***GUILTY MURDER 2nd Degree*** Jimmy Rodgers Trial Thread #2 (livestream) 2019.10.23

[AlwaysShocked]

I know nobody wants to hear it but the defense lawyers did a good job for their client.

Taylor was not a great witness IMO.

Will her testimony be needed in the next trial? If they can do without her that might be best.

 

[Oregonmama]

JRR escaped the Death Penalty.
It's still possible he could get LWOP in Florida for 2nd Degree Murder. Correct?

and lets hope he gets LWOP! Im not mad at the jury but I am disappointed

 

[Oregonmama]

I know nobody wants to hear it but the defense lawyers did a good job for their client.

Taylor was not a great witness IMO.

Will her testimony be needed in the next trial? If they can do without her that might be best.

and the verdict showed that.

 

[RaspberryMama]

I think the jury took their duty seriously, and came to the only conclusion they could, considering what they were given to work with. Having someone's life in your hands is no light responsibility. Evidence would have to be very convincing and weighty, and the defense was able to place some level of doubt in their minds. I'm not disappointed, and pretty sure I would have voted the same in their place.

 

[beach]

I bumped the Sidebar thread. Not sure why it has been dead but a good place to discuss random thoughts about this case.

 

[msboo]

JRR isn't worthy of being a yummy baked potato. He's just the overcooked limp green beans.

Well, JRR will certainly be likened to an “overcooked limp green bean” in The Big House.
I did say “loaded”.

 

[Oregonmama]

I think the jury took their duty seriously, and came to the only conclusion they could, considering what they were given to work with. Having someone's life in your hands is no light responsibility. Evidence would have to be very convincing and weighty, and the defense was able to place some level of doubt in their minds. I'm not disappointed, and pretty sure I would have voted the same in their place.

I am not mad at the jury but I hope the State re evaluates this trial and heavily prepare for Mark's.

 

[TTF14]

I am not mad at the jury but I hope the State re evaluates this trial and heavily prepare for Mark's.

I think it's going to be a lot easier to convict Mark.

 

[RaspberryMama]

I am not mad at the jury but I hope the State re evaluates this trial and heavily prepare for Mark's.

Right. I'm not disappointed in the jury, but I am disappointed that the state didn't make their case more air-tight.

 

[Oregonmama]

I think it's going to be a lot easier to convict Mark.

That trial is going to get messy. I was so sure this one would be a slam dunk.

 

[Oregonmama]

Right. I'm not disappointed in the jury, but I am disappointed that the state didn't make their case more air-tight.

I just think they need to fine tune a few things. I just don't want to see JRR back on the streets

 

[Oregonmama]

Many of us thought KF was a hot mess, wait till you see how Mark's lawyer plays.

 

[SeesSeas]

Curious about sentencing. I've posted some law references below.
Per ASA, JRR will be sentenced as PRR "Prison releasee reoffender".
As PRR, can there be "downward departure" in sentencing?

Chapter 782 Section 04 - 2019 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
2019 Florida Statutes
782.04 Murder.—
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
2019 Florida Statutes
921.0026 Mitigating circumstances.—This section applies to any felony offense, except any capital felony, committed on or after October 1, 1998.
(1) A downward departure from the lowest permissible sentence, as calculated according to the total sentence points pursuant to s. 921.0024, is prohibited unless there are circumstances or factors that reasonably justify the downward departure. Mitigating factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, those listed in subsection (2). The imposition of a sentence below the lowest permissible sentence is subject to appellate review under chapter 924, but the extent of downward departure is not subject to appellate review.
(2) Mitigating circumstances under which a departure from the lowest permissible sentence is reasonably justified include, but are not limited to:
(a) The departure results from a legitimate, uncoerced plea bargain.
(b) The defendant was an accomplice to the offense and was a relatively minor participant in the criminal conduct.
(c) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminal nature of the conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.
[...]
(g) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the domination of another person.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
2019 Florida Statutes
775.082 Penalties; applicability of sentencing structures; mandatory minimum sentences for certain reoffenders previously released from prison.—
(9)(a)1. “Prison releasee reoffender” means any defendant who commits, or attempts to commit:
[...]
b. Murder;
[...]
within 3 years after being released from a state correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections or a private vendor, a county detention facility following incarceration for an offense for which the sentence pronounced was a prison sentence, or a correctional institution of another state, the District of Columbia, the United States, any possession or territory of the United States, or any foreign jurisdiction, following incarceration for an offense for which the sentence is punishable by more than 1 year in this state.

2. “Prison releasee reoffender” also means any defendant who commits or attempts to commit any offense listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)1.a.-r. while the defendant was serving a prison sentence or on escape status from a state correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections or a private vendor or while the defendant was on escape status from a correctional institution of another state, the District of Columbia, the United States, any possession or territory of the United States, or any foreign jurisdiction, following incarceration for an offense for which the sentence is punishable by more than 1 year in this state.
3. If the state attorney determines that a defendant is a prison releasee reoffender as defined in subparagraph 1., the state attorney may seek to have the court sentence the defendant as a prison releasee reoffender. Upon proof from the state attorney that establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is a prison releasee reoffender as defined in this section, such defendant is not eligible for sentencing under the sentencing guidelines and must be sentenced as follows:
a. For a felony punishable by life, by a term of imprisonment for life;
b. For a felony of the first degree, by a term of imprisonment of 30 years;
c. For a felony of the second degree, by a term of imprisonment of 15 years; and
d. For a felony of the third degree, by a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
(b) A person sentenced under paragraph (a) shall be released only by expiration of sentence and shall not be eligible for parole, control release, or any form of early release. Any person sentenced under paragraph (a) must serve 100 percent of the court-imposed sentence.
(c) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a court from imposing a greater sentence of incarceration as authorized by law, pursuant to s. 775.084 or any other provision of law.
(d)1. It is the intent of the Legislature that offenders previously released from prison or a county detention facility following incarceration for an offense for which the sentence pronounced was a prison sentence who meet the criteria in paragraph (a) be punished to the fullest extent of the law and as provided in this subsection, unless the state attorney determines that extenuating circumstances exist which preclude the just prosecution of the offender, including whether the victim recommends that the offender not be sentenced as provided in this subsection.
2. For every case in which the offender meets the criteria in paragraph (a) and does not receive the mandatory minimum prison sentence, the state attorney must explain the sentencing deviation in writing and place such explanation in the case file maintained by the state attorney.

 

[Curious Me]

Right. I'm not disappointed in the jury, but I am disappointed that the state didn't make their case more air-tight.

I thought they did a fine job, but so much more is expected when it is a DP trial.

 

[Scalex]

I think it's going to be a lot easier to convict Mark.

I disagree. I think this trial helped the next one. Not only will they be able to point out inconsistencies in the sworn statements, depositions, etc, but now they can add in what they testified to in this trial. The state should be nervous now.

 

[kaen]

I'm okay with this verdict. I think it was a fair, carefully thought out verdict.

I am surprised as to finding it NG of conspiracy though. That indicates to me they might have felt Wayne did set him up to be the fall guy.

I agree. I think the big issue was that CWW never said they talked about the killing--no planning, just showing up really. IMO, it left a lot of wiggle room.

 

[shutterrrbug]

I have not posted in this forum in so long. Hope all is well. Can anyone tell me why it was objected (or I guess, the legal reason - I know WHY they would want to object), when the State began to tell of JRR's nickname? I guess knowing so much of the case, I felt like the defense DID do a great job (unfortunately).

 

[Hoosgirl]

I hope we get some juror interviews!

 

[Bobbywoo]

I agree. I think the big issue was that CWW never said they talked about the killing--no planning, just showing up really. IMO, it left a lot of wiggle room.

Right? I wonder what they talked about on the 20 hour ride down to Florida? I find it hard to believe that at least part of it wasn't murder plans, but then again wouldn't CWW have testified to that?

 

[ScotAng]

I know nobody wants to hear it but the defense lawyers did a good job for their client.

Taylor was not a great witness IMO.

Will her testimony be needed in the next trial? If they can do without her that might be best.

<Bbm>

I don't see why it would, she has nothing to add to the prosecution of MS. Her only contact with him was socializing at Wright's wedding (as far as evidence goes). Thankfully.

I felt sorry for Taylor, but she wasn't the witness I imagined she'd be. I was taken aback how strongly some felt about her being 'paid'. I'd like to think that didn't play a part in the Jury's minds, but doubtful. They obviously didn't buy her testimony, or at least not all of it.

My mind's going in a few different directions with CWW's testimony in MS's trial. The most important thing is establishing the whole thing was set up by Sievers. They have the means to do that. This Jury thought Wright acted alone, the bottom line is he admitted to striking Teresa with the hammer. The next Jury won't have the burden of deciding if he acted alone.

Not a criticism as such, but I also hope Hunter drops the friendly persona.