Friday, March 29th: *Trial continues (Day 5) (@ 9am ET) – FL – Phoebe Jonchuck (5) (Jan. 18, 2015, St. Petersburg-thrown off 62’ bridge into Tampa Bay by her father) – *John Nicolas Jonchuck, Jr. (25/now 28) arrested & charged (1/18/15) with 1st degree murder, aggravated assault with a vehicle on LE officers & aggravated fleeing & eluding police. Plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Held without bond. Jury trial started 3/25/19. Jurors: 4 women & 8 men (alternates: 1 man & 3 women). Jurors may ask witnesses questions. (Trial could take at least one week. General hours are going to be 9am until 7pm). Jury Selection Day 1 (3/18/19) thru Day 5 (3/22/19) reference post #218 here: FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015 *Arrest*
Trial Day 1 (3/25/19) thru Day 3 (3/27/18) reference post #357 here: FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015 *Arrest* 3/28/19 Day 4: Defense witness: Genevieve Torres, a custody lawyer. Fr. Bill Swengros of St. Paul Catholic Church in Tampa. Valerie Mallory, receptionist at Lake Magdalene United Methodist Church in North Tampa. Dr. Jose Hernandez, Pinellas County Jail psychiatrist. Dr. George Randall Williams, who works at the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center in Gainesville. Heather Davis works as counseling and social services supervisor at the same North Florida treatment center. Trial continues to 3/29.
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 10: Bring on the experts
March 29, 2019 LIVE:
10News WTSP Started streaming 12 minutes ago
JONCHUCK MURDER TRIAL: Jonchuck's defense team is expected to call more expert witnesses to testify about his mental health, including his mother. The St. Petersburg man is accused of killing his daughter Phoebe when he threw her off a bridge.
Tampa Bay Times finally uploaded their LIVE video: Tampa Bay Times Youtube Started streaming 23 minutes ago John Jonchuck is accused of dropping his five-year-old daughter Phoebe Jonchuck from the Dick Misener Bridge near the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, St. Petersburg, January 8, 2015
This trial has lots of procedural discussions and bench conferences.
TampaBay.com blog explains the judge reversing herself this morning: The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 10: Bring on the experts ZACK, CLAIRE AND JOSH (11:22 a.m.) “The remaining question that was asked by a juror will not be answered,” Judge Helinger says as the jury returns. She asks them not to discuss the question.
Dr. Scot Machlus is the next witness. That means we’re into the expert testimony, which other experts can watch. Dr. Emily Lazarou, and it looks like one other doctor we don’t know, come into the room to observe.
ZACK AND CLAIRE (11:21 a.m.) After Judge Helinger comes back, Manuele cites a previous case to try to convince the judge not to let in the evidence of prior bad acts. The defense lawyer is reading straight from her laptop.
Helinger looks up at the ceiling and rubs her palms.
Manuele continues reading the case. She mentions something called the Williams Rule, which allows evidence of prior crimes to come into court if that evidence isn’t just speaking to the defendant’s character but instead is explaining a potential motive or reason for committing the offense. She’s saying these acts don’t meet that bar.
This is something we’ve heard lawyers talk about, broadly, when they assess another high-profile Pinellas County case, that of Michael Drejka. He is accused of second-degree murder in the shooting of Markeis McGlockton, which touched off a debate about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. If that case ever reaches trial, local attorneys expect the Williams Rule to be debated regarding prior road rage accusations against Drejka. You can read some about that here.
Manuele again says this testimony about a prior bad act has nothing to do with Phoebe or this case. That kind of information would just sidetrack the case and prejudice the jury, she says.
“Miss Manuele, this is sanity,” the judge says. “We’re not talking about character.”
If it’s not clear, this is a pivotal moment in the trial. That’s why Manuele is arguing so stridently. She suggests the court, if it lets this evidence in, is inviting error. That’s legal speak for it could be reason to appeal whatever the ruling is in this trial.
“Well, the second DCA says that’s reversible error,” Manuele says with clear exasperation.
“If that’s reversible error then it is, and the case gets kicked back,” Helinger says.
“It’s highly, highly prejudicial,” Manuele says.
“I mean, beating up your mother twice, that’s bad,” Helinger says. “But that doesn't mean it doesn’t come in.”
Ellis says the defense has brought this upon themselves by eliciting this testimony in the first place.
McNeill is looking at the juror’s question, saying it references “wild statements” that may have led to violence. Michele Jonchuck, in her testimony, made clear it was just arguments that precipitated the two acts in which Jonchuck was violent toward her previously.
It’s fascinating this is happening, because earlier in the week, when a juror asked about asking questions, she had said to the lawyers she normally doesn’t invite those kinds of questions. But because the juror spoke up, she felt she should describe the process to them early on. Since that point, we’ve now had multiple questions submitted by jurors.
Wow, Helinger now reverses, she’s not going to read the question and bring in that testimony. “I think it might be a big mistake. I’m not going to do it.”The defense looks vindicated.
We won’t bring Michele Jonchuck back up right now, though this issue could be addressed again after the expert witnesses testify.
CLAIRE (10:21 a.m.) Ellis: “Phoebe was the light of your life?” Yes, Michele says, her voice breaking. “You were trying to get your life together and your act together?”
“And the best way to attack you would be through Phoebe?”
Yes.
Attorneys wrap. Two jurors have questions for Michele.
Has John ever drugged you in the past? No, ma’am.
How did she know that John was taking his medications in 2013? Michele says she knew “to the best of her ability.”
And the photo that was being passed around of John holding Phoebe in a pool was taken in July 2013, Michele says.
Hmmmmmm. . . . Computer error? or Human error? The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 10: Bring on the experts ZACK (11:53 a.m.)
Now we’re taking a break for lunch until 1:15 p.m. Jurors can collect their payment for this week, Helinger says, but two are being overpaid by $30 because of a computer error. They’re being asked to go return that money on the second floor. They get $15 a day for the first three days, then $30 a day after that. Not a lot.
I'm watching the LIVE video testimony from home today. A bit frustrating because the LIVE video keeps snagging and spinning. Refreshing often. Perhaps the replay will work better.
Glad I wasn't in the courtroom to hear the woman in the gallery described below!
It makes me wonder if the woman can't 'see' the powerpoint.
The gallery is set up where the left side is court personnel and the media (reporters and camera). There is only one bench on the left side for the public. The right side has 3 benches for the public. The jurors are on the left side, so the powerpoint is facing the jurors. The powerpoint would not be visible from the right side benches.
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 10: Bring on the experts JOSH AND CLAIRE (2:55 p.m.) The judge asked Greg Williams how much longer he thinks the powerpoint will continue. He looks at the clock on the wall.
“Uhhh,” he wavers. “Maybe 45 minutes.”
A woman in the gallery sighs audibly. ”Oh... my God.”
Dr Machlus:
"he was insane at the time of the offense"
“He did not know the wrongfulness of his behavior”
“He obviously knows he’s in trouble, but he doesn’t know what he did that was wrong.” The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 10: Bring on the experts CLAIRE, JOSH AND ZACK (4:15 p.m.)
Finally, the defense asks Machlus about his analysis on Jonchuck’s sanity at the time of the offense. What, Williams says, is your opinion?
“That he was insane at the time of the offense.”
He has a severe mental disorder, Machlus says, that puts Jonchuck out of touch with reality.
“He did not know the wrongfulness of his behavior,” Machlus says.
Machlus has a slide for that. He says:
Jonchuck was experiencing hallucinations and delusions at the time. “He was out of touch with reality.” He believed the world was coming to an end.
He believed he and Phoebe were possessed by demons, another delusion.
“He had the irrational belief that he and Phoebe had to die in order to save the world.”
He had hallucinations about these demons for at least a week.
He dropped Phoebe and left the scene “in a calm manner,” another sign, Machlus says, that Jonchuck did not know he’d done something wrong. The officer said Jonchuck had no expression on his face at the time.
Jonchuck seemed emotionless, with no expression on his face, when he dropped Phoebe, witness Officer Vickers said.
Jonchuck ignored orders from armed police officers.
Detective Huff later said Jonchuck was calm and emotionless in the interview room in Manatee County. He didn’t seem to react in a way that showed remorse or understanding of what he had done. The only thing he was showing emotion about was for his Bible at that time.”
Jonchuck asked to be taken to the Tampa airport, and the doctor says that’s another sign he did not understand the severity of what had just happened.
He reported that he dropped Phoebe, didn’t throw her, because he thought that distinction matters.
Jonchuck didn’t appear upset, and asked what he had done wrong.
“He obviously knows he’s in trouble, but he doesn’t know what he did that was wrong.”
At the prosecution table, one of the doctors retained by the state attorney’s office, who has been watching Machlus, whispers something to lawyer Doug Ellis. Williams wraps up.
Would a person commit the crime if a police officer were at his or her elbow? In Jonchuck’s case, yes, a St. Pete cop was standing in front of him, weapon drawn. Machlus says that means Jonchuck didn’t understand the consequences of his behavior. Machlus invoked what he called the police officer-elbow test.
He was photographing a piece of evidence as it was being passed around among jurors. We were instructed not to photograph the jurors. However, the photos he was taking were of the evidence. The jurors would not have been identifiable.
(Also, our agreement not to photograph jurors is a courtesy, not a legal obligation.)
A deputy approached Doug and asked to see the photograph. Subsequently the deputy approached the bench, and Helinger ordered Doug from the courtroom.
Reporter Zack Sampson stands up to object on behalf of the Tampa Bay Times.
The judge says she understands, though does not relent.
“You have a videographer in the courtroom,” she says. “You have a camera in the courtroom.”
ZACK AND JOSH (11:33 p.m.)
Defense attorney Greg Williams asks Machlus to run the jury through his CV. This process is to qualify Machlus as an expert witness.
Machlus says his practice is in forensic psychology. That means his analysis has to do with legal matters, he testifies in court, he evaluates people who are accused of crimes. He says he’s done hundreds of evaluations for court proceedings.
Machlus is also a court-appointed evaluator in the circuit that covers Hernando, Citrus and some other counties.
ZACK, CLAIRE AND JOSH (11:22 a.m.) Dr. Scot Machlus is the next witness. That means we’re into the expert testimony, which other experts can watch. Dr. Emily Lazarou, and it looks like one other doctor we don’t know, come into the room to observe.
CLAIRE, ZACK AND JOSH (9:25 a.m.) We’re ready for MawMaw.
Michele Jonchuck enters wearing a bright pink shirt again and thick white coat. She’s clutching a tissue.
CLAIRE (9:15 a.m.) Good morning from Courtroom 2, where MawMaw Jonchuck is waiting in the wings. John Jonchuck’s mother Michele, whom Phoebe called MawMaw, will soon take the stand again.
CLAIRE AND ZACK (5:05 p.m.) Two questions won’t be answered. We won’t talk about what those were, and the jurors who asked them aren’t to talk about them, the judge says.
Helinger reads off the questions she deemed acceptable:
First, what was John addicted to?
“At the time he had issues with, spice was his main drug of choice,” Machlus says (unclear exactly what time this is referring to).
In January 2015, how long had John been off his medications at that point?
“He reported that he ran out or was running out of his meds in September (2014) and was rationing them at that point,” Machlus says, “so beginning in September he was not taking his full dosage.”
Can psychotic symptoms be turned off voluntarily?
“No.”
What percentage of people can fake these symptoms or can fool you?
“I don’t have an answer to that question.”
Is an opinion of sanity vs insanity generally made by a psychologist versus a psychiatrist?
No.
Was there something that ramped up his symptoms before her death?
He was experiencing a great deal of stress.
Can bipolar disorder mean one end of a person’s personality is totally psychotic and the other end totally sane?
“That is not the way the mental illness works,” Machlus says. “They have manic and depressive episodes, psychotic disorders have psychotic symptoms.”
We miss the next question, but it drew a similar response to the previous question.
“The question is a difficult one to answer because what is being combined is mental health terms with legal terms.” Insanity is a legal term, he explains, people don’t just turn on or off psychotic symptoms. It’s mixing the mental health definition with legal definitions, Machlus says. (That’s part of why insanity defenses are so complicated.)
Is the jury going to have access to all the evidence, even the items we didn’t see? Yes, Helinger says. As to the testimony, no, but when you’re deliberating if you want a readback of a witness, you can ask for that.
Do all the medications he is being treated with cure symptoms for the disorders? No.
If not, does he need to be on them forever? Machlus pauses. Yes, he says.
We’ll start back up at 9 a.m. Tuesday. “You get three days off but you can’t tell people what you’ve been doing these last two weeks,” Helinger says to the jury. She says some people will probably guess, but they can’t talk about it.
CLAIRE (4:47 p.m.) Wait — could it be the end of the day?
Almost, but not quite.
The state will cross-examine Machlus on Tuesday. But first Helinger wants to address some juror questions.
“Good news is we’re going to call it a day after I receive the questions,” Helinger says.
Two jurors in the top row hand slips of paper to the deputy with questions. The lawyers approach the bench to determine if they should be asked in open court.
I do wonder if this is the most efficient approach, given that some of these questions could probably be answered during cross-examination. But that might just be my 5 p.m. on a Friday self talking.
"Policeman at the Elbow test" The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 10: Bring on the experts CLAIRE, JOSH AND ZACK (4:15 p.m.) Would a person commit the crime if a police officer were at his or her elbow? In Jonchuck’s case, yes, a St. Pete cop was standing in front of him, weapon drawn. Machlus says that means Jonchuck didn’t understand the consequences of his behavior. Machlus invoked what he called the police officer-elbow test.
Irresistible Impulse Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc. Irresistible Impulse Law and Legal Definition Irresistible impulse is a defense in criminal law. This is defense by excuse, in which the defendant argues that s/he should not be held criminally liable, because s/he could not control his or her actions when committing the crime, although s/he knew that his or her actions were wrong. The courts use the Policeman at the Elbow test to determine whether the defendant was insane when he committed a crime. The test asks If the defendant would have done what s/he did even if a policeman was standing at his elbow.
Irresistable-Impulse Test Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc. Irresistable-Impulse Test Law and Legal Definition Irresistible-impulse test refers to a test for insanity. This test determines that a person is not guilty of a criminal act because the person’s insanity prevented him/her from controlling the criminal activity. Irresistible-impulse test is also known as impulse test or control test. The test also determines the capacity of a person to distinguish between right and wrong. Irresistible-impulse test involves not only questions of scientific knowledge but also questions of basic policy as to the extent to which that knowledge should determine criminal responsibility.[Hashfield v. State, 247 Ind. 95, 101 (Ind. 1965)]
Irresistible-impulse is a defense by excuse. Moreover, the defense of irresistible-impulse can only be pleaded under the defense of diminished responsibility.
Another test for insanity is set out by the Model Penal Code. Under this test a person is considered insane if, because of a mental disease or defect, the person did not have the capacity to:
1. understand the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct, or
2. to conform his conduct to the law.
This is sometimes called the "policeman at the elbow test." In other words, if the person would have committed the act even if there had been a police officer at her elbow watching her, she is considered unable to have understood the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law.
A defendant's sanity may be proven by either medical professionals or by lay (non-expert) witnesses. Lay witnesses may testify about the defendant's behavior around the time of the crime to help the jury determine whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the crime.
Tuesday, April 2nd: *Trial continues (Day 6) (@ 9am ET) – FL – Phoebe Jonchuck (5) (Jan. 18, 2015, St. Petersburg-thrown off 62’ bridge into Tampa Bay by her father) – *John Nicolas Jonchuck, Jr. (25/now 28) arrested & charged (1/18/15) with 1st degree murder, aggravated assault with a vehicle on LE officers & aggravated fleeing & eluding police. Plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Held without bond. Jury trial started 3/25/19. Jurors: 4 women & 8 men (alternates: 1 man & 3 women). Jurors may ask witnesses questions. (Trial could take at least one week. General hours are going to be 9am until 7pm). Jury Selection Day 1 (3/18/19) thru Day 5 (3/22/19) reference post #218 here: FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015 *Arrest*
Trial Day 1 (3/25/19) thru Day 3 (3/27/18) reference post #357 here: FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015 *Arrest* 3/28/19 Day 4: Defense witness: Genevieve Torres, a custody lawyer. Fr. Bill Swengros of St. Paul Catholic Church in Tampa. Valerie Mallory, receptionist at Lake Magdalene United Methodist Church in North Tampa. Dr. Jose Hernandez, Pinellas County Jail psychiatrist. Dr. George Randall Williams, psychiatrist, also certified in general and forensic psychiatry, who works at the No. Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center in Gainesville. Heather Davis works as counseling & social services supervisor at the same No. Florida treatment center. Trial continues to 3/29. 3/29/19 Day 5: Defense witnesses: Michele Jonchuck (John's mother). Dr. Scot Machlus, psychologist (his practice is in forensic psychology). Trial continues on Tuesday, 4/2.
Following this trial closely from Ontario, Canada.
Doesn't seem to be much discussion here -- is this not the discussion forum, or is this trial just not generating the chatter it deserves?
Following this trial closely from Ontario, Canada.
Doesn't seem to be much discussion here -- is this not the discussion forum, or is this trial just not generating the chatter it deserves?
Re: is this not the discussion forum, or is this trial just not generating the chatter it deserves? This is the discussion forum, and this trial isn't getting the chatter it deserves. It's a troubling and sad case, as well as fascinating.
Psychosis is such a fascinating and poorly understood state that I'm quite surprised more chatter surrounding his state of mind has not been bantered about back and forth.
Psychosis is such a fascinating and poorly understood state that I'm quite surprised more chatter surrounding his state of mind has not been bantered about back and forth.
I thought there would be more interest especially because a young child was killed.
Also, there seems to be no dispute that father loved his daughter and was not abusive toward her.
IMO - many people can't seem to steer their thought process from 'evil' to 'insane'.
Administrative snag: The Trial of John Jonchuck Day 11: Getting complicated ZACK AND JOSH (9:04 a.m.) Jonchuck enters the courtroom wearing a gray-blue checkered shirt and gray-blue tie. He and the judge once again exchange good mornings.
Helinger tells the lawyers about a potential problem.
One of the jurors had said during jury selection that he lives in Trinity. But his address is Palm Harbor on the jury sheet. The clerk then did some research, and the juror’s driver’s license address was changed in December to Trinity. That means the juror lives in Pasco County. This trial is happening in Pinellas County.
Helinger: “So we’re all wondering why he got a jury summons.” The judge says there’s really not a good answer. “I don’t know what everybody wants to do about it or not.”
If Jonchuck is convicted, Helinger says, this will become an issue for the appeals court. She asks the lawyers to consider whether they want to put on an alternate juror. There are already 16 people on this panel, which means four alternates available.
Both the prosecutors and the defense want to think about it, but they expect to have an answer this morning.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
