Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cortez The Killie Killer

Honey moon murder case in Alabama thrown out

Rate this topic

15 posts in this topic

Didn't the events take place outside of this country? How can he be tried for something that didn't even happen here? I'm curious...

 

Can one of are legal eagles explain......?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't the events take place outside of this country? How can he be tried for something that didn't even happen here? I'm curious...

Can one of are legal eagles explain......?

 

Not an expert, but I'm pretty sure you can't just vacation out of the country and off a spouse without facing legal action back home. If that were the case there'd be a lot less "divorces". ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a case of the bench overstepping it's bounds, like someone cautioned we need steps against in that other thread.

 

Not so Obvious. A judge has a legal OBLIGATION to examine the evidence presented by the government to ensure that it rises to the minimum level of proof required for the jury to even considered guilt or innocence . Although it is rare for a judge to direct the verdict, that is due to the fact that the State typically presents that minimum level of evidence. This is an example of the law actually working exactly how it was intended to work. It is not an example of a zealot judge who has overstepped his bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an expert, but I'm pretty sure you can't just vacation out of the country and off a spouse without facing legal action back home. If that were the case there'd be a lot less "divorces". ;)

 

States can't prosecute for crimes that occur outside their jurisdiction. There would normally have to be some minimum amount of nexus to the state for it to be tried there. You can commit a crime within a state without ever being there, but there has to be some tangible connection to the state that's bringing charges.

 

 

Not so Obvious. A judge has a legal OBLIGATION to examine the evidence presented by the government to ensure that it rises to the minimum level of proof required for the jury to even considered guilt or innocence . Although it is rare for a judge to direct the verdict, that is due to the fact that the State typically presents that minimum level of evidence. This is an example of the law actually working exactly how it was intended to work. It is not an example of a zealot judge who has overstepped his bounds.

 

Also, in many jurisdictions, a directed verdict (or whatever it's called from state to state) can be appealed by the prosecution. Every state that I know of has procedural rules whereby a judge can take the case away from the jury, if the judge feels that the evidence, even in the most favorable light for the prosecution, can't support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The judge hated the case from Day 1 !

 

The prosecution noted in its opening statement that the guy killed her for the life insurance $$$$$$$$ and even took the engagement ring off her finger before she was buried - the judge said "I took the ring off my grandmothers finger before the buried her - Does that mean I murdered her ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge hated the case from Day 1 !

The prosecution noted in its opening statement that the guy killed her for the life insurance $$$$$$$$ and even took the engagement ring off her finger before she was buried - the judge said "I took the ring off my grandmothers finger before the buried her - Does that mean I murdered her ? :D

 

I'm wondering why the defense attorney even bothered with a jury trial, then. If it was clear that the judge had an opinion that the case was a dog from the get-go, he should have waived a jury. Especially if the prosecution can appeal a directed verdict down there, because the one thing they can't appeal is a not guilty verdict--regardless if it comes from a jury or a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cortez The Killie Killer View Post

 

Although I have not followed the honey moon case I believe that he was prosecuted in Alabama due to an allegation of murder to collect on the life insurance policy somehow creating jurisdiction

 

I think the theory was he planned it in Alabama before leaving on the trip.

 

 

 

I know there's a difference between knowing something and proving it. The guy  was a certified rescue diver. He claims he went to help his panicking bride and she ripped his mask off. So he surfaced. Scuba training 101 is how to flood your mask and put it back on underwater. But this guy with rescue training couldn't do it?

 

 

 

They found him sitting on the boat. The divemaster asked him where his wife was - he says "She didn't come up". The divemaster goes back down, finds her, and drags her up. The husband doesn't even come over to check / assist when the divemaster is trying to get her back onboard. And they notice her air is turned off. Also the father was ready to testify that his daughter came to him for advice before the trip. According to him the husband wanted her to up her life insurance before the trip and name him beneficiary. The father claims he told her "not to do it but tell him that you did". Judge wouldn't allow the testimony, calling it hearsay. Shouldn't the jury decide if he's believable or not? Yet the judge had no problem admonishing that the husband "didn't stand to financially gain from the murder". Well, maybe he thought he would.

 

 

 

But that's not enough to let 12 people decide the case?

 

 

 

article-2105551-11B265D5000005DC-554_634x443.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also the father was ready to testify that his daughter came to him for advice before the trip. According to him the husband wanted her to up her life insurance before the trip and name him beneficiary. The father claims he told her "not to do it but tell him that you did". Judge wouldn't allow the testimony, calling it hearsay. Shouldn't the jury decide if he's believable or not?

 

Um, no, because the judge is right. It's hearsay. And juries are only allowed to hear admissible evidence.

 

It's an out of court statement being offered for the truth of its contents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know, i read some pretty sketchy stuff about the dead girl's father, like he was the beneficiary ofher life insurance policy and told them before they got married they should both increase their own insurance and the husband declined because they were tight on money. so why would he kill his wife if he wasnt even the bene?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ditch Jigger View Post

 

Um, no, because the judge is right. It's hearsay. And juries are only allowed to hear admissible evidence.

 

It's an out of court statement being offered for the truth of its contents.

 

Yep. As Whitey well knows, the more bodies you leave behind the more hearsay you create!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.