FL - Brandi Peters, 27, & her 3 kids found murdered, Tallahassee, 20 Nov 2010 *Guilty*

[Jewels53]

Can someone educate me.....is CTV known for being "defense-friendly?" Do they tend to always think the defendant is innocent, or more often than not? I'm just not understanding how/why they think Santos, an UNreasonable witness, has provided such reasonable doubt. I know the defense doesn't have to prove anything, but couldn't they have delved into Santos' life to prove he indeed is the "big man" he says he is? Involved deep in the cartel?

If we are to believe every mentally ill person who provides "reasonable doubt," for a defendant wouldn't our justice system need to adapt.....the defense has to have some burden of proof as well? I mean, what a dangerous precedent. If HS was acquitted, I highly doubt they would have gone after Santos for these murders! Everyone knows that!

I know it seems that way at times and then at other times I see some blaming the defendant. Vinny is a former prosecutor and I see him wavering more for the prosecution side, then he tips it the other side. I guess when you are on a program or hosting one you can't seem too bias towards or against the defendant. It could lose your audience I guess. I guess they have to walk a narrow line and play fair even if they don't want to.

I am just guessing that is how it is. moo

 

[Weki]

IMO L&C and CTV are biased for defense. “Wrongful conviction” outrage is in right now and all these true crime shows are capitalizing on it. It gets clicks and creates drama and tension for the audience, which keeps them coming back. L&C especially is guilty of this. If you look at the overall tone in coverage for both networks you can def see a purposeful and contrived bias for defense. Most of these commentators are lawyers or former lawyers so they know better but they get on TV and dumb it up for the audience. It’s a crying shame. But it serves them all. They get invited back, they get on other shows, they go on podcasts/crime fests, they write books/columns. The market is over saturated with lawyers so they have to find other income streams. These people don’t give a toss about wrongful convictions. They want to make a name for themselves and make money!

 

[mollynjack]

As much as I couldn’t wait for CTV to be back I find it difficult to watch at times. It appears many if not all guests are pro defense. It was hard listening to them talk about the jury getting it wrong. The old CTV always said the jury has spoken and we have to respect their decision. At one point I thought TR would break out in tears? Why would any courtroom allow them in only to be criticized?

 

[Jewels53]

I take what the commenters say with a grain of salt. I like CTV better except for all of the commercials. They do come back where they left off usually. I think they have more defense lawyers on than prosecution and that makes it seem more bias.

If we are going to have these programs we have to take the bad with good. I am just glad we have a place to watch a trial. Trial by tweet is very hard to follow.

all jmo

 

[Gardenista]

 

[Weki]

Prince did an interview on L&C:

Host tells Prince he was great and that Prince got a raw deal
Prince says poll was 11-1 in favor of acquittal at 1st trial. Said he was contacted by a juror after the 1st trial and the hold outs were ppl he wanted to strike. He thought he would have more strikes with a smaller jury.
Host criticizes jury's deliberation time of 3.5 hours, says he thought it had to be an acquittal bc it was too short of a deliberation.
Prince said he's not a folksy, aw shucks type of attorney. Says the main thing he wanted to focus on was how much foreign DNA was all over the house.
Says DNA analysis has come a long way since 2010 and if Segura was convicted in 2010 and all this foreign DNA evidence was analyzed post conviction, Innocence Project would be all over it.
Says it was untrue that the facts of how the bodies were found was not disseminated by LE; he plans to raise this on appeal
Greogory Washington - Prince admits that Washington was a loose cannon during the first trial and neither he nor prosecution wanted to play the previous testimony
Prince came on board in 2015; brings up the Codis hit on Avila and describes it as a Brady violation.
Segura wanted a death verdict bc he thought that would give him more meaningful review and that was the strategy. Avoiding a death sentence was not considered a win. Prince is emphatic that Segura is innocent and he wouldn't have taken the case if he thought otherwise.


***

OK. Foreign DNA being found at the house means squat because we don't know when it was put there. Bottom line. If you go to anyone's house right now you'd find tons of foreign DNA probably. DNA under Brandi's nails...OK...that's something to focus on. Sure. But by itself doesn't tell us anything. In a circumstantial case, you have to look at the totality of the evidence to get a full picture. You can't isolate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. And Prince knows this. So the best strategy then if he really wanted to focus on the foreign DNA was to not put up the ridiculous cartel hit angle. All he had to do was argue reasonable doubt. And for goodness sake, keep your client off the stand! This is defense strategy 101! Even we trial watchers know that! lol. He completely effed up by presenting Santos. He lost credibility and looked desperate. He insulted the jury. And I knew the poll from the last trial got to his head. He wanted an acquittal. That was another bad strategy. The best he could hope for was another hung jury.

In any case, obviously, I'm glad the verdict was guilty and this sociopath is in prison for life. I'm pretty sure he'd have killed again if he'd gotten away with this!

ETA: And another thing, he said he was happy with the 6 jurors that were picked. So he got to select jurors that he liked and still got a guilty verdict so what does that tell him? He thinks these jurors had temporary insanity? Of course not, he knows (because I believe he is intelligent) there were differences between the two trials and that likely contributed to the doubt the jurors had at the first trial. The main difference being Santos' testified at this trial! And his client was cross examined more thoroughly and expertly by a woman and that rattled him and he lost his cool.

 

[Gardenista]

Prince is delusional. Seriously

 

[TTF14]

Prince did an interview on L&C:

Host tells Prince he was great and that Prince got a raw deal
Prince says poll was 11-1 in favor of acquittal at 1st trial.

I thought it was 8-4?

 

[Weki]

Prince is delusional. Seriously

Notice he didn't bring up the cartel hit angle/Santos at all during the interview. And all but acknowledged that Washington was lying. The only relevant thing about the foreign DNA was Avila's DNA supposedly being found there. The DNA guy who invented complex DNA analysis said it wasn't Avila or it couldn't be determined to be Avila and Avila was out of the country or in prison anyway. I mean, he really is delusional if he thought these facts were going to win the day!

 

[Weki]

I thought it was 8-4?

Yeah that's what I thought!! But that was reported by Karl Etters, although I'm not a 100% sure so don't quote me. But I know the Tallahassee Democrat was live streaming this case and he works for them. And he made up poll numbers for the Dan Markel/Magbanua hung jury and later retracted it so I'm not sure how accurate his reporting is.

Also, Prince could be exaggerating or mis-remembering.

 

[TTF14]

Yeah that's what I thought!! But that was reported by Karl Etters, although I'm not a 100% sure so don't quote me. But I know the Tallahassee Democrat was live streaming this case and he works for them. And he made up poll numbers for the Dan Markel/Magbanua hung jury and later retracted it so I'm not sure how accurate his reporting is.

Also, Prince could be exaggerating or mis-remembering.

Uuugh, ok. Yes, I don't have faith in Karl Etters.

 

[Gardenista]

 

[Jewels53]

Prince is delusional. Seriously

Very delusional!

 

[Jewels53]

I thought the Prosecution had better answers that made sense.

Obviously the interviewer was pro-defense. You could tell by the way he kept patting Prince on the back.

 

[DTPeke]

Notice he didn't bring up the cartel hit angle/Santos at all during the interview. And all but acknowledged that Washington was lying. The only relevant thing about the foreign DNA was Avila's DNA supposedly being found there. The DNA guy who invented complex DNA analysis said it wasn't Avila or it couldn't be determined to be Avila and Avila was out of the country or in prison anyway. I mean, he really is delusional if he thought these facts were going to win the day!

First of all what sour grapes! Go have a glass of wine Mr. Prince (I did not watch videos but will)…..

The CODIS hit on Avila's DNA was withheld by the analyst, she amends her report right before trial. Trial is delayed and Avila's DNA tested around 2015. They moved hell and high water to find Avila, get his DNA and test. It was not his. Judge did admonish prosecution (mainly the crime lab) but I really think prosecution was blind sided by this analyst as well. It was not like the pro team withheld for years. Prince is right that would have been a huge misstep and a brady violation but that did not happen, in fact Segura basically says "screw" the DNA (around page 88 of attached). I don't want testing. The judge and his attorney (Hobbs at the time) advised him otherwise.

This was all over the Tallahassee news/tv, most likely how Santos got Avila's name. Santos is in town for his deposition right before the trial, this is when he is housed with Segura....and I am not saying they discussed this. I don't think Segura was smart enough to realize the importance or the implications of the DNA at this time. I am saying Santos got it from the news.

The news IMO was reckless in their reporting. They reported it was a match, it was a partial match. I believe FBI uses term match for CODIS but basically it was a hit. I think this has always stuck in everyone's minds that it was a match.

ETA: I think she withheld it because she knew the sample she had should have never been entered into CODIS...it does not meet the criteria, too mixed. Today it would not be allowed to be entered.

 

[Weki]

First of all what sour grapes! Go have a glass of wine Mr. Prince (I did not watch videos but will)…..

The CODIS hit on Avila's DNA was withheld by the analyst, she amends her report right before trial. Trial is delayed and Avila's DNA tested around 2015. They moved hell and high water to find Avila, get his DNA and test. It was not his. Judge did admonish prosecution (mainly the crime lab) but I really think prosecution was blind sided by this analyst as well. It was not like the pro team withheld for years. Prince is right that would have been a huge misstep and a brady violation but that did not happen, in fact Segura basically says "screw" the DNA (around page 88 of attached). I don't want testing. The judge and his attorney (Hobbs at the time) advised him otherwise.

This was all over the Tallahassee news/tv, most likely how Santos got Avila's name. Santos is in town for his deposition right before the trial, this is when he is housed with Segura....and I am not saying they discussed this. I don't think Segura was smart enough to realize the importance or the implications of the DNA at this time. I am saying Santos got it from the news.

The news IMO was reckless in their reporting. They reported it was a match, it was a partial match. I believe FBI uses term match for CODIS but basically it was a hit. I think this has always stuck in everyone's minds that it was a match.

ETA: I think she withheld it because she knew the sample she had should have never been entered into CODIS...it does not meet the criteria, too mixed. Today it would not be allowed to be entered.

Thanks for the attachment and for breaking down the history of the evidentiary violation. I have to admit the DNA evidence was utterly inconsequential to me once I realized that Avila was not in the country during the murders. Yeah, he could’ve snuck back in but Santos’ testimony makes clear he added Avila in after he heard all the hullabaloo in the news. During the time Santos claims he was meeting with Avila, Avila was in custody. And there is no independent evidence that corroborates Brandi being a drug mule. In fact, it’s to the contrary. The woman was broke.

At the end of the hearing at side bar, Hobbs says Segura doesn’t want to wait to test this whole alternate theory. Then Hobbs says he’s sick of this case and he couldn’t care less if they don’t wait to test these other theories!! Whoa! Lol. Then he brings Segura over and pretty much says to him everyone is sick of this case but it’ll be too late for you to complain that I didn’t pursue all this once you get a conviction. But Hobbs tone before Segura gets there is interesting. I wonder why he left the case!? I’m thinking Segura was a pistol of a client.

 

[Jewels53]

Thanks for the attachment and for breaking down the history of the evidentiary violation. I have to admit the DNA evidence was utterly inconsequential to me once I realized that Avila was not in the country during the murders. Yeah, he could’ve snuck back in but Santos’ testimony makes clear he added Avila in after he heard all the hullabaloo in the news. During the time Santos claims he was meeting with Avila, Avila was in custody. And there is no independent evidence that corroborates Brandi being a drug mule. In fact, it’s to the contrary. The woman was broke.

At the end of the hearing at side bar, Hobbs says Segura doesn’t want to wait to test this whole alternate theory. Then Hobbs says he’s sick of this case and he couldn’t care less if they don’t wait to test these other theories!! Whoa! Lol. Then he brings Segura over and pretty much says to him everyone is sick of this case but it’ll be too late for you to complain that I didn’t pursue all this once you get a conviction. But Hobbs tone before Segura gets there is interesting. I wonder why he left the case!? I’m thinking Segura was a pistol of a client.

If you read that whole file I Thank You! I made it half way through and it was making me dizzy with all of the crazy DNA non DNA evidence. I finally gave up.

You are probably right as to why Hobbs left the case. I really don't see any grounds for an appeal. I have seen several defendants file for appeal in FL and not be granted one. Prince took many chances in this trial and lost. It could be years for any appeal to be ready to proceed.

moo jmo

 

[DTPeke]

Thanks for the attachment and for breaking down the history of the evidentiary violation. I have to admit the DNA evidence was utterly inconsequential to me once I realized that Avila was not in the country during the murders. Yeah, he could’ve snuck back in but Santos’ testimony makes clear he added Avila in after he heard all the hullabaloo in the news. During the time Santos claims he was meeting with Avila, Avila was in custody. And there is no independent evidence that corroborates Brandi being a drug mule. In fact, it’s to the contrary. The woman was broke.

At the end of the hearing at side bar, Hobbs says Segura doesn’t want to wait to test this whole alternate theory. Then Hobbs says he’s sick of this case and he couldn’t care less if they don’t wait to test these other theories!! Whoa! Lol. Then he brings Segura over and pretty much says to him everyone is sick of this case but it’ll be too late for you to complain that I didn’t pursue all this once you get a conviction. But Hobbs tone before Segura gets there is interesting. I wonder why he left the case!? I’m thinking Segura was a pistol of a client.

The scary thing is I did the break down from memory.

IMO DNA was a nothing burger. I was attacked online on YouTube about my opinion of guilt. I don't even post comments often there; just on that lawyers site as he provides court records sometimes we don't have access to. People really get hung up on DNA. I laugh when we all use the term foreign . I think of these little cells running around in somberos, berets, babushkas...We all have foreign DNA in our houses. If you have ever had acrylic nails you know how much stuff gets under those nails. Lotion clumps. I swear I had a whole kernel of corn once.

I (think) the background on Hobbs was that one of the witnesses was already a client, (the one that was looking for the crime stoppers money). I believe that was the reason he was able to withdraw as counsel. I am sure he was sick of the case too. SANTOS, Segura. Two witnesses for the state were arrested, I think the neighbors? for refusing to testify for the State but they had already given interviews. Don't remember the complete story on that one.

ETA: Segura probably lied to his own lawyer as well. That would be frustrating.
And of course some DNA is very very important to a case but for me not in this one.
Another judge on the case in one hearing said she did not even know the background on it. Seems like this case was shuffled around a lot in the beginning.
There was some hoopla when Segura's jail journal was confiscated (the rap songs that were supposedly about the murder) a jailhouse snitch alerted to these and I think he said he sent them to Segura's wife too. Campbell was the original prosecutor and his son ran the jail.

I will not be surprised if Prince brings up all this old history in the media. I don't think it could be used in appeal

 

[Jewels53]

The scary thing is I did the break down from memory.

IMO DNA was a nothing burger. I was attacked online on YouTube about my opinion of guilt. I don't even post comments often there; just on that lawyers site as he provides court records sometimes we don't have access to. People really get hung up on DNA. I laugh when we all use the term foreign . I think of these little cells running around in somberos, berets, babushkas...We all have foreign DNA in our houses. If you have ever had acrylic nails you know how much stuff gets under those nails. Lotion clumps. I swear I had a whole kernel of corn once.

I (think) the background on Hobbs was that one of the witnesses was already a client, (the one that was looking for the crime stoppers money). I believe that was the reason he was able to withdraw as counsel. I am sure he was sick of the case too. SANTOS, Segura. Two witnesses for the state were arrested, I think the neighbors? for refusing to testify for the State but they had already given interviews. Don't remember the complete story on that one.

ETA: Segura probably lied to his own lawyer as well. That would be frustrating.
And of course some DNA is very very important to a case but for me not in this one.
Another judge on the case in one hearing said she did not even know the background on it. Seems like this case was shuffled around a lot in the beginning.
There was some hoopla when Segura's jail journal was confiscated (the rap songs that were supposedly about the murder) a jailhouse snitch alerted to these and I think he said he sent them to Segura's wife too. Campbell was the original prosecutor and his son ran the jail.

I will not be surprised if Prince brings up all this old history in the media. I don't think it could be used in appeal

BBM

This reminded me of another case I followed about Laura Ackerman from NC. She was murdered and chopped up and hauled to TX and dumped in a creek. Murdered by her ex and his new wife over the custody of their 2 little boys. He basically wrote a song about the murders. They payed it in court and he sat there and acted like he was enjoying the beat.

GUILTY - NC - Laura Ackerson, 27, Kinston, 13 July 2011 #9

Hayes jams in court to song about killing his 'babies' momma' :: WRAL.com

The song starts about 1:10

 

[DTPeke]

BBM

This reminded me of another case I followed about Laura Ackerman from NC. She was murdered and chopped up and hauled to TX and dumped in a creek. Murdered by her ex and his new wife over the custody of their 2 little boys. He basically wrote a song about the murders. They payed it in court and he sat there and acted like he was enjoying the beat.

GUILTY - NC - Laura Ackerson, 27, Kinston, 13 July 2011 #9

Hayes jams in court to song about killing his 'babies' momma' :: WRAL.com

.

Disgusting and alarming, I am from Houston, Texas. I have never heard of this case...seems to be a trend writing songs. What is wrong with these people? I am also shocked there are not more people on this thread but happy with our small group of voices here