GUILTY TX - Det. Benjamin Marconi, 50, fatally shot, San Antonio, 20 Nov 2016 *Arrest*
- Thread starter perfectingpink
- Start date
steelman
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2014
- Messages
- 5,052
- Reaction score
- 249
I would be hesitant to refer to his new wife as a "poor girl", birds of the feather flock together. This may have more with her getting immunity from prosecution than with anything, especially if she knew what he was up to beforehand. Since they were hurriedly married, he may have been trying to get her insulated so she couldn't be forced to testify against him, since it was after he had blown a cop away that he made a run for the nearest wedding chapel.
His little scheme is probably going to fall apart after the Texas Rangers spend some real quality time with his new bride, after which she'll pull the old switch-a-roo on Otis and start singing like a canary.
Look at the bright side, at least he'll have one visitor there to support him when the State of Texas injects his arteries with a lethal cocktail of intravenous drugs.
Elley Mae
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Messages
- 21,941
- Reaction score
- 45,666
Thanks steelman, i agree.
Does anyone know where courthouse is in proximity to police headquarters where the shooting took place?
Does anyone know where courthouse is in proximity to police headquarters where the shooting took place?
BEXAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
100 Dolorosa
San Antonio, Texas 78205
http://www.bexar.org/304/All-County-Offices
San Antonio Police DepartmentThe San Antonio Police Department is the municipal law enforcement agency of the city of San Antonio in the U.S. state of Texas. It is headquartered in Downtown San Antonio at 315 South Santa Rosa Street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio
Can someone help w a map pinpointing both? Thx in adv.
100 Dolorosa
San Antonio, Texas 78205
http://www.bexar.org/304/All-County-Offices
San Antonio Police DepartmentThe San Antonio Police Department is the municipal law enforcement agency of the city of San Antonio in the U.S. state of Texas. It is headquartered in Downtown San Antonio at 315 South Santa Rosa Street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio
Can someone help w a map pinpointing both? Thx in adv.
wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 731
Both are downtown, less than half a mile apart.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San...3177b1a039d610!2m2!1d-98.4937221!2d29.4230831
from our pals at wiki, w mostly my (mostly) bolding & red.
"Spousal privilege (also called marital privilege or husband-wife privilege)[SUP][1][/SUP] is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges: the communications privilege and the testimonial privilege. Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.
"In the United States, federal case law dictates its permissible and prohibited invocation in trials, while state case law outlines its scope in state courts.
"The spousal communications privilege or confidences privilege is a form of privileged communication that protects the contents of confidential communications between spouses during their marriage from testimonial disclosure. The privilege applies in civil and criminal cases.Both the witness-spouse and the party-spouse hold the spousal communications privilege, so either may invoke it to prevent the other from testifying about a confidential communication made during marriage.
The communications privilege begins on marriage, and cannot be invoked to protect confidential communications between now-married spouses that occurred prior to their marriage.[SUP][2][/SUP] Unlike testimonial privilege, the communications privilege survives the end of a marriage, and may be asserted by a spouse to protect confidential communications that were made during the marriageeven after divorce or death.
[h=4]"Testimonial privilege
[/h]
"Spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify by the prosecution against his/her spouse/the defendant. A minority of states apply testimonial privilege in both criminal and civil cases. For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970, California permits the application of testimonial privilege to both civil and criminal cases, and includes both the privilege not to testify as well as the privilege not to be called as a witness by the party adverse to the interests of the spouse in the trial.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Under U.S. federal common law, the spousal testimonial privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and therefore does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.[SUP][4][/SUP] The rationale of this rule is that if a witness-spouse desires to testify against the party-spouse, there is no marital harmony left to protect through the obstruction of such testimony. This common law principle is the view in a minority of U.S. states. A majority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, do not follow U.S. federal common law; in most states, the party-spouse, and not the witness-spouse, is the holder of spousal testimonial privilege.
Spousal testimonial privilege covers observations, such as the color of the clothing the party-spouse was wearing on a certain day, as well as communications, such as the content of a telephone conversation with the party-spouse.
The witness-spouse may invoke testimonial privilege regarding events which occurred (1) during the marriage, if the spouses are still married; and (2) prior to the marriage if he is married to his spouse in court proceedings at the time of trial. If, by the time the trial occurs, the spouses are no longer married, the former spouse-witness may testify freely about any events which occurred prior to, after, or even during the marriage. Spousal testimonial privilege, in other words, only lasts as long as the marriage does."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege
^ is gen'l re US law, gonna look for some TX-specific info.
"Spousal privilege (also called marital privilege or husband-wife privilege)[SUP][1][/SUP] is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges: the communications privilege and the testimonial privilege. Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.
"In the United States, federal case law dictates its permissible and prohibited invocation in trials, while state case law outlines its scope in state courts.
"The spousal communications privilege or confidences privilege is a form of privileged communication that protects the contents of confidential communications between spouses during their marriage from testimonial disclosure. The privilege applies in civil and criminal cases.Both the witness-spouse and the party-spouse hold the spousal communications privilege, so either may invoke it to prevent the other from testifying about a confidential communication made during marriage.
The communications privilege begins on marriage, and cannot be invoked to protect confidential communications between now-married spouses that occurred prior to their marriage.[SUP][2][/SUP] Unlike testimonial privilege, the communications privilege survives the end of a marriage, and may be asserted by a spouse to protect confidential communications that were made during the marriageeven after divorce or death.
[h=4]"Testimonial privilege
[/h]
"Spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify by the prosecution against his/her spouse/the defendant. A minority of states apply testimonial privilege in both criminal and civil cases. For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970, California permits the application of testimonial privilege to both civil and criminal cases, and includes both the privilege not to testify as well as the privilege not to be called as a witness by the party adverse to the interests of the spouse in the trial.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Under U.S. federal common law, the spousal testimonial privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and therefore does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.[SUP][4][/SUP] The rationale of this rule is that if a witness-spouse desires to testify against the party-spouse, there is no marital harmony left to protect through the obstruction of such testimony. This common law principle is the view in a minority of U.S. states. A majority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, do not follow U.S. federal common law; in most states, the party-spouse, and not the witness-spouse, is the holder of spousal testimonial privilege.
Spousal testimonial privilege covers observations, such as the color of the clothing the party-spouse was wearing on a certain day, as well as communications, such as the content of a telephone conversation with the party-spouse.
The witness-spouse may invoke testimonial privilege regarding events which occurred (1) during the marriage, if the spouses are still married; and (2) prior to the marriage if he is married to his spouse in court proceedings at the time of trial. If, by the time the trial occurs, the spouses are no longer married, the former spouse-witness may testify freely about any events which occurred prior to, after, or even during the marriage. Spousal testimonial privilege, in other words, only lasts as long as the marriage does."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege
^ is gen'l re US law, gonna look for some TX-specific info.
ZooSleuth
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,420
- Reaction score
- 26
Just curious, what makes you come to the conclusion he's a sociopath?
katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 66,834
- Reaction score
- 227,234
Maybe he is. Hard to imagine walking up to a stranger and shooting them point blank in the face, if you do have any normal kind of feelings or compassion.
Some info re whether TEXAS (new wife/potential) witness-spouse can testify party-criminally-charged-spouse.
On its face not very definitive for the Bexar County sitution. Seems case law should flesh it out.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/CR/htm/Cr.38.htm
Art. 38.10. EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPOUSAL ADVERSE TESTIMONY PRIVILEGE.
The privilege of a person's spouse not to be called as a witness for the state does not apply in any proceeding in which the person is charged with:
(1) a crime committed against the person's spouse, a minor child, or a member of the household of either spouse; or
(2) an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code (Bigamy).
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 67, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 268 (S.B. 6), Sec. 4.01, eff. September 1, 2005.
x
On its face not very definitive for the Bexar County sitution. Seems case law should flesh it out.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/CR/htm/Cr.38.htm
Art. 38.10. EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPOUSAL ADVERSE TESTIMONY PRIVILEGE.
The privilege of a person's spouse not to be called as a witness for the state does not apply in any proceeding in which the person is charged with:
(1) a crime committed against the person's spouse, a minor child, or a member of the household of either spouse; or
(2) an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code (Bigamy).
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 67, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 268 (S.B. 6), Sec. 4.01, eff. September 1, 2005.
x
wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 731
To shoot an officer of the law to death and then, same day, to marry someone, both events in close proximity, with what must, to a rational person, have been a realization that almost certain arrest would follow and, with it, a first degree murder charge and subsequent conviction and a death sentence, well -- the catch there is rational person. This alleged killer realizes the quality and effect of his actions, make no mistake; to combine that knowledge and act with marriage -- the culmination of a romantic relationship -- is not the path a normal and functioning human would walk. Love and death -- here, the hallmark acts of a sociopath -- and a star turn as a dead man to follow: to find oneself in control of such a sequence is an act of such power and hatred that it beggars rational belief. To a man with such a mindset, a death sentence would play right into his hands.
ZooSleuth
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,420
- Reaction score
- 26
It's possible he is. If his apology and confession the other day were genuine then he was showing remorse, and my degree in armchair psychology tells me that would make him not a sociopath. That being said, it could have all been a load of crap to save face.
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 24,241
- Reaction score
- 142,469
Breaking news: Officer shot in head. Tonight (11/22). Wayne State University, near Detroit.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...ty-police-officer-shot-head-article-1.2884096
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...ty-police-officer-shot-head-article-1.2884096
Seems, per Texas Rules of Evidence below, imo :
--- new wife may claim privilege and not to testify about her husband's confidential communications w her after/during marriage, unless her husband's communication to her is made "wholly or partially to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud...." see 504(A)(4)(A)
but --- if the state calls her to testify at husband's crim trial about matters that occurred before marriage, she would be compelled to testify on those matters.
JM2cts, could be wrong.
_________________________________________________________________
Texas Rules of Evidence (bbm sbm)
"Rule 504. Spousal Privileges
(a) Confidential Communication Privilege.
(1) Definition. A communication is confidential if a person makes it privately to the persons spouse and does not intend its disclosure to any other person.
(2) General Rule. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose ... a confidential communication made to the persons spouse while they were married. This privilege survives termination of the marriage.
(3) Who May Claim. The privilege may be claimed by:
(A) Furtherance of Crime or Fraud.
If the communication is madewholly or partially to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud....
(b) Privilege Not to Testify in a Criminal Case.
(1). General Rule.
In a criminal case, an accuseds spouse has a privilege not to be called to testify for the state. But this rule neither prohibits a spouse from testifying voluntarily for the state nor gives a spouse a privilege to refuse to be called to testify for the accused.
(2) Failure to Call Spouse.
If other evidence indicates that the accuseds spouse could testify to relevant matters, an accuseds failure to call the spouse to testify is a proper subject of comment by counsel.
(3) Who May Claim.
The privilege not to testify may be claimed by the accuseds spouse ... but not by the accused.
(4) Exceptions.
This privilege does not apply: ....
(B) Matters That Occurred Before the Marriage. If the spouse is called to testify about matters that occurred before the marriage."
^ [PDF]. Supreme Court of Texas - State Bar of Texas
https://texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Texas_Bar_Journal2&...
Rule 504. Spousal Privileges Rule
--- new wife may claim privilege and not to testify about her husband's confidential communications w her after/during marriage, unless her husband's communication to her is made "wholly or partially to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud...." see 504(A)(4)(A)
but --- if the state calls her to testify at husband's crim trial about matters that occurred before marriage, she would be compelled to testify on those matters.
JM2cts, could be wrong.
_________________________________________________________________
Texas Rules of Evidence (bbm sbm)
"Rule 504. Spousal Privileges
(a) Confidential Communication Privilege.
(1) Definition. A communication is confidential if a person makes it privately to the persons spouse and does not intend its disclosure to any other person.
(2) General Rule. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose ... a confidential communication made to the persons spouse while they were married. This privilege survives termination of the marriage.
(3) Who May Claim. The privilege may be claimed by:
(A) the communicating spouse;... or
The other spouse may claim the privilege on the communicating spouses behalfand is presumed to have authority to do so.
(4) Exceptions. This privilege does not apply:The other spouse may claim the privilege on the communicating spouses behalfand is presumed to have authority to do so.
(A) Furtherance of Crime or Fraud.
If the communication is madewholly or partially to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud....
(b) Privilege Not to Testify in a Criminal Case.
(1). General Rule.
In a criminal case, an accuseds spouse has a privilege not to be called to testify for the state. But this rule neither prohibits a spouse from testifying voluntarily for the state nor gives a spouse a privilege to refuse to be called to testify for the accused.
(2) Failure to Call Spouse.
If other evidence indicates that the accuseds spouse could testify to relevant matters, an accuseds failure to call the spouse to testify is a proper subject of comment by counsel.
(3) Who May Claim.
The privilege not to testify may be claimed by the accuseds spouse ... but not by the accused.
(4) Exceptions.
This privilege does not apply: ....
(B) Matters That Occurred Before the Marriage. If the spouse is called to testify about matters that occurred before the marriage."
^ [PDF]. Supreme Court of Texas - State Bar of Texas
https://texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Texas_Bar_Journal2&...
Rule 504. Spousal Privileges Rule
wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 731
Dogface
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,734
- Reaction score
- 427
It's so strange to hear a cold blooded murderer apologizing, and perhaps I'm being too generous, but I want to believe him. Not that an apology can make one iota of a difference, but it just leaves me bewildered and feeling strange about it. I'm sure by the time it goes to trial, he will enter a not guilty plea, claim insanity, but I am almost thankful to hear someone just take responsibility for what they have done. Unfortunately, like my daddy use to tell me,sometimes sorry isn't enough to make things right. Like breaking a plate, and glueing the pieces back together....it may look like the same plate, but you can still see the cracks and it's never the same again.
katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 66,834
- Reaction score
- 227,234
I think it is just the beginning of his insanity plea. He babbles on about grief over not seeing his child anymore, 'explains' how his pain and grief forced him to 'lash out' ----he is setting up his defense, imo.