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

[katydid23]

But this is an argument that Ross left the baby in the car due to extreme negligence, but not due to malice murder, which is what he was convicted of.

I think it is both. He was obsessed with the sexting so he was not watching out for his child's well being. But he also DID NOT CARE about his child's well being, in my opinion. JMO

 

[katydid23]

I don't think RH 'disliked' his child or felt malice towards him.

But I do think he desperately wanted out of his burdensome marriage. And if his child was left behind with his ex, HE WOULD NEVER BE FREE from that marriage. He would have financial responsibilities and emotional and moral responsibilities of active fatherhood.

He was reading in a Forum called 'the child free life' and I think that is what he truly wanted and desired. He wanted to walk away from married life as a FREE MAN.

I think he was a sociopathic type of personality. He did not have the same types of feelings or compassionate empathy as most do. <<<<Some of that came out during the trial....

So it made sense to him that if he was going to leave the marriage, he needed to be childless to do so successfully. JMO

 

[BeckyF]

You’re saying because no charges were filed this indicates that it’s acceptable, or the norm, for parents to “forget” their children, Leaving them to die in a hot car ? This is very, very concerning to me because it now seems to be becoming normalized. If that’s the case this is a vey dark road we’re going down. JMO

Not what I said whatsoever. Reread my post. Don’t mis-state what I said.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I think it is both. He was obsessed with the sexting so he was not watching out for his child's well being. But he also DID NOT CARE about his child's well being, in my opinion. JMO

I don't understand how it could be both. Either he set out that day to murder his child to be free of him (which is what he was convicted of - malice murder) or he was so absorbed in his sexting life he forgot about him. Two very different scenarios.

No one is arguing Harris isn't responsible for his child's death.

 

[neesaki]

Not what I said whatsoever. Reread my post. Don’t mis-state what I said.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your post.

 

[HarmonyE.]

all I can say about parents leaving kids in cars its not accidental its homicide. I bet none of the so called parents would forget their cell phone in that car.

I suggest watching the documentary Fatal Distraction, available for rent on Amazon. It covers a number of hot car cases and explains how this happens and why most parents aren't charged, and those who are often are found not guilty by juries.

Whether Ross Harris intentionally mimicked some of these scenarios to get away with murdering his son is a separate question, but many situations absolutely are accidental.

 

[JMapes]

I suggest watching the documentary Fatal Distraction, available for rent on Amazon. It covers a number of hot car cases and explains how this happens and why most parents aren't charged, and those who are often are found not guilty by juries.

Whether Ross Harris intentionally mimicked some of these scenarios to get away with murdering his son is a separate question, but many situations absolutely are accidental.

I just found this docu available for free on Roku, as well. Thanks for the rec, watching now.

Watch Fatal Distraction on Roku:

Roku

Roku provides the simplest way to stream entertainment to your TV. On your terms. With thousands of available channels to choose from.

therokuchannel.roku.com

 

[RANCH]

I just finished reading the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion where RH had his murder conviction overturned.

I found the majority's opinion extremely well written and very convincing. It covered every point and backed each up with case law to support their views.

The dissenting opinion doesn't impress me at all. It basically say's that State had to put tons of cumulative evidence before jury to prove motive. They also give blanket approval of the trial courts decisions with minimal explanations as to why.

I also found it interesting that the dissent didn't care that the State's own attorney said that there was no basis for admitting multiple graphic photos of RH becasue the "State cannot concede error when there is none." See page 150 of the opinion.

I encourage everyone to read the GSC opinion. The majority makes some compelling augments in it. JMO.

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

 

[katydid23]

I don't understand how it could be both. Either he set out that day to murder his child to be free of him (which is what he was convicted of - malice murder) or he was so absorbed in his sexting life he forgot about him. Two very different scenarios.

No one is arguing Harris isn't responsible for his child's death.

I don't think he set out specifically that morning to murder his child. But I do think he had considered the possibility of doing away with his child in order to free himself from the burdens of family responsibilities. I think he contemplated it for a period of time.

That morning, he became absorbed in his sexting life, and was caught up in an intimate exchange with a couple different partners. AND IN THAT MOMENT, HE WILLFULLY IGNORED THE NEEDS OF HIS SON.

When he buckled the boy into the car seat, and exited the parking lot 30 seconds later, he was at a crossroads. Would he drive to the daycare and drop off the boy? OR would he continue on to his office, drive around looking for an out of the way spot to park, and then sit in his car for awhile , before walking away from the car and the baby in his buckled up seat?

Was it negligence? Or was it him just giving in to an impulse to just ignore his son's existence, for long enough for him to expire?

 

[katydid23]

I suggest watching the documentary Fatal Distraction, available for rent on Amazon. It covers a number of hot car cases and explains how this happens and why most parents aren't charged, and those who are often are found not guilty by juries.

Whether Ross Harris intentionally mimicked some of these scenarios to get away with murdering his son is a separate question, but many situations absolutely are accidental.

In the trial, they talk about the differences between the usual distractions that ended in other children's car deaths, and this specific case.

I'd have to go back to remember what they all were---but the main thing I remember was that the lawyer who successfully got other parents acquitted of their hot car death cases, DID NOT testify as an expert in RH's trial, because his case did not fit in with the usual circumstances of an innocent mistake.

In the usual hot car death, a parent is tired or distracted, and has been on a long boring drive to work---and zones out, forgetting that they never went to the daycare drop-off. It is easy to do that when you have a regular daily routine which is done over and over, and it all runs together in your mind.

That was not the case on Cooper's last day. His Dad did things he did not usually do, [like tasking Cooper inside to eat breakfast] and there was only about 30 to 45 seconds between RH buckling Cooper into his car seat, and RH having to decide which way to turn out of the parking lot.

How could he have 'zoned out' and forgotten his child was there within a minute's time? that does not fit into the examples shown in 'Fatal Distraction' documentary, IMO.

 

[RANCH]

In this case, the State’s motive theory relied on a particular
chain of reasoning: (1) Appellant wanted to have sexual relationships with many women; (2) Appellant’s marriage impeded that goal; and (3) Cooper prevented Appellant from ending his marriage. It is important to recognize that the first two links in this chain had no direct relevance to Appellant’s alleged motive for killing Cooper. Contrary to the State’s theory, a man does not normally enhance his ability to have sexual relationships with women by killing his young child. And also contrary to the State’s theory, the impediments that marriage places on sexual relationships with multiple partners are normally overcome by cheating, divorce, or, in criminal situations, murdering one’s spouse,not one’s child.

See page 75 in link.

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

 

[Laughing]

In the trial, they talk about the differences between the usual distractions that ended in other children's car deaths, and this specific case.

I'd have to go back to remember what they all were---but the main thing I remember was that the lawyer who successfully got other parents acquitted of their hot car death cases, DID NOT testify as an expert in RH's trial, because his case did not fit in with the usual circumstances of an innocent mistake.

In the usual hot car death, a parent is tired or distracted, and has been on a long boring drive to work---and zones out, forgetting that they never went to the daycare drop-off. It is easy to do that when you have a regular daily routine which is done over and over, and it all runs together in your mind.

That was not the case on Cooper's last day. His Dad did things he did not usually do, [like tasking Cooper inside to eat breakfast] and there was only about 30 to 45 seconds between RH buckling Cooper into his car seat, and RH having to decide which way to turn out of the parking lot.

How could he have 'zoned out' and forgotten his child was there within a minute's time? that does not fit into the examples shown in 'Fatal Distraction' documentary, IMO.

IIRC in other cases, there was a change of schedule/change of responsibilities -- the parents switched the drop-off routine, switched to a different child care, etc.

In this case, a usual parent drove right past the usual child care.

What was the story with the child care's 'absent' call? The call was ignored by RH, child care next called LH who said "Ross forgot him!" or the like? OR am I confusing cases?

Didn't find what I was looking for, Google-Fu is weak today.

Anyone remember?

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[HarmonyE.]

I don't think he set out specifically that morning to murder his child. But I do think he had considered the possibility of doing away with his child in order to free himself from the burdens of family responsibilities. I think he contemplated it for a period of time.

That morning, he became absorbed in his sexting life, and was caught up in an intimate exchange with a couple different partners. AND IN THAT MOMENT, HE WILLFULLY IGNORED THE NEEDS OF HIS SON.

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.

 

[RANCH]

(A) Needlessly cumulative and prejudicial evidence

The first link in the State’s motive theory – that Appellant wanted to have sexual relationships with many women – was readily proved and not disputed, and it was furthest from and the least probative of a motive for murdering Cooper. Indeed, standing alone, the evidence that Appellant had a sex-crazed “double life” would not have been relevant to show his motive for murdering Cooper. Without evidence that Appellant viewed Cooper as an obstacle to his sexual conquests, Appellant’s obsession with having sexual liaisons with many women lacks a “logical and necessary link” to the alleged crimes against Cooper. Kirby, 304 Ga. at 487.

See page 79 in link.

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

 

[katydid23]

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.

I disagree that I was describing distraction. I added that he HE WILLFULLY IGNORED THE NEEDS OF HIS SON. He 'wilfully ignored' that his son was strapped into the car seat that morning because he didn't care anymore. His main priority was sexting.

He was deliberate and intentional when he turned towards his office that morning instead of turning towards the daycare. JMO

I think he did get a fair trial. The evidence they brought in was factual. It was the ugly truth. I don't think it was unfair to show the jury what he was doing during the time his baby was overheating and dying.

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

 

[katydid23]

See page 79 in link.

The first link in the State’s motive theory – that Appellant wanted to have sexual relationships with many women – was readily proved and not disputed, and it was furthest from and the least probative of a motive for murdering Cooper. Indeed, standing alone, the evidence that Appellant had a sex-crazed “double life” would not have been relevant to show his motive for murdering Cooper. Without evidence that Appellant viewed Cooper as an obstacle to his sexual conquests, Appellant’s obsession with having sexual liaisons with many women lacks a “logical and necessary link” to the alleged crimes against Cooper. Kirby, 304 Ga. at 487.

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

I don't agree with the argument:
Indeed, standing alone, the evidence that Appellant had a sex-crazed “double life” would not have been relevant to show his motive for murdering Cooper. Without evidence that Appellant viewed Cooper as an obstacle to his sexual conquests, Appellant’s obsession with having sexual liaisons with many women lacks a “logical and necessary link” to the alleged crimes against Cooper


I don't remember whether the state showed much evidence'that Cooper was an obstacle to his sexual conquests. ' But I think it is a logical conclusion that being a husband and father is an obstacle to his free wheeling sexual liaisons.

I don't agree with the opinion that there needed to be another link to logically prove that. They showed in witness testimony the great lengths he went to , renting hotel rooms, sneaking and lying to wife and friends, in order to hook up with girlfriends.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I disagree that I was describing distraction. I added that he HE WILLFULLY IGNORED THE NEEDS OF HIS SON. He 'wilfully ignored' that his son was strapped into the car seat that morning because he didn't care anymore. His main priority was sexting.

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.

 

[RANCH]

I don't agree with the argument:
Indeed, standing alone, the evidence that Appellant had a sex-crazed “double life” would not have been relevant to show his motive for murdering Cooper. Without evidence that Appellant viewed Cooper as an obstacle to his sexual conquests, Appellant’s obsession with having sexual liaisons with many women lacks a “logical and necessary link” to the alleged crimes against Cooper


I don't remember whether the state showed much evidence'that Cooper was an obstacle to his sexual conquests. ' But I think it is a logical conclusion that being a husband and father is an obstacle to his free wheeling sexual liaisons.

I don't agree with the opinion that there needed to be another link to logically prove that. They showed in witness testimony the great lengths he went to , renting hotel rooms, sneaking and lying to wife and friends, in order to hook up with girlfriends.

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.

 

[RANCH]

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

Hiring a prostitute

Two witnesses testified to establish that Appellant hired a prostitute three times in May 2014 – the woman Appellant hired and the police officer who interviewed the woman. Although this testimony may have been relevant for the limited purpose of adding yet another example of Appellant’s sexual activities to demonstrate the first link in the State’s motive argument, neither these witnesses nor anyone else indicated that Appellant’s interactions with the prostitute were hampered by his marriage or that he wanted to leave his wife – much less murder his child – in order to have more sex with her or other prostitutes.

See page 92 of link.

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

 

[RANCH]

I disagree that I was describing distraction. I added that he HE WILLFULLY IGNORED THE NEEDS OF HIS SON. He 'wilfully ignored' that his son was strapped into the car seat that morning because he didn't care anymore. His main priority was sexting.

He was deliberate and intentional when he turned towards his office that morning instead of turning towards the daycare. JMO

I think he did get a fair trial. The evidence they brought in was factual. It was the ugly truth. I don't think it was unfair to show the jury what he was doing during the time his baby was overheating and dying.

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

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.

However, a large amount of the evidence offered to show Appellant’s sexual interest in other women was needlessly cumulative, and three categories of evidence were unfairly prejudicial in a way that substantially outweighed their trivial probative value; all of that evidence should have been excluded under Rule 403.

See page 96 of link.

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