Discussion in 'Past Trial Discussion Threads' started by Tricia, Jan 9, 2019.
THAT really hits home.
WHAT!!!! Next Tuesday? like c'mon...
The only thing that I can think of is because they are going to maintain he is innocent. I figured this would be a conundrum for them ... He can't say he feels remorse, he's not sorry, etc, because that would be an admission of guilt, wouldn't it? If they put his family on the stand, they will probably do the same, and say he didn't do this, and since this is the jury that said he did, how well is that going to go over with them?
I have only watched a few cases over the years that had the penalty phase, and I don't recall any that I have watched where the defendant still said he/she was innocent. Usually it's an insanity, or self defense case, so they admit it, but then say but but but it was because of whatever...
I think this is normal though? I watched the partial verdict in the Winslow case yesterday too, they did the same thing there.
Richard K. De AtleyVerified account @RKDeAtley 7m7 minutes ago
What happened today in #mcstay #chasemerritt
Defense in McStay family murder trial will not present penalty phase evidence – San Bernardino Sun
So here is there reason they gave for not calling witnesses...
The defense team said it instead planned to appeal to any possible lingering doubts held by the jurors who convicted Merritt in the circumstantial-evidence case.
“Our client didn’t do it, they got the wrong guy, they got it wrong, and therefore they should have a lingering doubt about what happened,” co-defense counsel Rajan Maline said outside court. Jurors can consider lingering doubt in making their decision on which penalty to recommend, he said.
But a lingering doubt would not be a “reasonable doubt” because they voted that CM is guilty BARD. So what kind of “lingering doubt” should the jury have that would impact their sentence decision?
I wonder if the two timed felon convicted quadruple murderer got a headache with the boys "screaming" in the various videos shown today.
Yes, it is SOP. You just might get a juror who hesitates or says “Yes, but...” and that can potentially cause a mistrial. I read that whole paper you posted a while back. It was interesting how it creates a conundrum for the judge because almost any response from the judge causes a problem, yet s/he is obligated to probe further.
I assume it means they are going to appeal to the juries conscience, that in the slightest chance he could be innocent, they would be sentencing him to death for a crime he did not commit.
I am wondering if the jurors are watching the attorneys press conferences. I know they are not supposed to. But they submitted their verdict already and have not been online or watched the news for 6 months.
I think it is possible that one or two of them have peeked at what the news is saying about the verdict.
That's all I've got right now. I am just so very thankful thar FINALLY, at long last, justice has been served upon the vicious killer of two innocents and their loving parents.
Susan's testimony broke my heart.
I'm actually happy this trial won't start again for a week because I can hardly take it.
The families that have been crushed by these murders are good human beings.
They work hard, they adopt needy children, they spend their days trying to bring good.
Completely the opposite of the evil that perpetuated them such grief to all of them.
I am not surprised that Chase's attorney's are not calling character witness's to defend him.
Chase Merritt is 62 years old and has no one to stand up and defend him as a good human being.
Because through all of his years on this planet, he has been anything...but, a good human being.
RSBM - I sure hope not. JMO But I do think it would have been harder for them to avoid the headlines since Friday. I doubt that there will be much in the news after today again until they reach a decision in this phase, which is such a shame, I still don't understand the local media there. I guess the delays and days off are no help.
The twitter reporter is a complete Twit. Pun intended.
Worst reporter ever.
I don't know what she's been doing for the last 6 months, but it is NOT reporting on this case.
What an idiot.
What a disgrace she is.
I’m sorry, but I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that Mike McStay had a hand in the disappearance of his family. He comes across as a completely genuine, nice guy. Those boobs on Twitter need to stop claiming he had something to do with it.
Thought you weren't gonna watch anymore Cali trials! (As far as Winslow goes, *I* think he has brain damage. I read that he had a motorcycle accident. That plus playing football since he was a kid, probably took it's toll).
It does defies logic. Mike was investigated and vetted. Move on. I am curious about the "stay tuned" comment by the defense. They've had four years.
I believe you’re right MsBetsy. However, there’s some interesting terminology and I think the DT used the wrong term in this case. We shall see.
@gitana1 help me out here!!
Google is my friend, so I googled “lingering doubt.” There’s a lot of legalese in these two quoted paragraphs, but it appears that there is a difference between “residual doubt” and “lingering doubt” even though some use the terms interchangeably. I’m still trying to make sense of it, but I’ll post it in case our resident attorney shows up. Here goes:
Although the term “lingering doubt” is at times used synonymously with “residual doubt,” see Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 187 (1988) (O’Connor, J., concurring) and State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 45 (1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1010 (1996), the two terms must be distinguished to take into account the differing ways in which a jury may experience doubts about the propriety of imposing a death sentence. “Lingering” or “remaining” doubt applies to the level of uncertainty that a juror may have as he engages in the weighing process and attempts to discern what mitigation exists and how much weight it should be accorded. Thus, lingering doubt bespeaks of uncertainty in the quantum of mitigation, or how such mitigation weighs against the aggravating factors. See, e.g., Kennan v. California, 480 U.S. 1012 (1989) (juror should have not been bullied and threatened into foregoing any “lingering doubts” about the “appropriateness of imposing the death penalty”) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Rockwell, 161 Ariz. at 16 (“The significant mitigating evidence this case presents balanced against a single aggravating factor causes us to question whether a death sentence is warranted here. That being the case, we will continue to adhere to the principle that, "[w]here there is a doubt whether the death penalty should be imposed, we will resolve that doubt in favor of a life sentence." ); State v. Valencia, 132 Ariz. 248, 250-51 (1982) (where there is “doubt” about how much weight to give defendant’s youthful age of 16 when compared to the severity of the crime, the court will “resolve that doubt in favor of a life sentence”).
In contrast, “residual” doubt addresses the level of uncertainty that a juror may have that the defendant is actually the guilty party. As noted by Justice O’Connor, far from being a “fact about the defendant or the circumstances of the crime,” residual doubt is “lingering uncertainty about facts, a state of mind that exists somewhere between ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and ‘absolute certainty.’” Franklin, 487 U.S. at 187-88 (O’Connor, J., concurring). In this context, residual doubt serves as a heightened burden of proof, requiring the imposition of the death sentence only upon proof beyond all doubt. See Id. at 188 (“Nothing in our cases mandates the imposition of this heightened burden of proof at capital sentencing”); accord State v. Harrod (“I”), 200 Ariz. 309, 317, n.7 (2001), judgment vacate and remanded on other grounds at 536 U.S. 953 (2002) (“residual doubt” is equated with an “absolute certainty” standard that “may be a more appropriate standard for the imposition of the death penalty”).
Sooooo...what I’m getting from this is that the DT is actually talking about “residual doubt,” since they say that he shouldn’t have been convicted, and that the death penalty should only be imposed if the jury has absolute certainty that CM is guilty. “Lingering doubt” has to do with mitigating circumstances that might make LWOP more appropriate. But it doesn’t surprise me that the DT has seemingly, from my totally amateur perspective, used the term “lingering doubt” in the wrong way.
Did I come close @gitana1?
Watching a part with Mike's testimony. He just glared long and hard at Chase.