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

[heather.scissorhands]

I'm satisfied. I knew when the DNA evidence was presented that the only way out for EA was the truth (or another lie) and he gave neither. The defense's closing argument didn't explain anything or sate my curiosity. The longer they deliberated, the more I assumed they would vote guilty.

Sentencing. Oh, please, please universe, please let the words fall out of his mouth...where did he put her? Where is she?

 

[Leader6518]

As for the penalty, I would tend to go for the higher end (50-99 years). I say this because Christina was not in the court room to tell us what happened. All indications is that she is no longer alive and that he has shown no remorse. I would have to make my final decision based on what is presented at the sentencing hearing, but unless he confessed, showed remorse, and told where she is and had a mitigating (believable) story, I would not go below 50 years.

 

[SteveS]

Does anyone know what the chances of Enrique appealing his conviction?
I am delighted he was found guilty - but I can't help but think Gore will try and work his way out of it with technicalities and loopholes or something.

He will appeal. That is pretty much a given.

But an appeal isn't a do-over in the general finding of fact and resulting guilt. They can only appeal by arguing that a procedural mistake was made or some basic right was violated somehow, which at best (realistically) ends up in a retrial, and sometimes doesn't even do that. So pretty much what he has is a lottery ticket that in theory could get him a re-trial - but almost certainly won't. Nevertheless, despite the long odds, the defense will cobble together something or other to take a shot here, just like the dozens of motions to suppress evidence, and all the wild motions during and in closing at the trial, that went nowhere. Personally, as the trial progressed, I thought the judge was somewhere between right down the middle legally (because the law is what it is) and at times even a bit generous in the latitude he gave the defense, so I have little worry that an appeal of his approach will work. Many of his refusals on the defense motions were based on "because the law says so" and that sort of stuff is almost certain not to be appealed (appellate judges don't like their time wasted). But they'll certainly find something or other to claim and give it the ole college try.

In the meantime, EA will be sent to the state penitentiary, locked up with the roughest of the rough doing hard time.

I really doubt he's getting out for a long time, if ever.

 

[Quailfoot]

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.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

And, SteveS can pat himself on the back. He was found guilty because SHE WAS IN HIS TRUNK. Lol.

I still have so many questions and still feel like there may be other people involved but EA was the only one dumb enough to leave a trail a mile long. Lol. Seriously. I'd love to know his IQ.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

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.

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.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

As for the penalty, I would tend to go for the higher end (50-99 years). I say this because Christina was not in the court room to tell us what happened. All indications is that she is no longer alive and that he has shown no remorse. I would have to make my final decision based on what is presented at the sentencing hearing, but unless he confessed, showed remorse, and told where she is and had a mitigating (believable) story, I would not go below 50 years.

I agree with you. The majority of those convicted of aggravated kidnapping in Texas were sentenced to 40+ years according to this data provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - TDCJ. (This is the prison system of the state of Texas.)

https://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/crimes/aggravated-kidnapping/64/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quailfoot]

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.

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.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

This is my first time to follow a case from beginning to end-ish (it's not over until she's found) and my first time following a trial. I really do want to say thank you to those who post (from questions to bullet-point lists to explanations.) I have learned so much from all of you.

Sentencing guess? As a Texan, I will say, if these 12 people think he hurt a small woman, he is going down. Hard.

 

[SteveS]

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.

That's very correct. I thought these defense lawyers pushed the legal and ethical boundaries (and then some) during the trial, but there's no question EA was well represented. But facts are facts, and they couldn't get past that.

 

[Quailfoot]

The other thing you have to remember - or, consider - is it is the prosecution's job to present the case for guilt.

In Texas, the defendant isn't required to prove his or her own innocence or even take the stand. Therefore, most do not.

So, you have people saying, "Defense is just trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case!" Yes, of course: because that's the way the criminal trial system in Texas is designed.

Because the prosecution represents the State, if it brings a charge, it has to back it up with proof. The defendant is not required to do anything other than appear. Defendant's counsel is required to provide vigorous defense, per the Constitution first and decades of case law that have increased their responsibilities.

Most see this as the defendant being aloof, not caring, etc. But, in reality, it's just the defendant taking his place in the system that Texas has set up: show up, sit, and observe.

If it really riles you, write your legislator. Problem is, most legislators have a legal background and will defend the system, whether we like it or not.

 

[allmybecsloveme]

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?!?

We have discussed that before I think. He seems confident. I think he buried her somewhere far out in the woods.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Quailfoot]

Personally, I do not register to vote, but I know many people do. So, take the following information with a grain of salt...although, I think it does show the uphill battle most criminal defendants face upon appeal:

The appellate court that reviews criminal cases coming out of Collin County courts is the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas (there are 14).

The Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas is comprised of 12 Justices, including a Chief Justice.

All 12 Justices are Republicans, originally appointed by either then-governor George W. Bush or former governor Rick Perry or elected. Those appointed by Bush or Perry have won their subsequent elections - often in Republican versus Republican elections (I know...only in North Texas, right...so few Democrats that the races for Judicial seats come down to Republican versus Republican!).

Republican are, rightly or wrongly, viewed as the "tough on crime" party between the two major parties.

Therefore, those convicted in counties served by the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas rarely see their convictions overturned.

Lesson: If for some reason you are a Democrat, you have at least one reason to be thankful that Republicans control this Texas appeals court.

Nationwide - and statewide - most criminal convictions are overturned by appellate courts where a majority of Democrats are the justices. That's not even an issue in this case.

Any appeal will be heard by three Republican justices, who won election either against other Republicans or who ran unopposed.

So, to EA's appellate defense counsel...good luck with all of that!

 

[Marmlet]

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

 

[Lolly85x]

I have another question... hope I can explain correctly.

I'm just wondering what does Gore know. What does he really know about what happened that night? Do you think he sat EA down and got the truth? Or does he only know the lie that EA told the police?
And what would happen if EA said to Gore, okay, cards on the table this is what happened, and Gore knew EA done it. Would he still defend him and try to get him off? Or would be be obliged to come clean and say he knows what happened.

 

[geevee]

I have another question... hope I can explain correctly.

I'm just wondering what does Gore know. What does he really know about what happened that night? Do you think he sat EA down and got the truth? Or does he only know the lie that EA told the police?
And what would happen if EA said to Gore, okay, cards on the table this is what happened, and Gore knew EA done it. Would he still defend him and try to get him off? Or would be be obliged to come clean and say he knows what happened.

To the best of my knowledge, defense attorneys, like prosecutors, are officers of the court, and are duty-bound to inform the court in such an instance. Attorney-client privilege doesn't extend to secret confessions to your defense counsel and I'm sure they let their clients know that up front.

 

[JMOM]

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

 

[JMOM]

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

 

[brian1108]

I hate the things that kill people. Transportation, people, food, drink, pollution, ect.

 

[Momoffourboys]

If EA has just a shred, just a particle of humanity or maybe a fear of God...knowing he has been found guilty, facing sentencing and another trial for the stat. rape, I pray that he uses what he knows as a bargaining chip and reveals Christina's location. IMO having him behind bars for 99 years and her family searching daily...is not justice. There is no true justice. CM will probably never marry, have children, hug her puppy, eat a burger, laugh with her family. But having her returned to her family and laid to rest, would be a damn good start.