CONVICTION OVERTURNED GA - Ross Harris Trial Appeal, hot car death of son, Cooper

[RANCH]

I think it is unfair to Cooper for the courts to deny that factual information from being admitted into evidence. It will weaken the strength of the case because but will not show the obsession he had with his young girlfriend which was one of the motives for wanting to be free from family burdens. JMO

SBM

I noticed you mentioned a young girlfriend that RH was obsessed with. Which young girl are you talking about because he texted with several and hooked up with more than one young woman.

How would killing Cooper free him? Wouldn't killing his wife make more sense.

Was there any testimony from these women saying that RH planned to leave his wife and be with them instead? Thanks.

 

[BeckyF]

You are describing distraction here - Absorded in sexting and "caught up in an intimate exchange", resulting in him forgetting all about Cooper.

Again, Harris was charged and convicted of malice murder, which means the jury found he deliberately and intentionally murdered his child. Forgetting a child due to distraction - whatever that distraction may be - is the opposite of deliberate and intentional.

Had the jury found him guilty of malice murder without the endless prejudicial sexual testmony, we wouldn't be having this conversation. He'd be in prison for life. But this thread is about the Court overturning his conviction because the enormous amount of testimony about his sex life unfairly prejudiced the jury against him. I could see this being a huge problem even at the time.

For the record, I watched the entire trial, and I think it's quite possible, if not probable that he intentionally murdered Cooper. But he didn't get a fair trial, and every American is entitled to a fair trial.

Hear Hear!

 

[airportwoman]

Susan Smith’s motive was that her babies were an inconvenience and interfering with her own personal desires. Not much different, IMO.

I suspect that nowadays, she would have done it this way, and not tried to say she was carjacked by a black man.

If someone doesn't want to be a parent, they should sign away their parental rights, and walk away. That applies to both men and women.

 

[airportwoman]

SBM

I noticed you mentioned a young girlfriend that RH was obsessed with. Which young girl are you talking about because he texted with several and hooked up with more than one young woman.

How would killing Cooper free him? Wouldn't killing his wife make more sense.

Was there any testimony from these women saying that RH planned to leave his wife and be with them instead? Thanks.

Perhaps he thought women we be more likely to have sex with him, out of pity?

 

[neesaki]

I suspect that nowadays, she would have done it this way, and not tried to say she was carjacked by a black man.

If someone doesn't want to be a parent, they should sign away their parental rights, and walk away. That applies to both men and women.

Possibly. Would have been much easier to do than what she did, sadly to say.

 

[neesaki]

SBM

I noticed you mentioned a young girlfriend that RH was obsessed with. Which young girl are you talking about because he texted with several and hooked up with more than one young woman.

How would killing Cooper free him? Wouldn't killing his wife make more sense.

Was there any testimony from these women saying that RH planned to leave his wife and be with them instead? Thanks.

He might have considered Cooper an unwanted “burden” due to child support. For at least 18 years of his life.

 

[katydid23]

You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no evidence to support your theory that he spur of the moment decided to "ignore" his son for hours until his death because he was more interested in texting than bringing him to daycare. That wasn't the prosecution's argument, and it does not seem plausible.

I see only two possibilities. The first is that Ross decided to murder his son and took steps in advance to set it up to look like an accident. The second is that he was distracted to the point that he forgot Cooper was still in the car, which, of course, would be accidental. Grossly negligent, but not intentional.

"You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no evidence to support your theory that he spur of the moment decided to "ignore" his son for hours until his death because he was more interested in texting than bringing him to daycare."

Respectfully, I think there is some evidence.

The state showed the video of how long the drive was from when he put the baby in the car seat until he turned right, towards his office. It was less than a minute. He didn't forget about him in one minute.

I think that is evidence that he was planning to ignore his son's needs at that moment. He did not turn towards the day care. And I do not believe that he forgot about his son being in the car within a minutes time. His son was awake and was sitting within inches from his father at the time.

So the evidence above helps convince me that he willingly chose to ignore his son's needs that morning and he went on to the parking lot and drove around looking for an out of the way spot that he could back into. That was reportedly not the usual way he parked in the mornings.

My description is actually very close to this one of yours:
"I see only two possibilities. The first is that Ross decided to murder his son and took steps in advance to set it up to look like an accident"

I think we are actually in agreement about that as a possible scenario.

 

[katydid23]

Being married and a father to Cooper sure didn't slow RH down. Look at all of the sexual evidence that the State piled on to get the conviction. JMO.

right---but the girl he was in love with didn't want to continue with a married man.

 

[katydid23]

This part of the GSC opinion mentions that RH sexual activities was not slowed by him being married.


See page 92 of link.

https://cases.justia.com/georgia/supreme-court/2022-s22a0092.pdf?ts=1655901116

In the trial, they talked about the expense of hiring prostitutes and of his shame about it. He didn't want to continue that way. He wanted to have real girlfriends.

 

[katydid23]

He might have considered Cooper an unwanted “burden” due to child support. For at least 18 years of his life.

EXACTLY. He didnt want the burden anymore.

 

[katydid23]

The conviction wasn't overturned because the State presented evidence that was untrue or false. It was overturned because a great deal of that evidence was cumulative and prejudicial. This is what the GSC said.

See page 96 of link.

https://cases.justia.com/georgia/supreme-court/2022-s22a0092.pdf?ts=1655901116

That is just the opinion of this particular court. They said it was trivial and too prejudicial.

The state contends it went to motive and was an important part of their case. I agree with the state in this.

His obsession with sex and his love/desire for a relationship with the teen motivated him to cut ties with his family.

He couldn't just walk away because he'd owe child support and lose his house in the divorce. So he decided to rid himself of the one thing that would tie him to the financial burden he was rebelling against.

 

[katydid23]

SBM

I noticed you mentioned a young girlfriend that RH was obsessed with. Which young girl are you talking about because he texted with several and hooked up with more than one young woman.

How would killing Cooper free him? Wouldn't killing his wife make more sense.

Was there any testimony from these women saying that RH planned to leave his wife and be with them instead? Thanks.

I've been going through the case and have not reached the point where the girlfriend testifies yet. But there is a beautiful young redhead that testified he told her he was in love with her and that he was wanting a relationship with her. I'll post it here when I get that far.

Killing his wife might have crossed his mind too. IDK. But the big problem for him financially was his child. His wife made good money so he would not be paying her alimony if he divorced her. But he would be paying child support and they lived an upscale lifestyle.

 

[RANCH]

That is just the opinion of this particular court. They said it was trivial and too prejudicial.

The state contends it went to motive and was an important part of their case. I agree with the state in this.

His obsession with sex and his love/desire for a relationship with the teen motivated him to cut ties with his family.

He couldn't just walk away because he'd owe child support and lose his house in the divorce. So he decided to rid himself of the one thing that would tie him to the financial burden he was rebelling against.

It was the opinion of this court backed up by case law. There's no way to get around the fact that the trial court erred in allowing the cumulative and prejudicial evidence in along with not severing the sex crimes from the murder trial. JMO.

 

[RANCH]

I've been going through the case and have not reached the point where the girlfriend testifies yet. But there is a beautiful young redhead that testified he told her he was in love with her and that he was wanting a relationship with her. I'll post it here when I get that far.

Killing his wife might have crossed his mind too. IDK. But the big problem for him financially was his child. His wife made good money so he would not be paying her alimony if he divorced her. But he would be paying child support and they lived an upscale lifestyle.

The problem I have with RH leaving his wife for another woman would how it fits in with the State's theory. I don't see how it would make it easier for RH to have sex with as many woman as possible.

Also how does killing Cooper help in him leaving his wife for this other woman? Was it because he wanted to avoid child support? There wasn't any evidence presented to support that theory. JMO.

 

[RANCH]

Perhaps he thought women we be more likely to have sex with him, out of pity?

The State didn't present that to the jury. JMO.

 

[RANCH]

right---but the girl he was in love with didn't want to continue with a married man.

Need a link for that. What about all of the other woman that didn't care?

 

[RANCH]

In the trial, they talked about the expense of hiring prostitutes and of his shame about it. He didn't want to continue that way. He wanted to have real girlfriends

Who talked about it? See if you can find a link. He did have other "girlfriends" that he had sex with besides the prostitutes.

Smith testified that her online conversations with Appellant were often
sexual. In February 2014, she met Appellant in a parking lot, and they had sex in his vehicle. They met again in a parking lot in April 2014 and kissed. Appellant told Smith that he was having “problems in the bedroom” with his wife, but he never said anything about leaving Leanna.

Jacqueline Robledo, who was 19 years old when she began communicating with Appellant in the summer of 2013, testified that
their conversations “immediately went sexual[],” including exchanging sexual pictures. Later in the summer, they met at Appellant’s home and had sex.

Some time before February 2013, Appellant drove to the college dorm where Swindell was living, picked her up, and drove with her to a “back road.” They parked, talked,and kissed, and Swindell performed oral sex on him.

See pages 8, 24, and 41 of link.

https://cases.justia.com/georgia/supreme-court/2022-s22a0092.pdf?ts=1655901116

 

[RANCH]

He might have considered Cooper an unwanted “burden” due to child support. For at least 18 years of his life.

I guess that's possible but there was no evidence about him not wanting to pay for child support that I know of. JMO.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

Should this case go to retrial, could they change the possible convictions to several choices for the jury to select (if they choose to convict?)

 

[HarmonyE.]

Should this case go to retrial, could they change the possible convictions to several choices for the jury to select (if they choose to convict?)

It's a good question. Some have argued the state overcharged here, which may be why they went overboard on the sexual aspects of Harris's behavior to get a conviction. There is an involuntary manslaughter option in Georgia which is the unintentional killing of another person that must result from illegal or reckless conduct.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON :: ARTICLE 1 - HOMICIDE :: § 16-5-3 - Involuntary manslaughter

law.justia.com