GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #38 *Arrest*

[zippixx]

BBM; IMO, yes. The problem with blackout drinkers, especially habitual blackout drinkers, is that others have no idea the person is in a blackout. They may simply seem tipsy. Habitual drinkers are usually not falling down drunk. And the blackout guy is the only one who has no idea why everyone is so peeved with him. Some may only have that occurrence when they mix drugs and alcohol. So the young, weekend party boy who drinks till he passes out is not the typical blackout drink/drugger.


:cow:

This got me curious if EA's attorney would use the "blackout" scenario as a defense. The problem I see with that, would be (as SteveS noted) that EA has selective memory (ie remembers CM talking loudly on the phone, remembers waking brother). He would have been better off just saying "I don't remember anything". Also, from the little bit of information I read, that defense is a hard sell & some states don't even allow it (not sure if Tx is one of them). In one case I read, the guy murdered his boss (after drinking) & used that defense. He was found guilty & sentenced to 15 years.

Here are a couple of links, if anyone is interested:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/does-being-drunk-mean-you-cant-be-convicted-a-crime.h

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/blackout-drunk-defense-used-architect-murder-trial-n86321

 

[daisytrail]

This got me curious if EA's attorney would use the "blackout" scenario as a defense. The problem I see with that, would be (as SteveS noted) that EA has selective memory (ie remembers CM talking loudly on the phone, remembers waking brother). He would have been better off just saying "I don't remember anything". Also, from the little bit of information I read, that defense is a hard sell & some states don't even allow it (not sure if Tx is one of them). In one case I read, the guy murdered his boss (after drinking) & used that defense. He was found guilty & sentenced to 15 years.

Here are a couple of links, if anyone is interested:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/does-being-drunk-mean-you-cant-be-convicted-a-crime.h

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/blackout-drunk-defense-used-architect-murder-trial-n86321

I think they will go with "I blacked out and then SODDI!"

 

[CellarDoor]

Where or how did you see The Wolf of Wall Street movie?
According to Google, it was released in 2013 along with Gravity and Twelve Years a Slave both of which I watched on cable tv.

Maybe they watched it on DVD or on demand? How is this relevant?

 

[Daysxdesign]

Maybe they watched it on DVD or on demand? How is this relevant?

Lol thank you for asking... I was wondering too !

 

[SteveS]

This got me curious if EA's attorney would use the "blackout" scenario as a defense. The problem I see with that, would be (as SteveS noted) that EA has selective memory (ie remembers CM talking loudly on the phone, remembers waking brother). He would have been better off just saying "I don't remember anything". Also, from the little bit of information I read, that defense is a hard sell & some states don't even allow it (not sure if Tx is one of them). In one case I read, the guy murdered his boss (after drinking) & used that defense. He was found guilty & sentenced to 15 years.

Here are a couple of links, if anyone is interested:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/does-being-drunk-mean-you-cant-be-convicted-a-crime.h

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/blackout-drunk-defense-used-architect-murder-trial-n86321

Re the "blackout scenario" as a defense in this case:

IMO this perhaps would have offered some utility if EA had come forward early on and admitted some sort of horrendous mistake or accident. That, of course, would have been accompanied by telling where CM is and a story of what went wrong. But he took the opposite approach, using "I know nothing" and trying to cover up and thinking they'd never find any proof that she ever was in his car. For months. Whoops.

If they try to use it now, here's my analysis:
1 Voluntary intoxication is NOT an allowable defense to Texas criminal charges. Period.
2 If EA's atty wanted to push the envelope, he might try for some sort of "temporary insanity" angle with the blackout claim.
3 "Insanity" requires an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proof would shift to EA to prove it true, not merely claim it.
4 That proof is problematic. EA would be claiming he can't recall. So who is going to testify that he lost his senses? Gotta PROVE it.
5 A diminished capacity defense also starts with the approach that "I did it, but...". However, that then creates a different issue - the fact that the crime is still ongoing, with him doing nothing to stop it, despite his capacity having returned. You're now sober, so where is Christina, Enrique?
6 Also, EA's assertion that he (supposedly) gets drunk/drugged and blacks out all the time would tend to negate, not support, an insanity defense. The relevant law calls the permissible insanity excuse a "mental disease or defect" in which the defendant "did not know that his conduct was wrong" but does not permit it when it pertains to "repeated ... antisocial conduct."

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Maybe they watched it on DVD or on demand? How is this relevant?

Maybe they want to watch it and it's not on cable like the other movies mentioned. Not relevant to the case, but an OT.

FYI, it's on Netflix.

 

[Mountaingazer]

Maybe they want to watch it and it's not on cable like the other movies mentioned. Not relevant to the case, but an OT.

FYI, it's on Netflix.

I was just going to post that it is on netflix, we watched it this past weekend.

 

[daisytrail]

Re the "blackout scenario" as a defense in this case:

IMO this perhaps would have offered some utility if EA had come forward early on and admitted some sort of horrendous mistake or accident. That, of course, would have been accompanied by telling where CM is and a story of what went wrong. But he took the opposite approach, using "I know nothing" and trying to cover up and thinking they'd never find any proof that she ever was in his car. For months. Whoops.

If they try to use it now, here's my analysis:
1 Voluntary intoxication is NOT an allowable defense to Texas criminal charges. Period.
2 If EA's atty wanted to push the envelope, he might try for some sort of "temporary insanity" angle with the blackout claim.
3 "Insanity" requires an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proof would shift to EA to prove it true, not merely claim it.
4 That proof is problematic. EA would be claiming he can't recall. So who is going to testify that he lost his senses? Gotta PROVE it.
5 A diminished capacity defense also starts with the approach that "I did it, but...". However, that then creates a different issue - the fact that the crime is still ongoing, with him doing nothing to stop it, despite his capacity having returned. You're now sober, so where is Christina, Enrique?
6 Also, EA's assertion that he (supposedly) gets drunk/drugged and blacks out all the time would tend to negate, not support, an insanity defense. The relevant law calls the permissible insanity excuse a "mental disease or defect" in which the defendant "did not know that his conduct was wrong" but does not permit it when it pertains to "repeated ... antisocial conduct."

It surely looks to me as if he is a bit hemmed in. So what sort of defense do you think his attorneys will mount, assuming that there is no plea agreement? They interviewed him several times before he was declared a POI, during which time he would not have been read his Miranda rights. I mean he would have had to be declared a suspect for them to do that, wouldn't he? Were all these interviews informal, I am wondering? Would he have been free to leave at any time? Just hoping that there is nothing his attorney can bring up here that was in any way improper.

 

[SeeAlice]

Re the "blackout scenario" as a defense in this case:

IMO this perhaps would have offered some utility if EA had come forward early on and admitted some sort of horrendous mistake or accident. That, of course, would have been accompanied by telling where CM is and a story of what went wrong. But he took the opposite approach, using "I know nothing" and trying to cover up and thinking they'd never find any proof that she ever was in his car. For months. Whoops.

If they try to use it now, here's my analysis:
1 Voluntary intoxication is NOT an allowable defense to Texas criminal charges. Period.
2 If EA's atty wanted to push the envelope, he might try for some sort of "temporary insanity" angle with the blackout claim.
3 "Insanity" requires an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proof would shift to EA to prove it true, not merely claim it.
4 That proof is problematic. EA would be claiming he can't recall. So who is going to testify that he lost his senses? Gotta PROVE it.
5 A diminished capacity defense also starts with the approach that "I did it, but...". However, that then creates a different issue - the fact that the crime is still ongoing, with him doing nothing to stop it, despite his capacity having returned. You're now sober, so where is Christina, Enrique?
6 Also, EA's assertion that he (supposedly) gets drunk/drugged and blacks out all the time would tend to negate, not support, an insanity defense. The relevant law calls the permissible insanity excuse a "mental disease or defect" in which the defendant "did not know that his conduct was wrong" but does not permit it when it pertains to "repeated ... antisocial conduct."

JMO, the defense attorneys would likely only use it to explain any inconsistent statements by EA to LE & media.

 

[SteveS]

It surely looks to me as if he is a bit hemmed in. So what sort of defense do you think his attorneys will mount, assuming that there is no plea agreement?

I'll leave that for EA's counsel to figure out. Without knowing all the specifics of all the evidence, it's hard to know if there's a weak point to attack, but if the evidence is as we've been told, they have a daunting challenge at best.

The trunk evidence of "Christina's DNA and blood" is a biggie by itself, but EA's ensuing lies and behavior create added huge problems. Do they expend their "reasonable doubt" card on the lies ("I didn't recall and was confused after the fact") or on the DNA ("I do recall, and here's what really happened"). He can't credibly say (and try to counter) both, yet imo he has to overcome both if he's to get a jury to believe he didn't abduct CM.

And then there are the issues of "Christina is still missing" plus the potential for a capital murder charge, adding problems on other levels.

Some cases are just completely DOA for the perp, and the best angle is to admit you did wrong, and try to cut your losses and negotiate a mitigated sentence. But not sure that EA is wise enough to recognize that.

They interviewed him several times before he was declared a POI, during which time he would not have been read his Miranda rights. I mean he would have had to be declared a suspect for them to do that, wouldn't he? Were all these interviews informal, I am wondering? Would he have been free to leave at any time? Just hoping that there is nothing his attorney can bring up here that was in any way improper.

Per what we've heard, the various EA interviews were voluntary (and therefore wouldn't have required Miranda warnings). What was said can and will be used against him, without a need to warn him of that truth.

JMO, the defense attorneys would likely only use it [blackout claim] to explain any inconsistent statements by EA to LE & media.

They can try, of course. I think it would be problematic for him to claim he remembers some things but not others, and "I don't recall what happened" certainly doesn't allow him a way to explain away her DNA and blood is in his trunk. Yet if he can't explain that somehow ....

There's also the underlying problem of him taking the stand at all. Without doing so it's going to be hard for the defense to affirmatively offer ANY real explanations for anything. They could try to discredit the DNA/blood evidence, invent an alternate boogeyman, and hope that's enough.

OTOH, if he does take the stand, what kind of witness would he be? And how would he respond to cross? With the proper framework during the state's case in chief, using the videos and body language experts, I think EA would be the STATE's best witness if he testified, and unintentionally ensure a quick conviction. No easy solutions for the defense atty here.

 

[Lrc143]

IMO, even when you think an answer is obvious, you look at every darn little thing to make sure you aren't being tricked by your own desire for an easy answer. One little lead or clue can change an entire investigation. We've all seen it on Dateline and the ID channel. Sometimes, it's complicated. Christina's life was complicated. I guess, I would work under the assumption that until I had a body or a confession, I would keep investigating every single aspect of her life. Of course, I really don't know what I would do if I were in this situation. I'd hate Enrique, I know I would, but I can almost guarantee you I would still be looking into the other players in her life. I wouldn't let them off the hook so easily, but hey, I'm a suspicious b*tch.

BBM- It is of my opinion that is some cases, Dateline and the ID channel make it a little complicated. They have to fill that hour, not to mention, they usually have a switch from focusing on one suspect to another. OR, and perhaps alternatively, this case might not be suited for Dateline because its not complicated (at least at this point). For every one case they highlight on TV, I am sure there another one that receives no mention in the media.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Maybe they watched it on DVD or on demand? How is this relevant?

Oh, sorry, I should have added another line to say I'm interested in watching the movie.
The other two movies I noted, from the same year, have been offered on cable already (HBO specifically).
I'm checking On Demand now to make sure I didn't overlook the title.
The title came up but only to purchase for $19.99.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I was just going to post that it is on netflix, we watched it this past weekend.

Thanks, it figures since we don't subscribe to Netflix!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Maybe they want to watch it and it's not on cable like the other movies mentioned. Not relevant to the case, but an OT.

FYI, it's on Netflix.

You're good at reading between the lines MIKAYOYO.

 

[SteveS]

Unless LE can prove a sexual motive for the kidnapping, I say "yes" the defense may attempt to get the SA charges blocked from the trial and have a good chance of doing so.

I think we'll see 2 separate trials, one for SA of a child, and one for kidnapping. But if EA is a "convicted sex offender" when the kidnapping trial starts, I think that general fact would probably be considered admissible in relation to "intent to sexual assault". The judge decides, of course.

 

[zippixx]

Some cases are just completely DOA for the perp, and the best angle is to admit you did wrong, and try to cut your losses and negotiate a mitigated sentence. But not sure that EA is wise enough to recognize that.

Wouldn't EA's attorney advise him on this?

I've always been curious about the attorney/defendant relationship, in a case like this. Does the attorney ask what happened, or does he not want to know? Has he told EA that this case is not looking good, or would Gore give EA false hope & say, "We're gonna get you out of this"...? What is the typical conversation between them during visits?

I'm sorta thinking out loud & know you obviously aren't there to hear them speaking... lol

Snipped & BBM

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

IMO, even when you think an answer is obvious, you look at every darn little thing to make sure you aren't being tricked by your own desire for an easy answer. One little lead or clue can change an entire investigation. We've all seen it on Dateline and the ID channel. Sometimes, it's complicated. Christina's life was complicated. I guess, I would work under the assumption that until I had a body or a confession, I would keep investigating every single aspect of her life. Of course, I really don't know what I would do if I were in this situation. I'd hate Enrique, I know I would, but I can almost guarantee you I would still be looking into the other players in her life. I wouldn't let them off the hook so easily, but hey, I'm a suspicious b*tch.

Good points, Heather. I particularly enjoy your last line, sista'!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

BBM- It is of my opinion that is some cases, Dateline and the ID channel make it a little complicated. They have to fill that hour, not to mention, they usually have a switch from focusing on one suspect to another. OR, and perhaps alternatively, this case might not be suited for Dateline because its not complicated (at least at this point). For every one case they highlight on TV, I am sure there another one that receives no mention in the media.

Some of the series/producers are better than others. Some titles have become too dramatic and even hokey imo.
Yet, others, especially when explaining how a cold case was solved, take the viewer step-by-step through the case and how fresh eyes noticed a previously missed detail.
The coverage is based on real cases so the facts aren't being made up or embellished.
I'm referring to solved cases or even cases when someone was wrongfully accused.
The unsolved cases presented are still subjective just like discussions that take place on WS.
But, at least the shows and discussions promote awareness.
Not many people are interested in crime cases as WS peeps are.
Most of my own family members aren't and I believe they believe I'm weird - like how did this happen to Woe!
Crime coverage depresses the elderly and young people are interested in living their own lives.

Typically people don't take an interest in certain subjects (crime, cancer, untimely death, the plight of troops, etc.) until one or another hits home in some way.
Even when it does hit home, think back to a time when you lived foot loose and fancy free.
Were you paying attention to the life altering events in the lives of other people, especially strangers?
Altruism is rare imo.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I think we'll see 2 separate trials, one for SA of a child, and one for kidnapping. But if EA is a "convicted sex offender" when the kidnapping trial starts, I think that general fact would probably be considered admissible in relation to "intent to sexual assault". The judge decides, of course.

LE will have to show evidence their theory of sexual assault is correct though regarding Christina's case.
The cause may have been a drug overdose where EA's reaction was to run scared and then cover up his actions.
The fear of deportation combined with convincing himself it isn't his fault may have gotten his story rolling.

 

[SteveS]

Wouldn't EA's attorney advise him on this?

Advise? Yes. But he can't decide for him. Based on the way EA has proceeded all along, where he was banking on being able to lie and no one finding any evidence to prove otherwise, imo EA is no doubt depending and hoping on some sort of magic in the trial to keep the jury from seeing the obvious. Hope dies hard.

I've always been curious about the attorney/defendant relationship, in a case like this. Does the attorney ask what happened, or does he not want to know? Has he told EA that this case is not looking good, or would Gore give EA false hope & say, "We're gonna get you out of this"...? What is the typical conversation between them during visits?

I'm sorta thinking out loud & know you obviously aren't there to hear them speaking... lol

Snipped & BBM

Every attorney does it his own way, and the thinking can change from case to case, but there are some principles that come into play.

When an attorney knows his client did a criminal act, it creates some sticky legal "officer of the court" issues. You can't suborn what you know to be perjured testimony, and you can't allow it to pass unchallenged when it happens.

But in my own opinion, it's better to know what actually happened, and then try to package it in the best possible way, rather than be blindsided. I'm there to "represent" the defendant, so imo I want to know as much as he does, to try to guide him away from the biggest dangers that his actions have created. Tell me, and let's see if/how we can turn some of these lemons into lemonade. And in reality, no matter what the defendant did, he isn't "guilty" until a jury says so, so maybe within what he did, there is a way to explain it, or something that legally can lessen the consequences.

As for how open to be with a defendant, the "do you want to look at a deal" and "what kind of deal can I get" and "the state is offering this" conversations happen all the time (even during trial), so there's plenty of opportunity to advise. But as to a promise of a positive verdict, or a threat of a negative one, I think most would steer clear, since it's not something the attorney has any way to actually control.