CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #14

[Meemaw12]

For me the point is:

Joey said (in email) and CM said (to CJ in jailhouse tape) so he believed that he Chase Merritt owed Joey McStay $19,000.00.

It doesn’t matter to me anyway, what/how/Who did what with the original $19,000.00 deposit. It can’t be proven except what Joey and Chase said about it. Chase owed the money to Joey.

MOO

 

[Frankie Hellis]

You are advancing a common misunderstanding of what "presumption of innocence" means

So to be clear - "presumption of innocence" just means that if you are accused of a crime, you don’t have to prove you are innocent. It is the job of the prosecutor to prove you are guilty.

So the presumption of innocence refers only to the burden of proof - and places it with the prosecution - and this means trials operate in a certain way. But thats it.

the "standard of proof" in criminal cases is Beyond Reasonable Doubt (BARD)

So prosecution must discharge the burden AND meet the standard. Standard and Burden are commonly mixed up but standard is the real question at trial.

Burden has nothing to do with the jury. It is procedural. i.e. the prosecution must prove and there is never (with limited exceptions) any burden on the defence to prove anything.

The jury must only decide if the prosecution met the standard of proof. (BARD)

The jury don't presume anyone is innocent. Indeed they may strongly suspect guilt from the outset.

I hope that makes it a bit clearer

I’m not sure I agree

They are not supposed to deliberate as a group until then end - because it could cause a legal error if they failed to consider relevant evidence. However that is not to do with presumption of innocence - that would be a legal error in decision making. So for instance in a judge trial where we get written reasons , the judge might fail to address some key testimony and that could lead to a succesful appeal.

But in practice, each juror is a black box. We don't know how and when they individually decided.

So it would be perfectly legit for me to decide Chase is obviously guilty from the opening statements, and then never change my mind, so long i believe BARD is met.

.

Thanks. I am off to research ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. I swear I learn something new every day!

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Interesting case I've been following in South Africa, where there is no jury system, and the judge determines the verdict - Jason Rohde found guilty of murdering his wife and staging her death as a hanging suicide.

The defence has lodged an appeal against the conviction and one of their contentions is that the judge had already made up her mind before she heard closing arguments because she delivered her very lengthy judgement which would have taken days to write, the very next day.

Of course she sat through all the evidence and there was no obligation on her to wait until she'd heard counsels' summaries of it before she applied her mind to it, IMO. Looking forward to hearing what the appeal court says about it.

Ohhhh! I love listening to Afrikaans! What a fascinating language. I enjoyed watching the proceedings in Pistorius with judge Masipa and also the VanBreda trial.

I think it is only human to lean one way or the other. That said, I don’t think one in the position of a judge (especially) should let it be obvious. In the case you mention, that judge should have at least made it appear it was not pre-written. That is bad that she delivered it the very next day. Maybe she dictated it into a computer and spent all night at it, lol. I will have to put that appeal on my radar.

 

[mrjitty]

I’m not sure I agree
.

Thanks. I am off to research ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. I swear I learn something new every day!

I think what you guys are really talking about is more to do with natural justice

So in simple terms the decision making must have regard to all the key evidence and not ignore a whole lot of stuff

We have lots of different rules in trials to make sure it's fair.

The real issue is because the jury is a black box in practice a stubborn juror can simply dig in and not listen to reason

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Interesting case I've been following in South Africa, where there is no jury system, and the judge determines the verdict - Jason Rohde found guilty of murdering his wife and staging her death as a hanging suicide.

The defence has lodged an appeal against the conviction and one of their contentions is that the judge had already made up her mind before she heard closing arguments because she delivered her very lengthy judgement which would have taken days to write, the very next day.

Of course she sat through all the evidence and there was no obligation on her to wait until she'd heard counsels' summaries of it before she applied her mind to it, IMO. Looking forward to hearing what the appeal court says about it.

Imo, the appeal will go no where.

I saw a case one time where the verdict was rendered by the jury in 15 or 20 minutes of deliberation.

Both juries, and bench judges are perfectly capable of absorbing evidence as it comes in.

The Bo Dukes jury in Georgia also came back quickly with a verdict the same day they got the case.

It happens everywhere, and isnt an uncommon occurence at all, including bench trials.

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

Interesting case I've been following in South Africa, where there is no jury system, and the judge determines the verdict - Jason Rohde found guilty of murdering his wife and staging her death as a hanging suicide.

The defence has lodged an appeal against the conviction and one of their contentions is that the judge had already made up her mind before she heard closing arguments because she delivered her very lengthy judgement which would have taken days to write, the very next day.

Of course she sat through all the evidence and there was no obligation on her to wait until she'd heard counsels' summaries of it before she applied her mind to it, IMO. Looking forward to hearing what the appeal court says about it.

This is why I prefer judge trials with written reasons

You'll also remember in Pistorius that the judge ignored loads of the evidence including all the crime scene photos

IMO that failure to consider key evidence should have been appealable.

It all got very anorak on appeal!

 

[mrjitty]

Imo, the appeal will go no where.

I saw a case one time where the verdict was rendered by the jury in 15 or 20 minutes of deliberation.

Both juries, and bench judges are perfectly capable of absorbing evidence as it comes in.

The Bo Dukes jury in Georgia also came back quickly with a verdict the same day they got the case.

It happens everywhere, and isnt an uncommon occurence at all, including bench trials.

Imo

I've seen amazing oral reasoned verdicts given direct from the bench in civil cases where they didn't reserve the decision

 

[mrjitty]

If I were a juror my current vote would be guilty.

The defence needs a game changer

 

[mrjitty]

My current worry is more that a weak judge is letting an unethical defence confuse the jury

 

[mrjitty]

Missy, you have convinceď me that CM likely paid for SOME of the fountain supplies out of the $19k received for the Provecho fountain. Remember though, CM had a habit of helping himself to Joey's supplies, so I cannot be sure he didn't the same in this case. Thanks, Missy.

CM still agreed to split the loss with Joey by his own admission.

Also, per that email chain, I think it is pretty clear Laurel blamed CM for the delays. And we know per CJ, CM had a nasty habit of not finishing projects, walking away, and pissing everybody off. IMO, the Provecho deal going sour rests squarely on CM. IMO, he most definitely should have paid Joey back every red cent of that $19k. Once again, CM screwed the pooch.

I'd love to see that Laurels chargeback case was

 

[Tortoise]

Ohhhh! I love listening to Afrikaans! What a fascinating language. I enjoyed watching the proceedings in Pistorius with judge Masipa and also the VanBreda trial.

I think it is only human to lean one way or the other. That said, I don’t think one in the position of a judge (especially) should let it be obvious. In the case you mention, that judge should have at least made it appear it was not pre-written. That is bad that she delivered it the very next day. Maybe she dictated it into a computer and spent all night at it, lol. I will have to put that appeal on my radar.

The point is though that what counsel says in closing is only a reminder of the key evidence she has already seen and heard. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

My current worry is more that a weak judge is letting an unethical defence confuse the jury

I think Lady Justice may have intervened with the jailhouse tape.

JMO

 

[Mony Mony]

I'd love to see that Laurels chargeback case was

IMO, she paints a pretty good picture with just her email communication to Joey. She specifically says she wants to see how the logo will be placed Joseph's response is essentially, "Yes, we will get it to you, but we still need full payment". She also asks how can it be ready for install when she hasn't approved the final design.

 

[Mony Mony]

I think Lady Justice may have intervened with the jailhouse tape.

JMO

Yes! Major boo-boo on CMs part to say something like "the way I envision that night (Feb 4) is that I was home....." errr, ummm, he should have his alibi solidified by now! Guilty!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I can't imagine living in a society where we are not allowed to hold beliefs until a jury has ruled on what we must think, and then agree with them. The concept is absurd.

We don't live in that kind of society in America either.

We have the freedom to voice our opinions about any accused on trial, before the trial, during, and even after the verdict has been rendered.

None of our entitled opinions have to agree with the jurors either, nor even the verdict they may render.

Isn't that grand, because I have a feeling if CM is found guilty, there will be some who will want to express their own opinions about that! Lol

IUPG never applies to the public at large. That is only a judicial standard required for juries to adhere to, when they first sit down, before hearing any testimony.

The IUPG standard can begin to erode at anytime depending on the evidence being entered.

So you're right we as society are free to express our own opinions, about anything, at any time!

Yippee, Tortoise, we still do really have freedom of speech after all! LOL!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If I were a juror my current vote would be guilty.

The defence needs a game changer

They desperately do need a big Perry Mason moment for sure.

However, I just don't see it happening because there is way too much to overcome now.

Way too much for the jury to completely ignore or dismiss.

That's the great thing about CE cases. Even if the defense can dismiss one or more piece as being wrong or simply coincidental, all of the rest of it remains fully intact.

Imo, that is the reason why they are the hardest cases to be overturned on appeal.


Jmo

 

[Tortoise]

We don't live in that kind of society in America either.

We have the freedom to voice our opinions about any accused on trial, before the trial, during, and even after the verdict has been rendered.

None of our entitled opinions have to agree with the jurors either, nor even the verdict they may render.

Isn't that grand, because I have a feeling if CM is found guilty, there will be some who will want to express their own opinions about that! Lol

IUPG never applies to the public at large. That is only a judicial standard required for juries to adhere to, when they first sit down, before hearing any testimony.

The IUPG standard can begin to erode at anytime depending on the evidence being entered.

So you're right we as society are free to express our own opinions, about anything, at any time!

Yippee, Tortoise, we still do really have freedom of speech after all! LOL!

Yeah, right! For now at least LOL.

And pardon me for saying but Houston we have a problem if the prosecution's evidence isn't enough to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. So if one isn't already convinced I don't see how the defense case flopping is going to improve that.

JMO

 

[Mica]

So how is this case different than say Rebecca Zahau where you opined Adam killed her before any jury had deliberated on the evidence?

Rebecca Zahau Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion #4

The difference is I'm not a juror in either case. As a juror, I would make the presumption the defendant is innocent and listen to all the evidence before coming to a conclusion. I was referring to "as a juror" when I made the statement presumption of innocence. Guess I should have stated that.

As far as this case, I'm not convinced....yet.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Isn't the defense putting all of their Easter eggs in one basket?

Thinking that blaming DK as the SODDI will save the day, and set CM free?

If so, they better come up with some actual compelling EVIDENCE, and not just the mere words of a witness who may have major credibility issues of her own, and possible personal biases.

We already know if she does have baggage of her own, if MR does the cross examination she is going to bring all of that to the jury, so they will be able to correctly weigh her credibility or lack of.....

How do they think the sponge expert guy is going to be able to save CM?

What if they do convince the jury Summer WAS raped, but the jury still believes CM is the guilty culprit in all violent crimes perpetrated against all four victims?

Does anyone think that decision would be an appellate issue if it backfires on CM, and was presented by his own attorneys?

Just things I ponder as we wait, and wait, and wait some more for the defense to kick into high gear.

Imo. So far their case has been very disappointing, and far from what was promised in their OS as to what was to come.

Jmo

 

[Frankie Hellis]

If I were a juror my current vote would be guilty.

The defence needs a game changer

Could you think “guilty” if you didn’t have all the discussion, articles, innuendo, blogs, books and knowledge you have outside of that courtroom? It is a tough question to answer, because of course you know what you know and you can’t un-know it.

I feel worried the prosecution has not connected the dots yet. They have not driven home the purpose or the usefulness of circumstantial evidence. My fear is that closing arguments may be too late for the juror or jurors who may have doubts. I wish they would have laid this case out for the jury differently.