Wow can't cry in court?

[Neubob]

The woman cannot testify without emotion, and the jury should understand that. The jury should also understand that the woman is crying because she lost a loved one, and not necessarily because she lost a loved one to the defendant. It really is not a huge leap to make for anyone of average intelligence. It is a leap, however, to equate tears to a guilty verdict. It's not that the emotion isn't a strong factor in the decision-making. Unless the profuse emotion causes the jury to scramble for a quick and easy scapegoat, it shouldn't be not a factor at all.

As an illustration, just imagine the jury, in the midst of deliberations, when somebody says: 'that poor poor woman, did you see her tears? That dirtbag is obviously guilty!' It just doesn't ring true. And the fact that the defense teams are pushing for this adds absolutely no weight to the rationality either. They'd push for in-court smoke breaks if it they thought it'd give them an edge of .000001%.

[lasersailor184]

Engine is correct here, though as a voice of reason, you should ignore him.


The mother crying serves no real purpose to the case except to try to garner hate against the alleged killer.  She has no connection to the case, nor is an eye witness.  Her coming across the bodies of her children doesn't lead anywhere, nor make the case come any closer to the killer, whoever he is.


The prosecution put her on the stand to make the jury feel sorry for her, and anger against the accused.  

All you people are screaming bloody murder about the defense and judge who stopped her from crying.

But what about the prosecution attorneys who put her on the stand with exact knowledge of why and what would happen.

[Neubob]

She discovered the bodies and she has no connection to the case?

That's downright amazing!

Like I said before, the cause of the emotion--her kids being dead-- has no bearing on the cause of their deaths, which is what is at issue. Unless the jury consists of children, they will understand that. They will also not be further swayed by whatever emotions she shows than they'd already be by the numerous other graphic exhibits the prosecution is sure to present through the course of the trial.

Defense attorneys grab at straws, any straws, to make their case work. Fact is, if it had been a neighbor that had discovered the bodies, you better believe he'd be on the stand.

[lasersailor184]

To say that they won't be swayed by her crying on the stand is rediculous.  It was a deliberate play to push guilt on the defendent, whether or not he is guilty.


Her discovering the bodies isn't evidence, nor revealing of anything important to the case.

[MIShill]

As I understand this then, in this judge's opinion a show of emotion WILL BE grounds for a misstrial. Does this apply to every witness in every case before her or just this case? Does this apply to every witness in THIS case? What degree of "emotion" triggers a misstrial? This is a very prejudicial opinion since the degree of non-verbal communication is very hard to control.
-MI-

[Neubob]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Her discovering the bodies isn't evidence, nor revealing of anything important to the case.

You know this for a fact? Have you ever seen a trial where the person who discovered the bodies didn't testify?

And no, I don't think it's rediculous. If it's a ploy it's an impotent one. Crying at the death of one's loved ones is natural. It's neutral. It points no fingers whatsoever. If and only if the evidence was already overwhelmingly against the defendant would this emotion play any role at all--and only in the matter of sentencing. Even then, like I said before, the various images and descriptions of the bodies would have done their job swaying the jury.

[lasersailor184]

She's not doing anything a coroner or crime scene investigator can't do.  She can't tell the court the details of how exactly all the victims died.  She can't tell you when the victims died.  She can't tell the court anything except for them being her children.


There is no point in her being a witness then to push guilt on someone that might not be guilty.  The bodies existed.  No one is disputing this fact.  But the mother is worthless to proving that the defendent was the murderer.

[Neubob]

There is no pushing of guilt. I simply do not understand how this can be a factor in the absence of overwhelming evidence against the defendant. You probably saw at least some of the OJ trial. Tons and tons of emotion, and yet the jury was bound by the rules of reason,  the rules of the court, the rules of admissibility, etc, etc... and they returned a verdict that, to some, seemed absurd. They acquitted a guy that had already been sentenced and hanged by the court of public opinion. Many of the jurors themselves were pissed, but hey, they had to decide based on certain rules, and they did. So will this jury.

Without overwhelming evidence, all you've got is a guy sitting on one side of the room, and the mother weeping on the stand, and until both you and I have actually read this case, especially the content of her testimony, I refuse to believe that her role as a witness is worthless. If it was, the prosecution would have sustained an objection to present the witness in the first place.

If her crying does anything to the jury, it will only be to stiffen the sentence. And if the guy is guilty, then he should get the maximum punishment for a double murder anyway.

Without existing evidence, there is simply too must disjointment between her tears and the defendant. As already mentioned, the whole concept of 'oh, I really feel for the mother, the guy must be guilty', just doesn't work.

[lasersailor184]

There is pushing of guilt.


Everytime a person goes up in the witness stand, there has to be a purpose.  The attorney's question the witnesses and lead them in a specific diretion.  At the end of the questioning, the attorneys want to have something revealed that wasn't known before.

There is nothing of putting the mother up on the stand that reveals any new information, besides that she's really sad that her children were murdered.  There is no purpose for this then administering guilt to the defendant.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
There is pushing of guilt.

Everytime a person goes up in the witness stand, there has to be a purpose.  The attorney's question the witnesses and lead them in a specific diretion.  At the end of the questioning, the attorneys want to have something revealed that wasn't known before.

There is nothing of putting the mother up on the stand that reveals any new information, besides that she's really sad that her children were murdered.  There is no purpose for this then administering guilt to the defendant.

Do you noramlly sling this much Bulls*it?   You seem to be the expert in every damn topic discussed.   You stumbled on this one Lancelot.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
There is pushing of guilt.


Everytime a person goes up in the witness stand, there has to be a purpose.  The attorney's question the witnesses and lead them in a specific diretion.  At the end of the questioning, the attorneys want to have something revealed that wasn't known before.

There is nothing of putting the mother up on the stand that reveals any new information, besides that she's really sad that her children were murdered.  There is no purpose for this then administering guilt to the defendant.

Like I said, until I've read this case, I refuse to make an appraisal of her value as a witness--a witness who found the bodies no less. Furthermore, if she was nothing but a hood ornament, why didn't the prosecution sustain an objection to her testimony? Until I've seen the court reports, I would not dare assume anything. Perhaps you are more daring.

As for your 'pushing of guilt' assertion, we can go back and forth indefinitely. You say yes, I say no. I still maintain that it would take a massive logical leap to turn tears into guilt, unless, of course, there is evidence to convict, in which case the tears serve only to stiffen the sentence. In the absense of such evidence, the tears are worthless, and sympathy does not automatically equate to vindictiveness. Period.

Whether you like it or not, these are valid points. If you want to refute them, please do. Otherwise you'll just be repeating yourself.

[Nifty]

Solely in terms of discovering the bodies, what can the mother introduce as evidence that police investigators, coroners, and other experts cannot? All the mother can do factually in this part of her testimony is give a layman's (for lack of a better term) account of what the experts will testify.

Obviously, her testimony (if any was given) regarding the connections between the defendant and the victims is very important to the case.

As for a slam dunk? The defense claims to have evidence supporting the defendant's alibi that he wasn't even in the same state when the murders took place. Also, the defense claims no forensic evidence places the defendant at the crime scene. Where is your slam dunk? Reminds me of when they first announced Karr being detained for the Jon Benet murder...

[Suave]

Imagine if your life depended on the logician and reasoning skills of a party of average americans.

That's the stuff of nightmares.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Nifty
As for a slam dunk? The defense claims to have evidence supporting the defendant's alibi that he wasn't even in the same state when the murders took place. Also, the defense claims no forensic evidence places the defendant at the crime scene. Where is your slam dunk? Reminds me of when they first announced Karr being detained for the Jon Benet murder...

Wait and see.   I would wonder what you would do on the stand if this was you being ordered not to cry.   Wait, I already know, you'd be a rock.  

Defense can "claim" all they want.   Defense attorneys are now the "be all, end all"?

[Nifty]

Oh noes. A personal attack. My arguments are now null and void!

First, whether or not I could hold my composure on the stand has no bearing on if one should be instructed to hold their composure on the stand, or why they are being asked to hold their composure on the stand.

Of course defense attorney's are not the definitive answer of the trial. However, how can you dismiss their claims so easily? Where is your experience with this trial coming from that allows you to know the defendant is guilty? Just a gut feeling?