weren't At&t records or whatever carrier's logs yet. I don't think the times have been matched up yet from watching the video of his hearing. I'll watch again for the 3rd time.

 

[gitana1]

As of this moment, I would acquit, because I have not heard enough evidence to meet the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict JRH on an intentional murder charge. Yes, I have questions about some of his odd behavior, but these questions do not add up to solid, unshakeable proof that JRH intentionally killed Cooper. But we'll see how I feel after more evidence comes forward.

Believing someone is guilty of murder and stating your opinion on a forum is one thing, and is perfectly legitimate. Serving as a a juror and finding someone guilty of murder based on evidence and the law is another thing.

Some things I'd like to know: Did JRH complain to anyone (in person or online) about having a child, or express any frustrations about raising his son? Did he talk about leaving his wife? Are there witnesses who will say he was a neglectful or uninterested father, or only witnesses that will report he was a loving, attentive father? Is there any evidence Cooper was abused? Was Cooper involved in any other "accidents"? Had either JRH or his wife recently checked on Cooper's insurance policy?

In addition to my skepticism that a tech-savvy web developer would send incriminating texts while his son was dying in his car, I think that there are much more foolproof ways to kill a small child and make it look like an accident. Leaving a child in your car in an employee parking lot would carry a lot of risk that someone would see or hear the child, or that he would survive but be permanently disabled. Granted, neither of these arguments proves he's innocent - he could be a stupid, impulsive or arrogant criminal. But in our judicial system, you do not need to prove your innocence - a jury needs to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or find you not guilty.

I am curious as to why LE charged JRH that very evening -- the swiftness is unusual. Either they have much more evidence than we know, or maybe they rushed to judgment. Time will tell!

In any case, I enjoy the civil debate here, even if it is one-sided. Strangely enough, you usually find me on the guilty side of the fence. Are there any others, like me, who think it is possible that this was an accident?

At some point, I wondered I believed there could possibly be a chance it was an accident. An accident didn't match with what we knew - that LE had leaked that the father googled how long it takes to die in a care, the extreme harshness of the charges and the fact that it was only about 3 minutes from Chik-fil-A to his work.

Now, with everything that has come out, I think the accident theory is virtually impossible.

But this felony murder does not necessitate intent. That's what's so genius about it. It necessitates that Ross Harris be found criminally negligent in the death of his son.

That means that all the jury has to find is that Ross Harris had not only knowledge of probable consequences of leaving Cooper in a car, but also willful or wanton disregard of the probable effects of his conduct in "forgetting" him. They need to find that Ross Harris had a "reckless disregard of consequences, or a heedless indifference to the rights and safety of others, and a reasonable foresight that injury would probably result" and that Cooper died as a result of his father's criminal negligence, in a cruel and//or excessively painful manner. The jury specifically does not need to find intent to harm: http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-5-70.html
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/the-crime-of-reckless-conduct-in-georgia

Would you be able to find him guilty of felony murder via criminal negligence?

I'd also like to say to La_Cavaliere that if RH had had you as attorney making those arguments during the probable cause hearing perhaps he would have at least gotten bail!

Those are really good thoughts that hadn't occurred to me because mentally I've been chasing the motive angle re: the sexting but not closing the gap. It pays to look at every angle. Not every question will get an answer on either side of the debate but good questions deserve to be raised and thought through. Once the defense gathers their thoughts they will surely come back to the points you raised.

The sheer absurdity of all the sexting on the day you kill your son and agitating the police by cursing at them does seem highly reckless if the killing was intentional. You'd think he'd have moved his efforts to a different mobile device or taken a few days off and cleaned up his phone if he were executing a master plan. My "he's guilty" mind says he was well used to getting away with deception and never expected to be arrested for something that to him would obviously appear to be an accident.

The idea that it was a risky way to murder the child is an interesting one too. I had wondered and still wonder how he parked. The possibility of a passerby seeing or hearing Cooper seems to be there, but I'd want to see the parking lot video.

I thought about the risk angle as well. But the risk would not have resulted in much more than a live Cooper. In other words, he risked his plans not coming to full fruition but not much else, if someone found his child right away. So the risk was worth it.

Me

Yes, that is what I am hung up on as well. For a planned murder, this guy did some stupid things. I guess it's possible that he and his wife aren't saavy about how police catch criminals. Me, I'm an addicted watcher of Investigation Discovery and it continues to amaze me what dumb things people do. On the other hand, I see lots of situations where it seems like a slam dunk that a certain person did the crime, and it turns out not to be the case.

I guess to be honest, I don't want to believe someone could be so callous to kill their child this way and then go about their business doing his sextexting, etc. And then, all the other tidbits of information we get add up to him (and probably wife too) being so guilty.

In any case, this poll is about how we would vote now, if on the jury. I voted for choice #2.

Hi! I'm curious about the cases you felt were a slam dunk against a certain suspect that later were shown not to be. You mentioned there were several. I know of maybe one. Can you elaborate?

There's the issue for me. The idea of an accident needs to be less remote. One way to try to do that would be to show that RH was super distracted, as people these days often are, with activity on his phone. That'd be a fine line (possibly sexting as a defense??), and you'd still have to believe Cooper was asleep a minute or two later when they parked since RH sat in the car with him for 30 seconds doing something, and you'd have to believe he didn't see him backing up, or at lunch. Ah forget it, I can't get there myself! They'd also have to show you likely wouldn't see Cooper in the back during his slumber, to counter the prosecution contention that the child would have been in plain view any time you looked right or rearward.

I'll be surprised if over time the prosecution doesn't nail this one down even tighter.

Not only that, lets not forget that he always drove Cooper to daycare and went with him to Chik-fil-A twice per month or so. So how did he forget him in the 30 seconds it took from the time he strapped him in until he had to decide to turn left to work instead of right to the daycare?

As unusual it is for la_cavalière, it is to me too. To be sitting on the fence ever...I am at the moment. Now tomorrow might bring more damning evidence, but for now I think the sexting got the better of him to make such a horrible mistake. People do stupid things, only JRH did the most unthinkable by using his other brain that day. Not sure how you could live with yourself knowing Cooper's dead & you caused it. What a shame.

(no tomatoes please, I could be right with the majority after more comes out) tyvm

No tomatoes!! But, the evidence thus far shows Ross Harris never made any phone calls from the car. And Cooper was awake and interacting at Chik-fil-A. And the dad always took Cooper to daycare. And the restaurant stop was a regular routine of theirs.

So, how did Harris forget him in the 30 seconds it took from the time he strapped him in until he had to decide to turn left to work instead of right to the daycare? I mean forget what he was doing at work. Nothing makes sense about his decision not to drive to daycare in that tiny window of time. IMO.

 

[jojo87]

Guilty
He brings him to daycare every day it's more likely he'd forget and go to daycare on a day Cooper wasn't with him than "forget" his everyday routine. I think he made a considered decision not to make that turn to the daycare otherwise he would have did it without thinking.
Motive: money and the desire to be free and single.
Just my opinion and coming from someone who was/is on the fence about Casey.

 

[SStarr33]

There needs to be a choice for just negligent. You never know, LE could be doing some spinning on the "evidence".

 

[eileenhawkeye]

But this felony murder does not necessitate intent. That's what's so genius about it. It necessitates that Ross Harris be found criminally negligent in the death of his son.

That means that all the jury has to find is that Ross Harris had not only knowledge of probable consequences of leaving Cooper in a car, but also willful or wanton disregard of the probable effects of his conduct in "forgetting" him. They need to find that Ross Harris had a "reckless disregard of consequences, or a heedless indifference to the rights and safety of others, and a reasonable foresight that injury would probably result" and that Cooper died as a result of his father's criminal negligence, in a cruel and//or excessively painful manner. The jury specifically does not need to find intent to harm: http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-5-70.html
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/the-crime-of-reckless-conduct-in-georgia

If intent does not need to be proven, then a jury could find him guilty even if they think it could be an accident? What if the jury decided to sentence him to just a few years b/c they feel that he has been punished enough? I worry that despite what the law says, for the jury to sentence him to LWOP or DP, they will need proof that it was intentional.

 

[Evan's Mom]

I believe that he is guilty, but with more evidence, I could go either way.

The biggest flag for me is that LE says he backed into his parking space. He literally had to turn around to see what he was doing and I can't understand how he could miss Cooper.

 

[InstantProof]

I believe that he is guilty, but with more evidence, I could go either way.

The biggest flag for me is that LE says he backed into his parking space. He literally had to turn around to see what he was doing and I can't understand how he could miss Cooper.

Maybe he is blind in both eyes.

 

[la_cavalière]

I believe that he is guilty, but with more evidence, I could go either way.

The biggest flag for me is that LE says he backed into his parking space. He literally had to turn around to see what he was doing and I can't understand how he could miss Cooper.

Not quite. He didn't back up into his parking space, he backed up before pulling forward into the space. He might very well have backed up with just a quick glance in the rear-view mirror. From the search warrant: "Harris passes a parking space, backs the vehicle up several feet and then pulls into a parking space near the back of the lot."

http://www.11alive.com/story/news/2014/07/04/hot-car-death-ross-harris/12211179/

 

[JudyBolton]

Yes and I foresee the DA using visual aids such as a mock up of the vehicle complete with car seat and model of a child Cooper's size and age - I think that would make for a very compelling image for a jury.

I agree! I think the detective stated that the car seat was almost between the two front bucket seats - CH's head was within 6" of RH's head. Think about that - 6" - I know they said this internet information barely scratched the surface - there could still be an Amber Frye type situation that emerges - but baring that - I think the mock-up of the car seat - the exact location in the car - the proximity to his head.... will all play a HUGE role in this if it goes to trial. IMHO

 

[sorrell skye]

If intent does not need to be proven, then a jury could find him guilty even if they think it could be an accident? What if the jury decided to sentence him to just a few years b/c they feel that he has been punished enough? I worry that despite what the law says, for the jury to sentence him to LWOP or DP, they will need proof that it was intentional.

BBM

According to Judge Cox, who presided over the probable cause hearing, the mandatory sentence upon conviction of 2nd degree child cruelty/felony murder is a minimum of life sentence with a minimum mandatory of 30 years in prison.

From CNN transcripts:

JUDGE: Well, based on the number one murder charge, obviously, and facing a minimum of life sentence with a minimum mandatory of 30 years in prison, and conceivably in the future a possible death penalty case, the court will deny bond today.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/03/cg.02.html

These are the sentencing guidelines for the charges, so the jury would not have the option to sentence RH to a few years if they felt he has been punished enough. The jury would be instructed to not consider the sentencing during the verdict phase. The sentencing phase would be a separate phase.

I know jurors don't always follow that directive, but they would be grossly remiss in their sworn duties if they ignored whatever evidence is admitted at trial and acquitted RH simply because they felt he has been punished enough or because they don't want to sentence him according to the statutory guidelines.

Jury selection is going to be an especially crucial component in this case, due to the emotional aspect.

 

[rabidstoat]

I think he's guilty, but I'd need more evidence to vote that it was intentionally done (is that what this poll is for?).

The two things that make me think he's guilty is the 'backing into the parking space' argument, and the 'in 30 seconds he could not forget his son and turn the wrong way' argument. I'd want to hear more about that. Right now I find it really hard to believe 'probable doubt', but I haven't heard a lot about it to know.

Things that are not swaying me include his motive for wanting to live child-free. I've been on reddit enough to know you can end up places by clicking links, and if he had been subscribed to that forum, they would have said. 4 posts read out of thousands? Not convincing. Lots of evidence that he liked his son. Sexting doesn't prove much for me, lots of guys are pigs (though I think he needs child *advertiser censored* charges for that minor). I'm just not swayed on the motive (but neither do I believe prosecution has to prove motive, necessarily).

Also not swayed by the tossing in of the lightning bulbs, as I think there's reasonable doubt there. Same with driving to the theater without pulling over, as others have driven with dead children in the car and not been overcome by the stench, as per kidsincars web site.

Here is my personal theory: his wife was honestly worried about children locked in car. They talked about it, and both read up on it. Wife was worried about it happening, and so was husband, but... ever have intrusive thoughts? You can google it, it's where you're driving down the road and you think 'I wonder what would happen if I jerked this car into oncoming traffic', and you don't do it, of course, because lots of people would get hurt, but the thought enters your mind. I think he did this unplanned. Like, he was driving out of Chick-Fil-A and had the intrusive thought of "I could just leave him in the car and my life would be a lot freer". But where most people don't act on these thoughts, he did. And when he did, he had a "holy s**t, what did I do???" moment and panicked and wished he could take it back but couldn't, which a rational person would know well in advance, killing is permanent. So everything was so chaotic because it wasn't planned. I think he might have realized it around the lunch stop, actually, and would be really interested in what happened in his afternoon after that. Did his behavior change?

 

[DeDee]

So many great posts here. I want to know what time Harris usually arrived at work. Perhaps he arrived late on this particular day in order to avoid the stream of employees who typically reported for work at 8:00 or 8:30.

I voted Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[magnolia]

If I had to vote as a Juror today, I would have to acquit on the charge of murder.

 

[gitana1]

If intent does not need to be proven, then a jury could find him guilty even if they think it could be an accident? What if the jury decided to sentence him to just a few years b/c they feel that he has been punished enough? I worry that despite what the law says, for the jury to sentence him to LWOP or DP, they will need proof that it was intentional.

This is what they would need to find in order to find him guilty of felony murder:

1. Ross Harris knew the likely consequences of forgetting or leaving Cooper in a hot car for hours. He had a reasonable "foresight" of the probable injuries of being left in a hot car.
2. He deliberately or recklessly disregarded the consequences of forgetting Cooper or was neglectfully indifferent to Cooper's rights and safety (did not care).
3. As a result of Ross Harris' reckless disregard of the consequences of leaving Cooper in a hot car, or as a result of his neglectful indifference to the rights and safety of Cooper, Cooper died.
4. Cooper died in a cruel and/or excessively painful manner.

It is unnecessary to find that a) Ross intended to kill Cooper. b) Ross intended to cause serious bodily harm to Cooper.

Can they find that it was a pure accident? Well, that depends on what you mean by accident. Is it an accident if a person forgets their children in car because they decided to get super high? They know it is dangerous. They should be more vigilant, but they are reckless or indifferent about the safety of their children, because their own needs, their own desires to go get wasted are more important?

Although that is not the situation here, that is a situation that could result in the same charges and it is one in which the actual death or the harm resulting from being baked in a hot car, was not intentional.

Going off the list above, here's how I think the charges could be proved:

1. Ross had recently been made very aware of hot car deaths involving children, via reading about the Georgia safe kids in cars program and by doing independent research of how long it would take a living being to die in a hot car. He was well aware of the danger to a child resulting in such an event.
2. Despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, Ross he didn't take reasonable precautions to prevent from forgetting Cooper, such as putting belongings he needed to take, in the back seat, attaching a note to his dash, having his wife call or text him after arrival at work, etc.
- Or, despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, he was quite unconcerned about the possibility of Cooper dying in a hot car, so he forget his kid in the 30 seconds it took to turn left or right out of the Chik-fil-A parking lot, and in the 2 to 3 minute drive to work, and in the 30 seconds he sat in his car before exiting, leaving Cooper behind.
- Or, despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, he just didn't care about what happened to Cooper and was more concerned about his own affairs, such as working, sexting, going to movie, so he just left him there, possibly knowing he left him or leaving without knowing when all the facts - 30 seconds after leaving the parking lot of Chik-fil-A, he turned the wrong direction, 3 minutes in a small car with an awake Cooper, he doesn't realize he needs to drop him off, 30 seconds parked in the lot, he doesn't realize Cooper is there, despite the fact that the car seat is jammed up against the side of his face, practically - show that he should have known.
3. Cooper died because his dad, despite clearly knowing what could happen to Cooper in a hot car:
a) took no reasonable precautions to stop from forgetting him;
b) didn't care what happened to Cooper and was narcissistically immersed in his own affairs or needs and desires instead of doing what he needed to keep Cooper safe, so he forget him;
c) knew Cooper was in the car but cared more about his own needs than Cooper's life or safety;
d) reasonably should have known Cooper was in the car, and should not have forgotten him under the circumstances, because a halfway decent parent would not have forgotten under those same circumstances.
4. Cooper died horribly with great suffering as shown by the frantic injuries to his head and face and his open eyes and protruding tongue.

I think that practically, the jury would have to find much more than a pure accident that could happen to many people - you know, a lot on the mind, little sleep, uncharacteristically quiet/asleep child during the drive, constant phone calls or distractions during the drive, a difference in routine that day, etc.

But they don't have to go all the way to finding he intended to murder Cooper or even that he intended to cause him any harm.

 

[gitana1]

I think he's guilty, but I'd need more evidence to vote that it was intentionally done (is that what this poll is for?).

Snipped by me for space.

That's my question. I mean, he is currently charged with felony murder which does not necessitate intent to harm or kill. So, is the poll asking whether we would find him guilty today of premeditated murder or felony murder?

If I had to vote as a Juror today, I would have to acquit on the charge of murder.

Felony murder? Or first degree premeditated murder? TIA!!!!

 

[tangelo]

So you don't feel that putting a child in a car and leaving him there until dead is criminally negligent.

 

[NancyA]

Snipped by me for space.

That's my question. I mean, he is currently charged with felony murder which does not necessitate intent to harm or kill. So, is the poll asking whether we would find him guilty today of premeditated murder or felony murder?




Felony murder? Or first degree premeditated murder? TIA!!!!

I was voting on Felony murder which is what he is charged with and I think they have already provided sufficient 'beyond a reasonable doubt' evidence. I think the charges as they stand are brilliant since there is no need for the Prosecution to prove intent. I'll admit I'd have very little trouble in convicting him for premeditated murder if they'd gone that route but I can see there might be at least one jury member who would be unwilling to accept that.

 

[gritguy]

Snipped by me for space.

That's my question. I mean, he is currently charged with felony murder which does not necessitate intent to harm or kill. So, is the poll asking whether we would find him guilty today of premeditated murder or felony murder?



Felony murder? Or first degree premeditated murder? TIA!!!!

It's a flawed poll. I was really just wanting to see where minds are in terms of his intentionally doing this (and evidence being enough to show that) or whether the accident theory seemed plausible. It just seemed the PC hearing really pushed people well into the he did it on purpose camp (including myself). Anyway, that's why it's confusing as I didn't try to mirror the elements of the charges and threw it together quickly.

It has though been a home to insight on why people are convinced he did it on purpose v. it was or might still be possible to have been an accident without getting mired too heavily in the particulars of evidence (strap position, length of backing up etc.). Since I was and am pretty convinced he did it on purpose (but not ready to convict quite yet if a charge required intent), I was wondering especially what might be the plausible angles for belief in the theory of an accident, and there have been some really good posts, certainly in the minority, on that.

Short version: I take full responsibility for the flaws of the poll!

 

[magnolia]

Snipped by me for space.

That's my question. I mean, he is currently charged with felony murder which does not necessitate intent to harm or kill. So, is the poll asking whether we would find him guilty today of premeditated murder or felony murder?

If I had to vote as a Juror today, I would have to acquit on the charge of murder.

Felony murder? Or first degree premeditated murder? TIA!!!!

I assumed we were voting on the Felony murder charge.