Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on September 13, 2006, 12:15:19 PM
-
This is dumbfounding, somehow wrong for a mother to show emotion when testifying about her children’s murder?
Read here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/13/no.crying/index.html)
BARTOW, Florida (Court TV) -- Warned by the judge that tears could trigger a mistrial, a mother was stoic in front of a Florida jury Tuesday as she relived the day she discovered the bloodied bodies of her children.
Nicoletta Dosso was the first person to come upon the bloody crime scene where her children, Frank Dosso, 35, and Diane Patisso, 28, were shot to death.
In the same office where her son lay dead in a pool of blood from gunshot wounds to the head, Nicoletta Dosso also discovered her daughter's husband, George Patisso, 26, slumped against the body of 68-year-old George Gonsalves, her husband's business partner.
Dressed from head to toe in black, the grieving mother had barely taken her seat in the witness box Tuesday before she began stifling sobs while family members and friends sat red-eyed in the gallery holding tissue boxes.
The emotional display prompted a swift response from lawyers representing the defendant, Nelson Serrano, who faces the death penalty if convicted of four counts of first-degree murder.
"Mrs. Dosso's role in this case is more emotional than any witness identification situation I can imagine," defense lawyer Robert Norgard told the court after the jury was quickly rushed out of the room. "If she breaks down in front of the jury, we will ask for a mistrial."
Fears of juror bias
Circuit Judge Susan Roberts agreed that an emotional display would unfairly bias the jurors against the defendant, and issued a stern warning to the prosecutor and, indirectly, to the witness and her family.
"If she gets emotional, I will grant a motion for a mistrial," Roberts said, eliciting emphatic headshakes from Dosso's friends and family. "If [the prosecutor] wants to put her on the stand with that in mind, he may do so."
In a compromise, both sides agreed to let the witness give her testimony outside the presence of the jury and then play a video of the testimony for the jury if it was deemed "unemotional" enough.
As a result, the Sicilian-born mother of three offered a sanitized version of the events that took place on December 3, 1997.
Nicoletta Dosso said she and her husband were supposed to go to their son's home that evening for coffee and cake to celebrate his twin daughters' 10th birthday.
At about 6 p.m., Frank Dosso's wife called to say he had not returned home.
They went to look for him at the Bartow office of Erie Manufacturing and Garment Conveyor Systems, where Frank Dosso worked for his father's business. Nicoletta was the first to come upon her daughter's body, lying in a pool of blood.
'My God, what did they do?'
"I went down and I said, 'My God what they do? I don't know who did this to you, Diane,'" the witness said in an Italian accent.
As she continued through the offices, she saw George Gonsalves' foot sticking out of her son's office, and discovered the bodies of the three other men inside.
"I wanted to hug [Frank], but I could not. I did not want to touch the dead," she said, her voice restrained. "I don't want to spoil. I knew that was even worse for me to do."
The widow of Frank Dosso received the same cautionary instructions about her composure before she did her own run through outside the presence of the jury.
Maria Dosso Jacoby testified that she and her three daughters waited for Frank Dosso to return home that night with Chinese take-out.
Anxious for an answer, she left her three daughters at home with a friend and drove to Erie's offices with George Gonsalves' wife, Inocencia.
"There was already crime-scene tape, there was an ambulance," testified Maria Dosso Jacoby, who has remarried since her husband's death.
"Did your husbands have any enemies or people that might want to injure him?" assistant state attorney John Aguero asked Jacoby.
"No," Jacoby said, without betraying any emotion.
Atlanta alibi
Polk County prosecutors contend that Serrano, 67, went to Erie Manufacturing to kill Gonsalves, who had removed Serrano from his position as president of Garment Conveyor Systems and cut his salary. He killed the others, they say, so there would be no witnesses. (Full coverage)
Serrano's lawyers claim evidence places their client in Atlanta the day of the shootings. They also point to a lack of forensic evidence linking the Ecuadorian native to the crime scene.
Earlier Tuesday, several Erie employees testified about the acrimonious relationship between Serrano and his partners, Gonsalves and Phil Dosso, the husband of Nicoletta Dosso and the father of Frank and Diane.
Before Serrano left the company in July 1997, former employee Todd White testified Tuesday that Serrano asked him to leave Erie and join him in a new company he was starting.
"I told him I wasn't comfortable leaving, and at that point he proceeded to become very disgruntled and very upset," testified White, who left Erie in 1999. "He kept saying things like, 'If you choose not to, I think you'll be sorry, because I plan to see this company fail. I guarantee you this company will fail.'"
Phil Dosso is expected to testify Wednesday and provide further details of the turmoil between the partners that preceded Serrano's departure six months before the shootings.
-
Welcome to Bartow Florida, population 15,340.
"Where only Vulcans need testify in court."
-
It's not HER FAULT that Nelson murdered her son and daughter.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
It's not HER FAULT that Nelson murdered her son and daughter.
Allegedly murdered. I think this country still officially goes by innocent until proven guilty.
I can see the judge's opinion though. Think about it. Her grief in no way shape or form can attribute guilt or innocence to the defendant in the case. Her crying on the stand provides no evidence or facts as to who committed the murders. On the other hand, a juror should be able to realize that as well, and concentrate solely on the facts she presents.
Now, once someone (whether it's the defendant or someone else) is proven guilty in the case, her anguish should have influence in the sentencing of the guilty.
-
reminds me of the Menedez brothers... at their first trial, they cried on the stand talking about how their parents abused them... ended in a hung jury..
in the second trial, they weren't allowed to cry, the jury thought they were cold and evil, and they got max time.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
Allegedly murdered. I think this country still officially goes by innocent until proven guilty.
I can see the judge's opinion though. Think about it. Her grief in no way shape or form can attribute guilt or innocence to the defendant in the case. Her crying on the stand provides no evidence or facts as to who committed the murders. On the other hand, a juror should be able to realize that as well, and concentrate solely on the facts she presents.
Now, once someone (whether it's the defendant or someone else) is proven guilty in the case, her anguish should have influence in the sentencing of the guilty.
Put yourself in HER SHOES and do your damndest not to cry. Of course he "allegedly murdered" them, I know the US Constitution. It's kinda like when a Pakistani Doctor here in Plymouth, MI butchered and discarded his wife's body parts in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. Of course he was "Innocent", he committed the worst crime that someone in Michigan can receive, "Mayhem". He's serving Life without Parole. My point in all of this? Some cases are a "slam dunk". There was a reason I left out "allegedly" in my post as this is another example of a slam dunk.
-
ok let someone shoot and murder your 2 sons and then be told you cant express to much emtion now
never have i seen somthing so inhuman in the court system of lawyers and judges
Mother "will there i came up to my 2 dead sons and :cry"
Lawyer "WAIT JUDGE BIAS DISSMISS NOW THEY DID NOT DO IT BECAUSE SHE IS CRYING"
Lawyer"cool guys i got you off easily:t "
-
can some one explain me how the judge are selected ?
-
You'd all feel very differently if you were the defendant, you didn't commit this crime, and you had this sobbing mother on the stand and a jury angrily glaring at you.
While she is entitled to her grief, her grief alone should not be used as a tool to assign guilt. I didn't hear anything in what she said that could help find a killer, only material which encourages sympathy and a desire to punish.
-
Straffo, local and county judges are often elected to office. Higher level judges, such as those of appeals courts and state supreme courts, are usually appointed by the governor of the state. However, there is variation from state to state.
-
We're talking about a woman here......a grief stricken woman.......what do women do when they are upset? Anyone?
They cry. It's like asking the grass to not grow, or the sun to not come up.
-
Maybe I've seen one to many Perry Mason episodes, or have watched Boston Legal too much, and I have no law degree so what I say is pure speculation on my part using only common sense.
Seems to me that the Judge should have instructed the jury not to let the mothers emotion taint their judgement. I don't see how he/she can rule that the woman testify without emotion, that's just rediculous.
I dunno, that's just my 2 cents.
-
The best way to deal with the justice system is to stay as far away from it as is humanly possible.
I'm reminded of that great song from the 60s
"Its my trial and I'll cry if I want to"
-
The difficulty here is that giving jury instructions is like trying to unring a bell. No doubt this is exactly the result the prosecutor would like. And, as said above, this stage of the trial is to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Exactly what about her testimony establishes whether or not the defendant committed the crime? What about her tears and grief places the defendant at the murder scene at the time of the murder? Or gives a motive, etc. etc. Nothing. You are on trial for a crime you did not commit. Do you really want a jury watching the grieving family on the stand, barely able to talk through their tears about how their dead family members were found? Is it really reassuring to you that the jury will be instructed to render a verdict based on the facts and not emotion? Assuming you could GET such an instruction? On the other hand, once guilt is established, her testimony, complete with grief and tears, should be presented for purposes of determining the sentence.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Straffo, local and county judges are often elected to office. Higher level judges, such as those of appeals courts and state supreme courts, are usually appointed by the governor of the state. However, there is variation from state to state.
Ok, and they are choosen among the whole population or there is some legal prerequisite ?
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
Imagine if your life depended on the logician and reasoning skills of a party of average americans.
That's the stuff of nightmares.
-
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. :rofl
Defense can "claim" all they want. Defense attorneys are now the "be all, end all"?
-
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?