Leader6518
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2006
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 2,624
Yes. I think in order to be able to appeal a non-death sentence case, you have to show there is new evidence that was not explored (or something done wrong).
GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 Aug 2014 - Enrique Arochi kidnapping trial #6
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
Yes. I think in order to be able to appeal a non-death sentence case, you have to show there is new evidence that was not explored (or something done wrong).
suzyjackson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 2,501
- Reaction score
- 3,644
Obviously without naming them but has the trial given you any new areas to search?
CuriousinNY
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 436
- Reaction score
- 84
My question kind of goes with this. Was there any info disclosed at the trial that was new info to the family? I am just wondering how well the police keeps the family informed. Thinking of you all and praying he gets what he deserves on Monday.
No, in fact, he cannot disclose anything EA has told him due to attorney-client privilege.
Texas Rules of Evidence 503 (b)(2) Special Rule of Privilege in Criminal Cases
In criminal cases, a client has a privilege to prevent the lawyer or lawyer's representative from disclosing any other fact that came to the knowledge of the lawyer or lawyer's representative by reason of the attorney-client privilege relationship.
This is a question covered in the Ethics and Responsibility classes required of all law students. It is one of the most vexing to students new to the law, generating the most discussion and outrage.
Yes, a person can hire an attorney to represent him or her for a crime, admit to the crime, and the attorney cannot disclose. Attorney can withdraw representation if they feel they would be unable to represent after the disclosure. However, they cannot disclose.
HF testifying that CM struggled with cocaine was likely new info to her family. In fact, his whole description of her condition the night/morning she disappeared ran counter to what some prosecution witnesses had testified about her, i.e., the testimony that they were all drinking and doing various kinds of drugs except for her.
That might have surprised her family. Or, maybe not. We have no idea to what degree her family knew of her drug use. We know that they knew she was living with a drug dealers.
You can appeal any case for which you can afford the bond. Appellate courts do not hear new information. Appellate courts reviews the court records and briefs submitted by the parties regarding the record.
They then make sure that the law was applied correctly by the prosecution, judge, and jury. There is no re-hashing of old facts or introducing new ones during the appeals process.
If an appeals court feels a law was not applied correctly, evidence or motions denied that legally should have been allowed, for instance, the court can overturn the conviction in part or in whole and remand the the case back to the trial court. In many cases, this means a retrial.
It rarely happens.
In short, the different courts have different roles:
-A trial court is the trier of facts of a case.
-An appellate court reviews the record to make sure the trial court applied the law correctly during the trial.
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Honestly I have no idea if he can or cannot prove if he released her safely. I likewise have no proof to say what he can or cannot prove about possible someone else involved. Common sense says if he could provide that he would have done so. He would have to have more than mere accusations jmho. I have no idea if this will even be considered to argue by Defense.
Jmho she is missing and by many presumed deceased. Presumed deaseased only because not seen or heard from in 2 years and DNA that matched to CM, (not a body) on trunk mat and weather stripping. No proof deceased or jmho would have been changed with her death. I respect the verdict of the jury. Just asking and thinking out loud about (d).
I'm confused. You said HF's "whole description of her condition the night/morning she disappeared ran counter to what some prosecution witnesses had testified about her, i.e., the testimony that they were all drinking and doing various kinds of drugs except for her."
Was that his testimony? I never read anywhere he knew what her condition was that evening. Can you help clarify? TIA
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
I don't know what EA said in his interviews with media. They could possibly be some evidence entered depending on what said, by either side.. I have to reread tweets because I can't remember position of Defense as to whether they acknowledge CM got in or not at all (@trial I mean) I know what EA said on recordings 9/3 & 9/4/14, but not afterwards. I think back to Sawyer testimony about flip flop seeing CM in front seat. Not sure if that was just to prove different PPD theories or something else or both.
Seems in trial they argued the charges only not agreeing or not if she got in and also kept bringing HF up. Also never iirc acknowledge anything in reference to CM phone pings. To explain CM phone pings in that phase would be admitting her being with him and a sure slam dunk. EA being truthful with his Attorneys is only way to provide best defense. Defense may know way more than we realize. Attorney/Client privilege. Sentencing would be only time to use anything they have jmho. Hunter has immunity so he off him. Again just thinking out loud. Monday will hopefully bring more information. Guilty verdict so will definitely be a sentence given. Jmho
Seems in trial they argued the charges only not agreeing or not if she got in and also kept bringing HF up. Also never iirc acknowledge anything in reference to CM phone pings. To explain CM phone pings in that phase would be admitting her being with him and a sure slam dunk. EA being truthful with his Attorneys is only way to provide best defense. Defense may know way more than we realize. Attorney/Client privilege. Sentencing would be only time to use anything they have jmho. Hunter has immunity so he off him. Again just thinking out loud. Monday will hopefully bring more information. Guilty verdict so will definitely be a sentence given. Jmho
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Why didn't the other case go to trial before this one? Currently just charged, not convicted in court of law. If I understood Minor#4 State can bring forth that information in sentencing phase. For the State I can see where can help now,that where couldn't be used prior. Also the theft of Sprint phone. Jmho
That surprises me. I suppose I can wrap my brain around it: when one needs a defense attorney, there's an outsized need for trust and confidentiality. If a client can't fully participate in their own defense by giving their attorney the unvarnished truth on events as they know them to have occurred, then their attorney cannot adequately or appropriately represent them. I'm glad to learn the legal system allows attorneys an out so as to not compromise their own internal morals post appointment/retention.
Who'd of thought lawyers and priests would be grouped into the same confidentiality constraint!
I have nothing against attorneys, I seriously considered going to law school but decided against it for the time being.
Anyone worry once he's in the pen he's found hanged and we never find Christina . Although, as cowardly as he seems not sure it would be self inflicted or not .
[emoji120] for 99 , but 45 wouldn't surprise me with him being 28?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[emoji120] for 99 , but 45 wouldn't surprise me with him being 28?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JDauxa
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
- Messages
- 206
- Reaction score
- 0
I meant to bring this up earlier, but just now getting around to it. It's of my full opinion that EA was sexually frustrated that night and he very much tricked Christina into getting in that car with him. One thing that stuck out to me was the fact that EA was the only one to claim Christina asked for Adderall. From what I recall EA was prescribed Adderall. I have been prescribed Adderall on and off for sometime and can tell you that there are sexual side affects that can occur, especially if the dosage is not right meaning too high/or if someone purposefully takes a higher dose (abuse). I think EA saw an opportunity, was "high" on Adderall and thought he could score with Christina having given her some too. Who knows if EA even gave her any but I can see Christina wanting some if she was going to drive home. Adderall also counteracts so to speak the effects of alcohol. You can drink more and not "feel" as drunk if you will. Her last texts to HF indicate she was intoxicated, even the misspelling words. Whether that was to get HF attention or she really was and wanted some adderall to sober up a bit to drive home. I think he planned on taking her as they were walking in the garage. He could have told her he didn't have anymore adderall on him but he would take her to get some really quick. I just think that him bringing up the adderall played into the whole thing. I think premeditation began in the garage and it warrants him getting a max sentence! Just my opinion
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes that concerns me very much also. Earlier today I saw he was in the infirmary according CC jail, but back in cell last I looked. It concerned me after his ex RA testified he fell ill and it was reported by vw he was on high blood pressure, anxiety and allergy meds. IMO all his lies are eating at his soul but he is still in shock he didn't get away with it. I watched the live feed and saw him smile with delusion right before the verdict. Just sad no winners, I am suprised he is not on suicide watch. Maybe he is, the CC jail is the nicest place he is going to live in unless he cuts a.deal and gets out at 60. Wouldn't it be nice if he just decided to do the right thing and end all this suffering even if just for his own family he should have ended this long ago. I hope this verdict was a wakeup call but honestly I don't think so. I think he will end up in a regular Texas prision full of gang members ( then he will witness Aryans crimes ) no air conditioning, certainly no one will be delivering meds ro him, that doesn't even happen in the Dallas County jail. The entire scene is heartbreaking for everyone but I think you are right and a very likely outcome.
Numbering added for clarity in reply
1 The indictment included 3 aggravating factors taken from items 4 and 5 of your quoted section of the various intents
(1) hold person for ransom or reward;
(2) use person as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury or violate or abuse sexually;
(5) terrorize victim or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
2 If you are referencing the motions made that preceded closing, there were 3 issues they raised with the indictment, and in essence the defense tried to get the judge to violate the law
(a) they wanted the jury to be REQUIRED to all specify one "intent" they were voting for ....which is not what the law requires, and would have placed a burden on the state that the law does not require, and was quickly overruled by the judge on that basis
(b) they objected to the word "terrorize" as being too vague and being undefined by the statute and wanted the judge to create his own legal definition (in effect, make a new law on the spot) to limit the jury on what they could consider, and was quickly overruled by the judge who noted that the Texas appellate courts have previously told court judges not to do that in other rulings and that the statute is written to allow the jurors to use the word's normal meaning and not some judge-created definition
(c) so they then angled to force each juror to specify which intent they personally were thinking of, with the excuse that they (the defense) might appeal the vagueness (as claimed by them) of the word terrorize in the statute, and then it would be necessary to know if any of the jurors had seen intent based on it ...and again the judge properly shot them down, as that would have placed a requirement on the jurors that the law did not require the state to meet
3 The defense's attempt to enter the indictment as "evidence" was pure legal nonsense, and quickly shot down by the judge. Their assertion was that the state's detectives each needed to defend the wording of the indictment and personally explain why it said what it did. But the judge properly replied that the indictment was NOT written by any of the detectives, but rather by jurors, so it's not the detectives' words or thoughts being expressed in it, nor is it evidence of anything other than the grand jurors' collective opinions on what EA did.
4 As far as an appeal, most of that stuff drew mention because it got the judge involved but was literally legal crap, and would waste the appeal's courts time to try to argue on appeal. They MIGHT raise the question of the definition of terrorize, but the judge really nailed it, as he bowed to legal precedent and also the nature of statutes as written - ie, you leave it to the lawmakers to determine if they want some specialized definition, and otherwise the courts are to understand that they wrote the statute to be taken just as written (iow, the law was intended to let the jurors use what they normally think of as "terrorize" and it doesn't need to be limited further)
1 The indictment included 3 aggravating factors taken from items 4 and 5 of your quoted section of the various intents
(1) hold person for ransom or reward;
(2) use person as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury or violate or abuse sexually;
(5) terrorize victim or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
2 If you are referencing the motions made that preceded closing, there were 3 issues they raised with the indictment, and in essence the defense tried to get the judge to violate the law
(a) they wanted the jury to be REQUIRED to all specify one "intent" they were voting for ....which is not what the law requires, and would have placed a burden on the state that the law does not require, and was quickly overruled by the judge on that basis
(b) they objected to the word "terrorize" as being too vague and being undefined by the statute and wanted the judge to create his own legal definition (in effect, make a new law on the spot) to limit the jury on what they could consider, and was quickly overruled by the judge who noted that the Texas appellate courts have previously told court judges not to do that in other rulings and that the statute is written to allow the jurors to use the word's normal meaning and not some judge-created definition
(c) so they then angled to force each juror to specify which intent they personally were thinking of, with the excuse that they (the defense) might appeal the vagueness (as claimed by them) of the word terrorize in the statute, and then it would be necessary to know if any of the jurors had seen intent based on it ...and again the judge properly shot them down, as that would have placed a requirement on the jurors that the law did not require the state to meet
3 The defense's attempt to enter the indictment as "evidence" was pure legal nonsense, and quickly shot down by the judge. Their assertion was that the state's detectives each needed to defend the wording of the indictment and personally explain why it said what it did. But the judge properly replied that the indictment was NOT written by any of the detectives, but rather by jurors, so it's not the detectives' words or thoughts being expressed in it, nor is it evidence of anything other than the grand jurors' collective opinions on what EA did.
4 As far as an appeal, most of that stuff drew mention because it got the judge involved but was literally legal crap, and would waste the appeal's courts time to try to argue on appeal. They MIGHT raise the question of the definition of terrorize, but the judge really nailed it, as he bowed to legal precedent and also the nature of statutes as written - ie, you leave it to the lawmakers to determine if they want some specialized definition, and otherwise the courts are to understand that they wrote the statute to be taken just as written (iow, the law was intended to let the jurors use what they normally think of as "terrorize" and it doesn't need to be limited further)
"(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree."
Geevee and Bhumble really nailed it on this question, but I will add one thing. The key word in this statute is "safe" and the idea behind it is that the law provides lesser range of punishment for AK if the perp returned the kidnap victim safe and sound.
But, the defendant has to PROVE he did that, not just claim it. Has EA ever done that? No, of course not. It would be pure nonsense for him to claim that he returned CM safely somewhere, and no point in even making such a claim. Could he still do such a thing? If she was alive somewhere and being held, then yes, but it would have to be something he could testify as already having done, so would need to be done before Monday.
Geevee and Bhumble really nailed it on this question, but I will add one thing. The key word in this statute is "safe" and the idea behind it is that the law provides lesser range of punishment for AK if the perp returned the kidnap victim safe and sound.
But, the defendant has to PROVE he did that, not just claim it. Has EA ever done that? No, of course not. It would be pure nonsense for him to claim that he returned CM safely somewhere, and no point in even making such a claim. Could he still do such a thing? If she was alive somewhere and being held, then yes, but it would have to be something he could testify as already having done, so would need to be done before Monday.
Steleheart
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 3,299
She would also have to be medically determined to be "unharmed" IMO. In a safe place and unharmed is usually the statute but I am unsure of Texas law.
Steleheart
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 3,299
So as I have previously thought, Texas law does not allow judges to legislate from the bench and actually outlaws any attempt by an individual to cause that to happen. That would mean, to me, that the defense's lame attempts at implicating the judge in a possible future appeal ruling could have been seen as contempt of the court if the judge wanted to take it that way. The law requires that lawmakers make the laws and not judges. It's one thing to ask a judge to interpret the law, it's quite another to "require" a judge to make a new law in order to implicate him in a future appeal. This judge used his prudence and restraint IMO.
Steleheart, I don't look at the defense's moves as threats or "attempts to implicate" which are terms that imply they would be claiming sort of malfeasance by the judge that could put him in trouble. If he made a mistake in a ruling, the case might get re-tried. But unless he did something deliberately against the law, it's not personal. Frankly, I think what they did and were asking him to do in many of their actions and requests was to violate the law, in order to create an impossible verdict from the facts of the case, and they knew it as well as him.
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Quoting my own post for context.
#1 yes typo should have been #4 & #5 not #3 & #4. Only a certain amount of time given to edit and I was past that time when saw it. Didn't ask a mod to fix as I figured anyone reading could see typo.
#2 No am not referring to proceeding closing arguments, but to 2nd day of trial, (link for reference is post #335 thread 1)
Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 2m2 minutes ago
Jury out. Defense wants indictment as exhibit to question its wording and question police on its wording. State objects. #arochitrial
The Mercury ‏@utdmercury 2m2 minutes ago
Judge Mark Rusch sustains objection to show indictment in court, says "It's an accusation" #ArochiTrial
Last edited by arkansasmimi; 09-08-2016 at 12:29 PM.
#3 I do understand why judge said what said
And #4 that was just my stating that in reference to my post commenting on the one I had quoted. Which was about the statute. Nothing more or less.