Chase Merritt SENTENCED TO DEATH for murder of McStay Family POST TRIAL THOUGHTS

Merritt doesn't want to be on death row. Four life without parole sentences means a different section in the prison and even determines what prison; he wouldn't necessarily be at San Quentin. This 11th hour delay tactic is Chase manipulating as usual. McGee's out for whatever reasons. He and Maline obvs had a falling out because the splitting up of partners and separate offices is too much legal hijinks to just manipulate one case, even on behalf of Monster Merritt.

Maline will still want a new trial; it's an automatic appeals process on DP cases.

Alternate info and/or opinions are welcome. This is just how I see it looking out my window like that cute pup!
 
How about McGee is tired of Merritt's games and he is fed up with Maline being buddy buddy with Merritt. The two have not gotten along as people may think and McGee I think wants out and to go on with life. I think Maline just wants to delay delay delay!
I couldn't agree more. I think McGee wants to move on from this case and everything Merritt but Maline wants to file motions and delay the inevitable.

Also, maybe the documentary people are no longer footing the bill so it's no longer financially beneficial to stay on and allow Merritt to continue with calling the shots. In light of what we now know I wonder if McGee really had health issues that interfered with the trial or if it had more to do with the falling out between the lawyers?
 
I was hoping we would get a tidbit more info on what the conflict is! From the tweets... the judge thinks that Maline/Merritt should be given time to "investigate" the conflict... but the conflict is less since Maline and McGee are no longer in the same office.... wth does that mean????

We did learn that they have NOT filed a Motion for a New Trial yet... or a Motion to Reduce Sentence... which I think is just asking the judge to give him life instead of death, since the jury recommendations are just that, recommendations.

Anyone have thoughts on what this "conflict" could be?

Hi Missy, and all!

I think the convicted defendant, and McGee have a conflict on how this phase should be done.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if CM wants him to retry the guilt phase, instead of putting on a standard defense trying to save his worthless life like McGee knows is the proper procedure in this final phase. Jmo.

Also, I have never seen any judge, not even one in CA, who sat aside a death penalty verdict rendered by all 12 sitting jurors.

Yes, it is a recommendation because jurors do not have the legal authority to impose it. But it carries great legal weight, and power because it requires 12 jurors unanimously to determine the right, and just verdict, then the judge imposes it to be carried out.

That is the very reason our USSC ruled a few years back now the determination must be done always by 12 jurors in all death penalty cases.

At one time for decades a DP trial could be held through a bench trial where one presiding judge alone hears all phases, and could impose death.

JS will definitely carry out what the 12 jurors decided was the only just sentence who have sat there for months in all phases to come to that conclusion.

Imhoo, if it still had been left up to only JS he would have given him the death penalty too.

I'm sure he has precious grandchildren of his own, and even after being on the bench for many years now, no one ever becomes immune to the depravity they see other evil human beings do to innocent victims, not even him.

Just like decades later we often see detectives still cry over cases where little lives were taken in the most horrific ways.:(

Jmhoo
 
Last edited:
Here is video from the courtroom today:


This is much more clear to me anyway now that I have listened to this and am thankful they put this on youtube, since relying on tweets sucks!!!

In the first few minutes it is mentioned that in the course of preparing for a Motion for a New Trial it dealt with a lot of the work that McGee did, and now that he has taken this position (saying there is a conflice of interest), the exchange of information is not the same.

Later Imes says something about reading between the lines, it seems like it will be one trial attorney against the other ... to which the judge said that now that they are not in the same office/practice, it may not be as big of an issue. Cathy's tweet earlier said there was less of a conflict between McGee/Maline because they weren't practicing together anymore... now I know the context and it makes sense.

I will be shocked if they don't claim ineffective assistance of counsel in a Motion for a New Trial... of course, against McGee. This is why it's sealed as well, it's information that they may file in a motion for a new trial, and the prosecution doesn't get to hear or read that before it's filed.

On another note.... filing motions for a new trial or for a reduction in sentencing is common and done all the time, this isn't just Merritt delaying, it's the lawyers doing their jobs, and my guess is that you can look up any murder trial and find that they did the same thing after the verdict and before sentencing. JMO
 
Here is video from the courtroom today:


This is much more clear to me anyway now that I have listened to this and am thankful they put this on youtube, since relying on tweets sucks!!!

In the first few minutes it is mentioned that in the course of preparing for a Motion for a New Trial it dealt with a lot of the work that McGee did, and now that he has taken this position (saying there is a conflice of interest), the exchange of information is not the same.

Later Imes says something about reading between the lines, it seems like it will be one trial attorney against the other ... to which the judge said that now that they are not in the same office/practice, it may not be as big of an issue. Cathy's tweet earlier said there was less of a conflict between McGee/Maline because they weren't practicing together anymore... now I know the context and it makes sense.

I will be shocked if they don't claim ineffective assistance of counsel in a Motion for a New Trial... of course, against McGee. This is why it's sealed as well, it's information that they may file in a motion for a new trial, and the prosecution doesn't get to hear or read that before it's filed.

On another note.... filing motions for a new trial or for a reduction in sentencing is common and done all the time, this isn't just Merritt delaying, it's the lawyers doing their jobs, and my guess is that you can look up any murder trial and find that they did the same thing after the verdict and before sentencing. JMO

Thanks Missy!

No doubt it's a common practice in any case by all DTs.

Its the same standard protocol as when all DTs files a motion to dismiss any case outright, implying the state had not met their burdern of proof in their CIC, as was also standardly done by this DT as well.

We also read the scathing dress down ruling of the DTs assertions by JS when he refused to dismiss the case..making very clear to the many legal whys.. he refused.

These same procedures happens in all murder trials. It's the duty of all DTs to try to get the case dismissed before, during, and all the way until its over in the lower court.

I know we can all search looking for such particular specific cases like this one.

But, imo, I think it would have to be specific, first, to death penalty cases.

Secondly, did the presiding judges, overturn it themselves, and did they on their own set aside the juries death penalty reccomendation by the same lower court presiding judge which presided over the actual cases themselves.

Also did the lower court judge themselves overturn the first one, granting a new trial before the first one was even completed, when after completion thereafter all cases would be determined by the higher appellate courts, and not by the trial court.

We also have to remember when any plea deal is offered by any defense attorneys to reduce sentence it is up to all prosecutors to accept or deny any offer made.

Pleas are usually done by both the state, and defense before it comes to trial. Iirc around 90 percent of defendants admit guilt, and pleas are done where a trial isnt necessary.

I find any plea deal here slim to none at this juncture, based on the final outcome rendered by all 12 jurors as required by law. Really why should the state do so after the jury has already found him guilty, and recommended death?

As far as IAoC of McGee, imhoo, that will go nowhere.

It's one of the highest legal burdens to prove, even appellate attorneys who file motions of convicted inmates know all too well what a high legal burdern it is to prove. If proven it can windup with an attorney being disbarred, and career ruined. It cant just be said to be true, it must be proven every step of the way with irrefutable evidence its true.

When done its the attorneys who are now being put on trial being judged by their own peers. That is one of the reasons it must be shown with proof. If not anyone wanting to ruin a certain attorney's career would be able to do so by merely making such claim.

Jmhoo
 
Last edited:
Thanks Missy!

No doubt it's a common practice in any case by all DTs.

Its the same standard protocol as when all DTs files a motion to dismiss any case outright, implying the state had not met their burdern of proof in their CIC, as was also standardly done by this DT as well.

We also read the scathing dress down ruling of the DTs assertions by JS when he refused to dismiss the case..making very clear to the many legal whys.. he refused.

These same procedures happens in all murder trials. It's the duty of all DTs to try to get the case dismissed before, during, and all the way until its over in the lower court.

I know we can all search looking for such particular specific cases like this one.

But, imo, I think it would have to be specific, first, to death penalty cases.

Secondly, did the presiding judges, overturn it themselves, and did they on their own set aside the juries death penalty reccomendation by the same lower court presiding judge which presided over the actual cases themselves.

Also did the lower court judge themselves overturn the first one, granting a new trial before the first one was even completed, when after completion thereafter all cases would be determined by the higher appellate courts, and not by the trial court.

We also have to remember when any plea deal is offered by any defense attorneys to reduce sentence it is up to all prosecutors to accept or deny any offer made.

Pleas are usually done by both the state, and defense before it comes to trial. Iirc around 90 percent of defendants admit guilt, and pleas are done where a trial isnt necessary.

I find any plea deal here slim to none at this juncture, based on the final outcome rendered by all 12 jurors as required by law. Really why should the state do so after the jury has already found him guilty, and recommended death?

As far as IAoC of McGee, imhoo, that will go nowhere.

It's one of the highest legal burdens to prove, even appellate attorneys who file motions of convicted inmates know all too well what a high legal burdern it is to prove. If proven it can windup with an attorney being disbarred, and career ruined. It cant just be said to be true, it must be proven every step of the way with irrefutable evidence its true.

When done its the attorneys who are now being put on trial being judged by their own peers. That is one of the reasons it must be shown with proof. If not anyone wanting to ruin a certain attorney's career would be able to do so by merely making such claim.

Jmhoo

I understand the burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and understand that it's rarely successful. It will be interesting to see what they have to say if that is the avenue they go down, McGee was "good" until about mid March, and then something changed, whether it was his illness or his fake illness or whatever, but JMO.

As for the standard motions that are filed, they are filed in death penalty and not death penalty cases. The thought that they are being filed to "delay" further is silly IMO it's being done because that's what is done and if it wasn't, I believe that would amount to negligence on the attorney's part. I personally think it's a flaw in the system to ask the same judge that presided over the trial to then look at error's in the trial they presided over to decide if they were wrong. It rarely happens and that's why most cases that eventually get overturned are done at a higher level. I also think that the attorney's need to be strategic about what they argue in a Motion for a New Trial because it can affect later appeals. JMO
 
Missy, I respect that you don't find the timing suspicious, but respectfully, I do.

There has been an unbelivable long delay already between the end of the last phase, but now an even longer delay lapse before the final phase.

So the timing that is once again delaying many more months between the last phase, and for this one to commence is very suspicious to me.

In fact I see a consistent pattern emerging with this DT. This is exactly the same pattern they used to make the jurors wait for their CIC to start, sputter to a complete stop, then finally startup again, to end it all ..then really not putting on any witnesses worth the jury waiting for, imo.

Imo, it seems they believe in stall tactics as some kind of strange strategy to avoid the inevitable from coming to an end since they did it in their own CIC, and now again.

I still believe whatever the conflict is between McGee, and CM is a difference of an opinion on the strategy, and how this final phase should be handled before JS imposes death. I do actually feel a little compassion for McGee since I believe it's to do with the correct strategy that should always be used at the end stage.

Imo, It's impossible to talk logically about the best tactic to use with a raging self engorged narcissist, and sociopath (CM) who feels they are always right, smarter, and must be the one in total control, even over their own highly seasoned defense attorney, who knows the tactic he uses in this phase will no doubt be closely scrutinized by the appellate courts as well.

Imhoo
 
I even wonder if McGee's past health problem were due to nerve conditions which can cause serious debilitating medical issues. It would also explain when supposedly he was out drinking.

Some who are overwrought emotionally at the time can often try to numb thinking about it by using alcohol or drugs to help them forget about what haunts them for at least a little while.

Just think about it. This is a man who had spent 20 years of his life wearing the hat of proudly being a prosecutor, making sure all those who were evil like Charles Merritt were locked away to protect society from them ever doing it again, and to make sure they were sentenced approximately each time.

Most turn to being a defense attorney because they can make far more money doing so than a prosecutor ever can.

Yet here he stood up for one of the very worst. A baby killer of 2 small helpless children who he was trying to walk free. He saw what CM did to them all.

How long has he been a defense attorney? Does anyone know if he has ever represented murderers before who had killed little children not even their own flesh and blood? Tia!

Now Maline? I find him to be highly narcissistic like CM with both feeding off of each other for their own individual personal gain. He's perfect, and will have no qualms doing whatever his client wants.

Imo, McGee knows the quickest way for him to be labeled IAoC is to do it CMs way instead of the accepted protocol that is always done in this final phase. He's not willing to end his career or be brought up on disbarment or ethics charges.

I dont think he even realized the client he would have to be dealing with this long, and has learned more, and, more about him with each phase where he has had to directly talk, and deal with him.

Jmhoo
 
Last edited:
Now I do think there is a slight possibility JS will release McGee if McGee himself can't resolve the conflict.

If he proves to JS he has tried his best to resolve it, I do believe the only just, and fair thing to do is not force him to stay.

I imagine at some point, and time JS will ask for CM to be there before him.. not to just be present at the hearing, but to talk directly with the convicted inmate.

I still firmly do not believe the case will be overturned, nor a new trial granted by JS. Nor will it be overturned by any appellate court either. Imo.

I dont think IAoC is even an issue before JS nor has it been suggested in the hearings either involving the present conflict situation, unless I missed it, imoo. He's greatly conflicted about something else.

If JS thought that was remotely happening in any trial he presided over it simply wouldn't have been allowed to continue to happen.

I have found JS very laid back, with some of us even wondering if he was paying close attention to what was actually being said in the trial.

I learned he is mind is as sharp as a tack, and has such an amazing ability to know everything being said, by both sides, and all witness testimonies. His memory for total recall is outstanding. Nothing gets by him. Nothing.

To this day when he laid out his legal ruling why he wasn't going to dismiss this case, it's still the best I've ever seen rendered by any judge.

I trust JS to either resolve the conflict or come to the right decision based on citing supportive case law to support his final decision.

Imo, Although delayed once again, justice is coming.

Jmhoo
 
Last edited:
My take from watching the video (thanks for posting it, Missy!) is there is a conflict between McGee and Maline, not a "conflict of interest" caused by a motion. It seems (to me) that McGee and Maline can't even get together on filing the motions necessary at this stage.

I hope they can follow this new schedule and file the motions by Nov. 22nd, the state has until Dec. 9th to file their response, and then motions hearing/sentencing on Dec. 13th. McGee has until Nov. 1st to file something about this conflict and a closed door hearing on the 12th (I think he said) on that.

I feel they would have had all of this done had they been dealing with a stricter judge (conflict or no), Judge Smith was just 'mildly surprised' no motions whatsoever had been filed and they had 3 months to do it. If I were Imes I'd have asked for sanctions or some penalty, they have been wasting the courts time for one reason or another since the beginning of the year.
 
I understand the burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and understand that it's rarely successful. It will be interesting to see what they have to say if that is the avenue they go down, McGee was "good" until about mid March, and then something changed, whether it was his illness or his fake illness or whatever, but JMO.

As for the standard motions that are filed, they are filed in death penalty and not death penalty cases. The thought that they are being filed to "delay" further is silly IMO it's being done because that's what is done and if it wasn't, I believe that would amount to negligence on the attorney's part. I personally think it's a flaw in the system to ask the same judge that presided over the trial to then look at error's in the trial they presided over to decide if they were wrong. It rarely happens and that's why most cases that eventually get overturned are done at a higher level. I also think that the attorney's need to be strategic about what they argue in a Motion for a New Trial because it can affect later appeals. JMO

Missy, I think the delay is that the motions could have been filed in the three months that have already passed. It shouldn't take 6 months for the filing of post trial motions. To show up on sentencing day empty handed and a request for 3 more months seems excessive to me. But I think I am viewing it with thoughts of how long the victim families have had to put up with this. At some point they should be allowed to move forward with their lives.
 
My take from watching the video (thanks for posting it, Missy!) is there is a conflict between McGee and Maline, not a "conflict of interest" caused by a motion. It seems (to me) that McGee and Maline can't even get together on filing the motions necessary at this stage.

I hope they can follow this new schedule and file the motions by Nov. 22nd, the state has until Dec. 9th to file their response, and then motions hearing/sentencing on Dec. 13th. McGee has until Nov. 1st to file something about this conflict and a closed door hearing on the 12th (I think he said) on that.

I feel they would have had all of this done had they been dealing with a stricter judge (conflict or no), Judge Smith was just 'mildly surprised' no motions whatsoever had been filed and they had 3 months to do it. If I were Imes I'd have asked for sanctions or some penalty, they have been wasting the courts time for one reason or another since the beginning of the year.

But in the first few minutes of that hearing, Maline clearly states that the conflict came up in the midst of preparing the Motion for a New Trial and a lot of it was stuff that McGee had dealt with in trial and the lines of communication have stopped by the sounds of it... so that to me means that they think they discovered errors, negligence, or something... the judge figured that Maline needed time to "investigate" further. I would love to know what it is, so we would have a better idea of whether it warrants more time or not. A lot of us have followed numerous cases, and in the end, guilty or not, we all want to see the accused get a fair trial, at least I think we do lol

I think the November 1st status hearing will be closed, at which time we will know if McGee stays or goes, then I don't think they can delay anymore unless the Judge says that Maline can't continue as well, then I don't know what happens? But to me, the Judge seemed inclined to allow Maline to stay on since McGee/Maline are no longer practicing together (which happened months before the trial even started).

I don't disagree that a lot of this falls on Judge Smith's shoulders. He has been the sitting judge on this case all along I think, and it seems that he is way too relaxed with the rules!!! As for Imes or the prosecution asking for sanctions or something, they knew beforehand that a continuance was filed, they could have filed something before Friday as well, and they didn't. I don't follow a lot of California trials, but the one's I have... this seems to far too common IMO
 
Missy, I think the delay is that the motions could have been filed in the three months that have already passed. It shouldn't take 6 months for the filing of post trial motions. To show up on sentencing day empty handed and a request for 3 more months seems excessive to me. But I think I am viewing it with thoughts of how long the victim families have had to put up with this. At some point they should be allowed to move forward with their lives.

I don't disagree at all.

I'm guessing that no one was surprised that the continuance was granted either, almost like there wasn't an option to deny it anyway, if that makes sense? There are definitely some flaws with the system :(
 
Gitana has been posting a lot on the Amber (lady cop who killed the innocent guy because she mistook his apartment for hers) thread.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
803
Total visitors
904

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,759
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top