Legal Question

Discussion in 'Darlie Routier' started by Goody, Sep 9, 2006.

  1. Goody

    Goody New Member

    Messages:
    3,652
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, lawyers, listen up. Esp you Texas lawyers.

    In the Yates trial, Jeana posted at another forum, that she could not be tried for the children not charged with already because they used the evidence of all 5 children in the first trial. My question is, does that not also apply to Darlie? They used Devon's death extensively in Damon's trial, so does that not prevent the state from charging her with Devon's death should she get a new trial and subsequent acquittal for Damon?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Delores

    Delores Inactive

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    good question
     
  4. Kitty5001

    Kitty5001 New Member

    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that was part of their rationale for only charging her with the death of only one child- (so that they could, if they needed, use the other child's death later to ensure a conviction)-plus the fact that the child was under the age of 8 (? I think that's the age law) that they could get the DP. But I don't think it would make much difference now because if the DNA results exclude her from being the "intruder" then she would use the exact same defense if she was tried for the second child and it would be a mute point then.
     
  5. Goody

    Goody New Member

    Messages:
    3,652
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Texas statute allows DP for a child under 6 (not 8) and when more than one person is killed at the same time. I know it has been said on the net that the state could try her for Devon's death if she were acquitted of Damon's, but according to rule I stated above, it sounds like they could not do that after all because they used the evidence in Devon's death against her in Damon's trial/ Well, actually it was pointed out in another case but the logistics are the same/ So my question is .......does this not apply to Darlie's case as well, and if not, why not?
     
  6. Jimthecarpetguy

    Jimthecarpetguy New Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't understand about the yates charge.If what Jeanna says is correct then one would have to assume the same rules would apply(in Texas y'all).I thought the whole point in charging her with only one death was to reserve the other charge in the event of a not guilty on the first.Due to the age of the second child that murder would not fit the parameters for the DP and if there was a NG on the first murder the second would be pretty tough to prosecute anyway.I find it hard to believe the state Texas would leave such a gaping loophole.
    Assuming the above,the prosecutors were taking a HUGE risk when they brought all the specific charges in this case.I think they were betting the farm that Darlie wouldn't "roll the dice" when they brought the DP into play and she would own up to murders and plea bargain for her life.When she didn't the DA was forced to prosecute the case on the evidence that they had at the time.Moving the trial didn't hurt the prosecution too much either.
    Everthing adds up to an easy victory for the prosecution.
     
  7. Goody

    Goody New Member

    Messages:
    3,652
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's what everybody says, but I was curious about how this rule would effect Darlie's case should the issue ever come up.

    Darlie's and Darin's testimonies probably did more to convict her than anything. Add that to no explanation offered by the defense for the truly incriminating evidence and what choice did the jury have?
     
  8. Jeana (DP)

    Jeana (DP) Former Member

    Messages:
    26,902
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This isn't my area. The only thing I can add is that in Yates' first trial, they didn't bring in "as much" of the other murders as they did the second time. I'm not sure "how much" qualifies as "evidence introduced."
     

Share This Page

  1. 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.
    Dismiss Notice