Discussion in 'Trials' started by TTF14, May 24, 2019.
What's everyone's opinions? Do you think TJ will be competent to stand trial?
Yes, I think they will rule that he is whether he is or not. But I think he actually is competent anyway.
I have seen no evidence that shows he would not be competent to stand trial for murder.
Only facts I know TJ held employment, an apartment of his own, had friends, and knows right from wrong.
He even was a very responsible pet owner.
What would make the case of TJ not being mentally competent? In your opinion?
What evidence do we know that he is not responsible to stand trail for the murder of Ryan Martin?
Thinking of Ryan's family and child.
Sad he was missing from all the resent holidays.
another case where a defense attorney tried to find\prove his Client incompetent to stand trial for murder.
Same state IN
Gas City woman accused of killing step-daughter found competent to stand trial
Does it matter?
MOO only in terms of TJ getting out of deserved consequences.
If TJ wrangles some lesser consequences, it will hurt the family to have justice denied. It also hurt TJ further as he tries to justify killing Ryan.
Ryan life is over, so he doesn't get a say. Probably he died in shock that he was being attacked.
@kc1023 what makes you think they would rule that way even if he wasn't?
Do you know, is it normal for everyone to get
@Steph8angels do you know if it is a normal process in a case like this to get evaluations for competence to stand trial? It will be very interesting to see what the report says.
I'm wondering if there was any mental illness and that's why it was done?
What makes you say he was a very responsible pet owner? Only thing I seen was someone posted he had pictures on an Instagram post.
When you asked-
What evidence do we know that he is not responsible to stand trail for the murder of Ryan Martin? That I have no answer on. I'm guessing we will all find out soon the details. That's if the trial doesn't get postponed.
I can't imagine how RM family felt durning the holidays, it's just so sad, especially his daughter. I might get some negative comments but I can't imagine TJ family either. I'm sure it's hard on them as well. The whole thing is just heartbreaking.
@Boxer it was just a question. No none of our opinions matter.
I couldn't see how he would get a lesser charge but it will be interesting to see how everything unfolds.
I think in cases like this, don't the family have a time to talk in court before they are sentenced? Meaning RM family
My opinion is: TJ would best served not messing around with mitigating pleas, instead coming to grips with his actions and start making restitution.
I think the worst thing for TJ and his future is to go to a locked institution for the criminally insane.
I believe in our Criminal Justice System. We will have to wait for answers and the final verdict.
However I have followed a few solved and unsolved murders in IN.
MAY JUSTICE BE SERVED FOR RYAN.
May TJ receive a fair trial. I think he will. JMO
I am also sympathetic to TJ's mother, father and other family members.
I wish TJ would of thought of other's before and on that Tragic day. I feel JMO TJ thinks of only himself.
Can I ask you your opinion on why Ryan was killed and placed in TJ's closet? Why do you assume TJ was cleaning and hiding the couch cushions in his apt which was the alledged crime scene and where Ryan was bludgeon and choked to death.
TJ's actions JMO was a clue that TJ knew right from wrong. He was hiding the crime. Not knowing how to cover up a crime scene does not show incompetence to stand trial.
I will refrain from speaking further opinions on this tragic case. However purduegirl I do respect yours.
It's jmo that it is hard to get that ruling as the criteria is pretty difficult to meet. I think he could very well have some issues that make him questionable for his sanity at the time but he was also functioning pretty well on paper with a job and an apartment etc. I don't know, I guess I just basically feel like unless someone is drooling on themselves in a corner insanity is not something that's usually ruled. Did that make sense?
I am going by what Boxer explained Giglio was.
"Giglio is police and witness prior behaviors."
As to whether there is mental illness, it is difficult to guess without seeing his file. Perhaps he has done things we are unaware of and it sent him over the edge? We do know he had a protection order against him re SR so he had to have done stuff previously to receive that. So he is maybe obsessive. Perhaps he has a juvenile record we do not know about? As to whether he is insane, my opinion is he is not, just based on what we know. He was sane enough to tell the friends to leave and not come back because Ryan was coming round (premeditation) and to hide the body and evidence. Then he headed over to SR. What would he have done if he got in? It could have been a double murder we would now be looking at. Sane or competent, he is dangerous IMO.
ETA. If his insanity plea fails, I believe his best option is to plead guilty and see if his lawyer can get him a deal. He is young and would presumably get medical help in prison if, for example, he was unstable due to drugs or other incapacity.
I looked at the link. It doesn't say anything about Giglio.
You yourself posted a link that states the following about the Giglio case:-
"However, in nearly every criminal case, and certainly every case that goes to trial, defense attorneys routinely request any and all exculpatory information from the prosecuting or district attorney. When a prosecutor receives that request, even minor disciplinary actions could become accessible to a defense attorney. In fact, depending on the content of your disciplinary file, the prosecutor may have a constitutional and ethical duty to disclose it all.
The Supreme Court did not render much guidance about what a prosecutor must provide to a defense attorney in order to satisfy their Brady and Giglio obligations. We know material and exculpatory evidence must be provided to the defense, and that “evidence affecting credibility” of a witness falls within these bounds. This guidance leaves little doubt that disciplinary action touching on an officer’s ethics, integrity or honesty must be disclosed. Criminal convictions for similar criminal offenses, such as fraud or those involving moral turpitude, must also be disclosed.
But what else? There is no bright line to define when evidence affects an officer’s credibility; it is unclear where this requirement starts and stops. If you’re the only witness to an offense, or the state’s case relies heavily on your testimony, the Supreme Court has indicated the scope of required disclosure could be broader. As a recent and practical example, the Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis has developed a list of officers whose cases will not be filed unless independent evidence exists to corroborate the officer’s observations. These officers have something in their disciplinary file that, in the judgment of the Circuit Attorney, so severely affects their credibility that the officers cannot be relied on.
The best way to avoid this pitfall is to do your job ethically, legally and within policy. It’s much easier that way and there is no temptation to be dishonest when you have nothing to hide.
The very close second-best way to avoid the prying eyes of a defense attorney or being placed on the prosecutor’s “no file” list is to tell the truth. All the time. Under all circumstances. Even if it hurts. Wreck a patrol vehicle? Say so (it happens). Use an unauthorized strike to subdue a restive suspect? Report it. See a co-worker use excessive force? Tell a supervisor.
Make sure your reports reflect the same dedication to the truth. Our job is to report the facts and take appropriate enforcement action. It is not our job to ensure the case is filed by only reporting the “good facts” that support our case or slanting the truth to support our actions. In fact, doing so will likely lead you to some extreme unpleasantness on the witness stand at the hands of the defense attorney, followed promptly by an internal affairs investigation, which could then be discovered by an attorney in a subsequent case—and the cycle repeats itself."
So these are all things the Defence lawyer ie TJ's lawyer can request. It sounds like time wasting in a case like this one IMO.
I hope that explains the comment I said I agreed with. I agree with your comment the trial could be delayed, partly because of this ridiculous timewasting Giglio motion. But hey that's what gives TJ a fair hearing right?