GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #10

[emmalpage81]

sccoa.pdf
Link for appeal briefs, let me know if it doesn't work

robbird618 very much appreciated.

 

[emmalpage81]

Just my observations on the appellate brief for TM.

1. Curious as to why page 4 of the brief states that TM and SM arrived for a visit to see MM on the afternoon of the 1st August; we know from testimony that they arrived at approximately 20:30pm (Court hears how Jason Corbett socialised with neighbour on day before the killing). I am not sure who would consider 20:30pm as being in the afternoon.

2. There is much attention placed on the fact that the stains on the inside of the boxer shorts and hem of the pajama bottoms were not tested for blood (pages 6 and 7 of the brief). SJ was questioned in respect of this during the trial 'James stated that he assumed these impact spatters were blood by association of other tested impact spatters, but he added that he couldn’t say with scientific certainty. The analyst clarified that it is not common practice to test every single blood stain' (bbm) (Blood evidence shows Molly and her father were above Corbett during hits to his head, trial hears). Both the defence teams of TM and MM had the opportunity to put their own expert on the stand to contradict the testimony of SJ; they chose not to.

3. Fitzgerald statement - the Judge had to weigh up the two sides; the defence who say that MF confided in TM that he believed that JC had killed his daughter (lets not forget that when the motion to admit this was originally filed it said this conversation happened at JC and MM's wedding, which MF did not attend) against the prosecution who had a sworn declaration made by MF prior to his death stating that the conversation had never occured. The judge deemed the admission of the statement would be prejudicial and misleading. I do not see how any Judge would find otherwise.

4. Jury misconduct - I find the description of SB as an uninterested witness rather laughable. She was/is a known supporter of MM. Likewise, it came to light when we discussed the motion for appropriate relief that BG was in fact facebook friends with a well known MM supporter. Regardless of this nothing they swore to would, IMO, meet the threashold for throwing out the jury verdict.

I for one am looking forward to the State's response.

All views are my own opinion.

 

[emmalpage81]

Thanks Robbird...it's a fascinating read.
WHAT ABOUT THE BRICK????? Does that not contradict MM's statement as to what happened??
Interested to read MM's Brief now!

I agree, I would very much like to read MM's brief.

robbird618 could we possibly trouble you to download this document from the court's website?

I assume as TM stated in evidence that he never used the brick and never saw the brick any mention of it will be contained in MM's brief. It seems all arguments in respect of the statements of JC and SC are also contained in her brief.

All views are my own opinion

 

[TheBigBanana]

...

WHAT ABOUT THE BRICK????? Does that not contradict MM's statement as to what happened??
Interested to read MM's Brief now!

Apologies but I can't find reference regarding the brick in the above document.

Which section is that referred to?

Thanks.

 

[robbird618]

I agree, I would very much like to read MM's brief.

robbird618 could we possibly trouble you to download this document from the court's website?

I assume as TM stated in evidence that he never used the brick and never saw the brick any mention of it will be contained in MM's brief. It seems all arguments in respect of the statements of JC and SC are also contained in her brief.

All views are my own opinion

I'll look for it and see if I can find it.
Concerning the brick, TM stated he didn't use it or see it, but during his court testimony, he said MM told him after, that she hit JC with the brick. So didn't he admit that MM was also hitting JC. And looking at the brick and the amount of hair and tissue as compared to the amount of blood and hair on the bat, it looks as if the brick was the primary weapon used. If I were on the jury I would say that her father insured her guilty verdict.

 

[robbird618]

Sorry when I looked I didn't see any brief for MM and got the impression that this brief was for the both of them, but I'll look again.

 

[TheBigBanana]

Sorry when I looked I didn't see any brief for MM and got the impression that this brief was for the both of them, but I'll look again.

According to a least online news report MM's appelate brief was to be made available after TMs

Details of Mr Martens’ appellate brief were available last week, but not those of Ms Martens. They became available online today.

Molly Martens and her father file appeal against conviction for murdering Jason Corbett

 

[emmalpage81]

Apologies but I can't find reference regarding the brick in the above document.

Which section is that referred to?

Thanks.

There is no reference made in TM's brief to the paving brick, just the bat. I assume any mention will be made in MM's brief as she admitted she had 'tried' to hit JC with it.

All views are my own opinion

 

[emmalpage81]

Sorry when I looked I didn't see any brief for MM and got the impression that this brief was for the both of them, but I'll look again.

Not at all, thank you for giving us TM's. I think MM's brief was not available for the first few days after filing.

All views are in my own opinion

 

[emmalpage81]

I'll look for it and see if I can find it.
Concerning the brick, TM stated he didn't use it or see it, but during his court testimony, he said MM told him after, that she hit JC with the brick. So didn't he admit that MM was also hitting JC. And looking at the brick and the amount of hair and tissue as compared to the amount of blood and hair on the bat, it looks as if the brick was the primary weapon used. If I were on the jury I would say that her father insured her guilty verdict.

We also know in her police interview MM said she had tried to hit JC with the brick. We know from the trial the brick made contact with JC and was soaked in blood with pieces of hair and scalp embedded in it.

All views are in my own opinion

 

[Logic-lady]

Just my observations on the appellate brief for TM.

1. Curious as to why page 4 of the brief states that TM and SM arrived for a visit to see MM on the afternoon of the 1st August; we know from testimony that they arrived at approximately 20:30pm (Court hears how Jason Corbett socialised with neighbour on day before the killing). I am not sure who would consider 20:30pm as being in the afternoon.

2. There is much attention placed on the fact that the stains on the inside of the boxer shorts and hem of the pajama bottoms were not tested for blood (pages 6 and 7 of the brief). SJ was questioned in respect of this during the trial 'James stated that he assumed these impact spatters were blood by association of other tested impact spatters, but he added that he couldn’t say with scientific certainty. The analyst clarified that it is not common practice to test every single blood stain' (bbm) (Blood evidence shows Molly and her father were above Corbett during hits to his head, trial hears). Both the defence teams of TM and MM had the opportunity to put their own expert on the stand to contradict the testimony of SJ; they chose not to.

3. Fitzgerald statement - the Judge had to weigh up the two sides; the defence who say that MF confided in TM that he believed that JC had killed his daughter (lets not forget that when the motion to admit this was originally filed it said this conversation happened at JC and MM's wedding, which MF did not attend) against the prosecution who had a sworn declaration made by MF prior to his death stating that the conversation had never occured. The judge deemed the admission of the statement would be prejudicial and misleading. I do not see how any Judge would find otherwise.

4. Jury misconduct - I find the description of SB as an uninterested witness rather laughable. She was/is a known supporter of MM. Likewise, it came to light when we discussed the motion for appropriate relief that BG was in fact facebook friends with a well known MM supporter. Regardless of this nothing they swore to would, IMO, meet the threashold for throwing out the jury verdict.

I for one am looking forward to the State's response.

All views are my own opinion.

I'm glad at least we seem to be on the same page Emma. I had forgotten that BG wasn't as clean cut as he purported to be! that makes me feel better

 

[Logic-lady]

Apologies but I can't find reference regarding the brick in the above document.

Which section is that referred to?

Thanks.

Sorry BigBanana I was being slightly facetious. The jury were presented with a blood soaked brick, covered in JC's hair & scalp, which was put forward as the primary weapon in the altercation. (I remember one article quoting law enforcement as stating that the brick was so soaked in blood that when they lifted it from the floor the blood had pooled and soaked into the carpet below)

Nowhere in the above brief do the defense mention the brick, but they keep referring to the fact that the State didn't prove that MM could have been the aggressor. Well TM didn't use the brick...none of the testimony indicates that JC used the brick at any point. MM admitted to using the brick. If TM didn't see MM use the brick (as he testified), does that imply she had already used the brick on JC prior to TM entering the room? Which would surely change the circumstances of what happened/was happening once he entered the room. IMO

 

[emmalpage81]

I'm glad at least we seem to be on the same page Emma. I had forgotten that BG wasn't as clean cut as he purported to be! that makes me feel better

I would have felt a lot better if there had been a written judgment setting out why the appropriate relief motion was refused; we don't. The brief suggests there was no judgment just the Order refusing the relief.

All views are my own opinion

 

[robbird618]

sccoa (1).pdf
Link is to MM's brief, sorry it took me awhile

 

[emmalpage81]

sccoa (1).pdf
Link is to MM's brief, sorry it took me awhile

robbird618 very much appreciated.

All views are my own opinion

 

[emmalpage81]

So MM's appellate brief boils down to 5 separate issues:


1. They argue that the prosecution has not contradicted MM’s statement made to the sheriff's office. That the onus was on the prosecution to offer evidence to contradict or show her statement to be false. That, as the prosecution did not offer any evidence to contradict her statement, the case against MM should have been dismissed. I disagree, in her written statement (being the only statement MM made that was admitted into evidence) MM states that ‘Jason grabbed the bat and I tried to him him with a brick (garden décor) I had on my nightstand’ (emphasis added). Her statement was that she had attempted to hit JC, this has been contradicted by the evidence induced at the trial. The brick was shown to be blood soaked and had hair and tissue embedded in it. The brick was clearly used - and on more than one ocassion. Also, in TM’s testimony, he stated that he did not hit JC with the brick; he only admits to using the baseball bat. As such, IMO, MM’s statement to the sheriff’s office has been contradicted by both the evidence in respect of the brick (which she admits to having in her hands) as well as the testimony of TM that he did not strike JC with the brick.


2. They argue that the statements of the children should have been admitted under Rule 803(24) which is the residual exception to the hearsay rules. The Court found that the statements made by the children did not satisfy the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness test. The brief argues firstly that the Judge should have shown discretion and continued with the rest of the State v Smith six prong inquiry and, secondly, that the decision in respect of 803(24) was incorrect.


The Court ruled that the statements made by the children did not meet the criteria of trustworthiness due to three issues:


(1) the statements were not made from personal knowledge;

(2) the children were not motivated to speak the truth but, instead, by a desire to remain with MM and not the Corbett family; and

(3) the statements had been specifically recanted (p22 of the brief)


Whilst the defence admit that some of the statements were not from the children’s own personal knowledge other instances are of acts that they state they had witnessed and, at the very least, these should have been allowed. Secondly, they state that if (2) was correct they children would not be making accusations of abuse against MM now and (3) the statements have not been recanted or, at the very least, not all statements have been recanted.


In respect of SC the recantation appears to be via her entries in a diary or journal. The defence state that SC has not recanted any statement and that the recantation by JC is suspect and likely as a result of undue influence by the Lynch family. They further state that there is obviously undue influence or attempts to bad-mouth MM to the children which is evidenced by the fact that the children no longer refer to MM as ‘mom’ but instead refer to her as ‘Molly’.


IMO the statements have been recanted at the very least by JC. He has given an interview where he specifically states he was not being truthful in the interviews. This at the very least would make any statement of his fail the test of trustworthiness.


3. They argue that the same statements should have been admitted under Rule 803(4) which is the exception to the hearsay rule when the statements are offered for the purpose of obtaining a medical diagnosis or treatment. They seem to suggest that the fact that Dragonfly House officials diagnosed both JC and SC as having witnessed domestic abuse means that these statements should have been allowed. I disagree, the children had been referred to Dragonfly House in the sphere of the custody battle. JC had stated to them, when asked why he was there, ‘because my dad died’ and that in his opinion it was due to the custody case not for any formal medical evaluation or diagnosis.


4. The defence suggest that the court was wrong in instructing the jury that MM could be convicted if they believed that she acted in concert with TM. IMO the Court was correct in giving such an instruction. The evidence clearly shows that MM was present at the time the assault occurred and the fact that two weapons were used shows that she acted with TM.


The fact that the Judge omitted the second part of the pattern instruction to the jury is worrisome. However, in my view, given the very fact that two weapons were used, that TM stated he did not touch or use the brick and the MM admitted to at least trying to hit JC with the brick I do not think that the inclusion of the second paragraph would have materially changed the verdict reached. IMO it is clear that MM aided in the assault on JC.


All views are in my own opinion.

 

[emmalpage81]

Views on the appendices to MM’s appellate brief.

IMO it is clear the Judge was completely right in not allowing the inclusion of the children’s statements.

Notes in respect of SC’s interview with social services

· SC stated that when she was about 6 or 7 MM told her that her dad hurts her;
· SC states that when JC and MM fight they go into a room and JC hurts MM. MM told her this.
· SC states that she witnessed JC hit MM and pull her hair. Once she ran to brush her teeth and another time they were heading to the car.
· At page 55 of the brief which sets out the comments made by SC to the social worker on 7 August 2015, it is stated (when asked if there was anything that SC wanted to ask the social worker) my dad’s sister is supposed to come over on tomorrow night and stated that she is supposed to take her and her brother away from her mom. Sarah asked the social worker since she was at the home; if she could tell someone that she wants to stay with her mom.

Notes in respect of JC’s interview with social services

· JC states that when JC and MM are fighting he is sometimes in his room and sometimes he and SC are sent outside. Sometimes if they were fighting MM and JC would go to their room.
· JC states that he witnessed JC hit MM with his fist anywhere on her body a few times.
· JC stated that if he did something that he was not supposed to do (or didn’t do something that he was supposed to do) JC would yell at him and let it go, MM would make him do chores without telling his dad. JC stated that sometimes he would have to stay home from school to do chores because he really liked school.
· JC stated that if he could change one thing about his family it would be for his parents to stop fighting.

Notes in respect of MM’s interview with social services

· MM stated that JC had threatened to take the children back to Ireland
· MM stated that JC would take his anger out on SC and spank her really hard and put her on unreasonable punishments (in SC’s interview she stated she remembered getting spanked once when she was about 4 years old but no other instances)
· MM stated that she was not concerned about SC’s behavior but Kevin (sic) had begun getting angry fast and act in ways that reminded her of his father.
· MM stated that JC’s family would say that she had spent all of JC’s money but that he controlled the money and would get angry if she purchased the smallest thing.
· MM stated that 2-3 years before she had attended therapy for abuse but had stopped as she did not see that she was progressing

Other notes:

IMO the majority of what the children are describing are verbal arguments between JC and MM; they say they are sent to their rooms, outside or JC and MM themselves leave the rooms. The children would have no direct knowledge of anything that happened when they were not in the room and, therefore, will only be relying on things that they have been told.

Also, this report is riddled with inaccuracies, at one point it refers to Kevin instead of Jack at another point it refers to Jacen as opposed to Jason. Bobby is typed as Bobbie (and Ms. Bobbie at one point).


I find the notes from the Dragonfly House interviews rather fascinating. Apart from the fact that it appeared as thought JC did not wish to talk to them (when asked why he was there he replied ‘do I have to?’).

· JC stated that SC had a nightmare about insects and fairies and that his dad got mad. That his grandpa went upstairs with a bat. JC stated that his mom hit his dad with a cinderblock and his grandpa hit his dad with a bat. JC said that the cinderblock was on the desk in his parents’ room. JC said that the bat used by his grandpa was his and that he had used it previously.
· JC said that he had been at a birthday party on 2 August and his parents had collected him at about 11pm-12am that night. He says that his grandparents were at the house when he got there and it was a surprise as no-one knew that they were coming. JC stated that they talked sport together and that he then went to bed at about 12:10am -12:15am.
· JC says that he was awoken by the police who told him someone had been hurt and carried him down to the basement.
· JC stated that his grandparents were in the basement sleeping and when he asked them what was wrong they told him to stay downstairs. JC stated the police told him what happened at 4:52am and that MM told him later that JC had died.
· JC stated that he was angry and sad about JC starting the fight and with TM and MM for using the brick and bat. He stated that MM told him about her and TM using the brick and the bat.
· When talking about his life JC stated that MM came into his life soon after his biological mother had died and that JC had told him ‘your new mom is coming’.
· JC stated that MM had told him that TL and DL were trying to take him away from her and that this was not what his dad wanted. JC stated that MM was trying to adopt him but his dad never got the papers together
· JC stated his grandparents did not visit very often but if there was an emergency there were three phones in the house. JC said if his parents fought it was mostly in the kitchen. JC and SC were given a keyword to say if they needed to call their grandparents if things were bad; this meant hitting her or cussing really bad. JC said this did happen one time after his dad was drunk after a party.
· JC said he was not afraid of his dad. He said he was not sure if SC was scared of their dad but MM had told him that she was afraid of his dad.

· SC stated that on 2 August JC had had been drinking outside with neighbours. She had played with another child. At around 9pm her grandparents arrived. She said it was a surprise and no one knew they were coming apart from MM.
· SC stated that she saw her dad hit her mom in the face and call her bad names and things like worthless. She said that when she was six years old MM told her ‘your dad is not that good of a dad’.
· SC stated that she never woke up the night that JC died and that she must have been a hard sleeper that night. She stated that she usually wakes up at light sounds. She said usually when she wakes up she goes to her parents’ room and that she thinks that it why they fought that night.

I am actually quite shocked at the contents of the interviews. IMO these are rather damning to the defence. They are pinpointing the parts which support them for the purposes of the appeal and completely ignoring the glaring issues i.e both children at times state they were told about the abuse rather than witnessed it; JC states that he was told that MM hit JC with the brick, that JC stated the bat used was not brought to the house that evening it was his and he had used it previously. That SC stated that she had not awoken that night but usually did and she believes that this is why the fought that night. All these statements were made by the children before TL and DL had even seen them.

All views are in my own opinion.

 

[Logic-lady]

Views on the appendices to MM’s appellate brief.

IMO it is clear the Judge was completely right in not allowing the inclusion of the children’s statements.

Notes in respect of SC’s interview with social services

· SC stated that when she was about 6 or 7 MM told her that her dad hurts her;
· SC states that when JC and MM fight they go into a room and JC hurts MM. MM told her this.
· SC states that she witnessed JC hit MM and pull her hair. Once she ran to brush her teeth and another time they were heading to the car.
· At page 55 of the brief which sets out the comments made by SC to the social worker on 7 August 2015, it is stated (when asked if there was anything that SC wanted to ask the social worker) my dad’s sister is supposed to come over on tomorrow night and stated that she is supposed to take her and her brother away from her mom. Sarah asked the social worker since she was at the home; if she could tell someone that she wants to stay with her mom.

Notes in respect of JC’s interview with social services

· JC states that when JC and MM are fighting he is sometimes in his room and sometimes he and SC are sent outside. Sometimes if they were fighting MM and JC would go to their room.
· JC states that he witnessed JC hit MM with his fist anywhere on her body a few times.
· JC stated that if he did something that he was not supposed to do (or didn’t do something that he was supposed to do) JC would yell at him and let it go, MM would make him do chores without telling his dad. JC stated that sometimes he would have to stay home from school to do chores because he really liked school.
· JC stated that if he could change one thing about his family it would be for his parents to stop fighting.

Notes in respect of MM’s interview with social services

· MM stated that JC had threatened to take the children back to Ireland
· MM stated that JC would take his anger out on SC and spank her really hard and put her on unreasonable punishments (in SC’s interview she stated she remembered getting spanked once when she was about 4 years old but no other instances)
· MM stated that she was not concerned about SC’s behavior but Kevin (sic) had begun getting angry fast and act in ways that reminded her of his father.
· MM stated that JC’s family would say that she had spent all of JC’s money but that he controlled the money and would get angry if she purchased the smallest thing.
· MM stated that 2-3 years before she had attended therapy for abuse but had stopped as she did not see that she was progressing

Other notes:

IMO the majority of what the children are describing are verbal arguments between JC and MM; they say they are sent to their rooms, outside or JC and MM themselves leave the rooms. The children would have no direct knowledge of anything that happened when they were not in the room and, therefore, will only be relying on things that they have been told.

Also, this report is riddled with inaccuracies, at one point it refers to Kevin instead of Jack at another point it refers to Jacen as opposed to Jason. Bobby is typed as Bobbie (and Ms. Bobbie at one point).


I find the notes from the Dragonfly House interviews rather fascinating. Apart from the fact that it appeared as thought JC did not wish to talk to them (when asked why he was there he replied ‘do I have to?’).

· JC stated that SC had a nightmare about insects and fairies and that his dad got mad. That his grandpa went upstairs with a bat. JC stated that his mom hit his dad with a cinderblock and his grandpa hit his dad with a bat. JC said that the cinderblock was on the desk in his parents’ room. JC said that the bat used by his grandpa was his and that he had used it previously.
· JC said that he had been at a birthday party on 2 August and his parents had collected him at about 11pm-12am that night. He says that his grandparents were at the house when he got there and it was a surprise as no-one knew that they were coming. JC stated that they talked sport together and that he then went to bed at about 12:10am -12:15am.
· JC says that he was awoken by the police who told him someone had been hurt and carried him down to the basement.
· JC stated that his grandparents were in the basement sleeping and when he asked them what was wrong they told him to stay downstairs. JC stated the police told him what happened at 4:52am and that MM told him later that JC had died.
· JC stated that he was angry and sad about JC starting the fight and with TM and MM for using the brick and bat. He stated that MM told him about her and TM using the brick and the bat.
· When talking about his life JC stated that MM came into his life soon after his biological mother had died and that JC had told him ‘your new mom is coming’.
· JC stated that MM had told him that TL and DL were trying to take him away from her and that this was not what his dad wanted. JC stated that MM was trying to adopt him but his dad never got the papers together
· JC stated his grandparents did not visit very often but if there was an emergency there were three phones in the house. JC said if his parents fought it was mostly in the kitchen. JC and SC were given a keyword to say if they needed to call their grandparents if things were bad; this meant hitting her or cussing really bad. JC said this did happen one time after his dad was drunk after a party.
· JC said he was not afraid of his dad. He said he was not sure if SC was scared of their dad but MM had told him that she was afraid of his dad.

· SC stated that on 2 August JC had had been drinking outside with neighbours. She had played with another child. At around 9pm her grandparents arrived. She said it was a surprise and no one knew they were coming apart from MM.
· SC stated that she saw her dad hit her mom in the face and call her bad names and things like worthless. She said that when she was six years old MM told her ‘your dad is not that good of a dad’.
· SC stated that she never woke up the night that JC died and that she must have been a hard sleeper that night. She stated that she usually wakes up at light sounds. She said usually when she wakes up she goes to her parents’ room and that she thinks that it why they fought that night.

I am actually quite shocked at the contents of the interviews. IMO these are rather damning to the defence. They are pinpointing the parts which support them for the purposes of the appeal and completely ignoring the glaring issues i.e both children at times state they were told about the abuse rather than witnessed it; JC states that he was told that MM hit JC with the brick, that JC stated the bat used was not brought to the house that evening it was his and he had used it previously. That SC stated that she had not awoken that night but usually did and she believes that this is why the fought that night. All these statements were made by the children before TL and DL had even seen them.

All views are in my own opinion.

I haven't read the brief yet. But my heart goes out to SC, it is honestly one of the cruellest things I have ever come across, to imply that the blame for her father's death rests with her. I so wish they had thought to do blood tests on the kids that night.

 

[Logic-lady]

robbird618 very much appreciated.

All views are my o

So MM's appellate brief boils down to 5 separate issues:


1. They argue that the prosecution has not contradicted MM’s statement made to the sheriff's office. That the onus was on the prosecution to offer evidence to contradict or show her statement to be false. That, as the prosecution did not offer any evidence to contradict her statement, the case against MM should have been dismissed. I disagree, in her written statement (being the only statement MM made that was admitted into evidence) MM states that ‘Jason grabbed the bat and I tried to him him with a brick (garden décor) I had on my nightstand’ (emphasis added). Her statement was that she had attempted to hit JC, this has been contradicted by the evidence induced at the trial. The brick was shown to be blood soaked and had hair and tissue embedded in it. The brick was clearly used - and on more than one ocassion. Also, in TM’s testimony, he stated that he did not hit JC with the brick; he only admits to using the baseball bat. As such, IMO, MM’s statement to the sheriff’s office has been contradicted by both the evidence in respect of the brick (which she admits to having in her hands) as well as the testimony of TM that he did not strike JC with the brick.


2. They argue that the statements of the children should have been admitted under Rule 803(24) which is the residual exception to the hearsay rules. The Court found that the statements made by the children did not satisfy the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness test. The brief argues firstly that the Judge should have shown discretion and continued with the rest of the State v Smith six prong inquiry and, secondly, that the decision in respect of 803(24) was incorrect.


The Court ruled that the statements made by the children did not meet the criteria of trustworthiness due to three issues:


(1) the statements were not made from personal knowledge;

(2) the children were not motivated to speak the truth but, instead, by a desire to remain with MM and not the Corbett family; and

(3) the statements had been specifically recanted (p22 of the brief)


Whilst the defence admit that some of the statements were not from the children’s own personal knowledge other instances are of acts that they state they had witnessed and, at the very least, these should have been allowed. Secondly, they state that if (2) was correct they children would not be making accusations of abuse against MM now and (3) the statements have not been recanted or, at the very least, not all statements have been recanted.


In respect of SC the recantation appears to be via her entries in a diary or journal. The defence state that SC has not recanted any statement and that the recantation by JC is suspect and likely as a result of undue influence by the Lynch family. They further state that there is obviously undue influence or attempts to bad-mouth MM to the children which is evidenced by the fact that the children no longer refer to MM as ‘mom’ but instead refer to her as ‘Molly’.


IMO the statements have been recanted at the very least by JC. He has given an interview where he specifically states he was not being truthful in the interviews. This at the very least would make any statement of his fail the test of trustworthiness.


3. They argue that the same statements should have been admitted under Rule 803(4) which is the exception to the hearsay rule when the statements are offered for the purpose of obtaining a medical diagnosis or treatment. They seem to suggest that the fact that Dragonfly House officials diagnosed both JC and SC as having witnessed domestic abuse means that these statements should have been allowed. I disagree, the children had been referred to Dragonfly House in the sphere of the custody battle. JC had stated to them, when asked why he was there, ‘because my dad died’ and that in his opinion it was due to the custody case not for any formal medical evaluation or diagnosis.


4. The defence suggest that the court was wrong in instructing the jury that MM could be convicted if they believed that she acted in concert with TM. IMO the Court was correct in giving such an instruction. The evidence clearly shows that MM was present at the time the assault occurred and the fact that two weapons were used shows that she acted with TM.


The fact that the Judge omitted the second part of the pattern instruction to the jury is worrisome. However, in my view, given the very fact that two weapons were used, that TM stated he did not touch or use the brick and the MM admitted to at least trying to hit JC with the brick I do not think that the inclusion of the second paragraph would have materially changed the verdict reached. IMO it is clear that MM aided in the assault on JC.


All views are in my own opinion.

Perfectly put!

 

[Logic-lady]

Does anyone know if it's possible to get the State's response to the above?