Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The trial of Molly Martens

Options
1…1011131516…117

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    The worry if you have one plonker on the jury who says "Look how upset they were so they must be innocent" and they get off.


  • Options
    #363
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    RacoonQueen wrote: »
    Do they not keep going until they reach a unanimous decision?

    Surely they don't get off just because the jurors don't agree?

    If they can't agree and can't find a way to get past the deadlock it's a hung jury and the judge will declare a mistrial.
    It's up to the prosecution to decide if they want to take them to trial again or not.


  • Options
    #364
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    https://www.google.ie/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/jury-deadlocked-in-north-carolina-officer-shooting-trial/

    Here's a case that was declared a mistrial.


  • Options
    #365
    Summer wind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭Summer wind


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    That's not how it works.
    In a criminal trial the prosecution goes first and they lay out their case, they try to convince people of the accused's guilt. They rested their case last week meaning they have now finished, all they can do now is cross examine defence witnesses and try to poke holes in their stories.

    Now it's the turn of the defence to put forward their case and say this is what we say happened and why it was self defence.

    Each party gets a turn, it isn't a free for all where everyone shouts their evidence at the judge.

    There was blood and hair in the hallway which would back up his claim that they walked up and down the hall BTW.

    What I meant was that if Thomas Martens team had any solid evidence that Jason was going to kill him he would have already said when being questioned. I thought his team would have advised him to do so as it could help his case. I do know a courtroom isn't a free for all where every one shouts their evidence at the judge. I don't have any experience of a murder trial so if that's not how it works so be it.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    You actually did...

    No I didn't. I never said it was Thomas Martens responsibility to provide proof or evidence that Jason was going to kill him. I thought his legal team would have investigated this but I guess that's not how it works.

    Every single person who alleges self defence is entitled to say what he said. Every. Single. Person. Martens can of course raise it. He doesn't have to establish it as "proof" or "fact" or anything at all first. There is no pre-trial process to determine if defences are proven or factual. The hearing is the test.

    If you think it's not right, you are just throwing out a defence that has existed since Victorian times and is recognised all over the world.

    I know every single person is entitled to say they acted as they did in self defence. Why wouldn't they. My point is I think the statement of "until he couldn't kill me" was a bit much. Obviously he knows this will influence the jury. Why phrase it this way otherwise. If the judge and court doesn't have an issue with this that's fine. It's just my opinion.

    Ah come on. When?

    Some of the analysis of the trial is as useful as me looking at neurosurgery and saying "tis all wrong".

    As I've already said I thought his team would have advised him to say it in his evidence when being questioned. I thought anything that would help his case would be said as soon as he got the opportunity. I never claimed to be any kind of expert in law or trials. I'm not in a courtroom. It's just my own personal opinion. I never said it was Thomas Martens responsibility to provide proof or evidence that Jason was going to kill him. I thought his legal team would have investigated this but I guess that's not the way it works. I know every single person is entitled to say they acted as they did in self defence. Why wouldn't they. My point is I think the statement of "until he couldn't kill me" was a bit much. Obviously he knows this will influence the jury. Why phrase it this way otherwise. If the judge and court doesn't have an issue with this that's fine. It's just my opinion.


  • Options
    #366
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Summer wind wrote: »
    I know every single person is entitled to say they acted as they did in self defence. Why wouldn't they. My point is I think the statement of "until he couldn't kill me" was a bit much. Obviously he knows this will influence the jury. Why phrase it this way otherwise. If the judge and court doesn't have an issue with this that's fine. It's just my opinion.

    I think it's a fair comment and would expect it in a self defence case. Of course, it's for the jury to decide whether it's true or not. And they can decide his opinion was unreasonably held - that the victim presented no threat that would have caused a reasonable person to react in the way he did - or that he simply made it up after the event.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    There currently having a conference about what's going to be put to the jury for deliberation

    jury will have 3 options: second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or not guilty
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #368
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Molly Martens has elected not to testify.

    IMO that has guilty written all over it. What innocent person wouldn't want a chance to get up there and clear their name?


  • Options
    #369
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,389 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    I presume a jurist can take some inference from her decision. It prevents her being cross examined which the defence must have considered a bigger risk.


  • Options
    #370
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,785 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    January wrote: »
    Molly Martens has elected not to testify.

    IMO that has guilty written all over it. What innocent person wouldn't want a chance to get up there and clear their name?

    AFAIK, the judge will specifically instruct the jury not to draw any conclusions from her choice.


  • Options
    #371
    Missix
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭Missix


    4 adults in the house that night....One dead,one admits on oath that he hated the victim and smashed him 12 times with a bat,and the other 2 (Molly Martens and her Mother) refuse to testify.


    There just HAS to be a guilty verdict.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    blackwhite wrote: »
    AFAIK, the judge will specifically instruct the jury not to draw any conclusions from her choice.

    I don't know how they could do otherwise. If I was sat on that jury and one of the people on trial refused to testify I'd immediately conclude they were guilty.


  • Options
    #373
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Missix wrote: »
    4 adults in the house that night....One dead,one admits on oath that he hated the victim and smashed him 12 times with a bat,and the other 2 (Molly Martens and her Mother) refuse to testify.


    There just HAS to be a guilty verdict.


    Don't forget about the $500,000 life insurance taken out on him by molly at her father's insistence
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #374
    Missix
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭Missix


    Her brothers chose not to testify either,even though they were supposedly to offer evidence of it being an abusive relationship.


    The Father is going to take the full rap for this,I think.They are all doing their utmost to minimalise Molly Martens part in it all.


  • Options
    #375
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,389 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Who is guilty?


  • Options
    #376
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,785 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    January wrote: »
    I don't know how they could do otherwise. If I was sat on that jury and one of the people on trial refused to testify I'd immediately conclude they were guilty.

    The defendant has the right to present their case however they see fit, and in theory are not supposed to be punished for whether or not they decide to testify.

    There are numerous cases where a defendant would likely have been acquitted on the evidence, but made such a bad impression with the jury that they swung the case against themselves.


  • Options
    #377
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Water John wrote: »
    Who is guilty?

    Both of them, I reckon Molly went ape**** with a paving stone, Daddy finished the job with the baseball bat.


  • Options
    #378
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    January wrote: »
    Molly Martens has elected not to testify.

    IMO that has guilty written all over it. What innocent person wouldn't want a chance to get up there and clear their name?

    It's more common for a defendant not to testify than it is for them to take the stand.
    She doesn't have to clear her name, she's innocent until proven guilty by law and it's up to the prosecution to prove her guilt not the other way around.
    There's no way her lawyer would let her do it even if she wanted to!
    The jury will be told it's her right not to take the stand and they are to infer nothing from it as is the law.


  • Options
    #379
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,956 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    If there is a guilty verdict, it looks like Dad will take the rap.

    But dead people cannot speak, so it is up to the jury to decide if it was self defence, and if excessive force was used. But I don't know if they have such a thing as excessive force in North Carolina law, or anywhere for that matter.

    I am a bit surprised as to how quickly the case is moving on. I really thought the prosecutor's office/legal team would have pushed forensics and excessive force a bit more. But what do I know.

    Strange that the paving stone didn't appear to feature much.


  • Options
    #380
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    No further evidence or witnesses for the Defence ,
    Jury are looking at the blood splatter evidence and another document from the evidence
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #381
    Missix
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭Missix


    January wrote: »
    Both of them, I reckon Molly went ape**** with a paving stone, Daddy finished the job with the baseball bat.

    I couldn't agree more.But if she is found not guilty (and they have done their utmost to minimalise her involvement...none of them explained the paving stone at all)...then she is still free to inherit the lot (and I wouldn't put it past her to try force contact with the kids again either)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,956 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Gatling wrote: »
    No further evidence or witnesses for the Defence ,
    Jury are looking at the blood splatter evidence and another document from the evidence

    Has the defence rested already?

    Any links to reports for today's proceedings. Thanks if you have.


  • Options
    #383
    Missix
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭Missix


    Ben Coley is updating Twitter https://twitter.com/lexdispatchbc?lang=en


  • Options
    #384
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Weird how the defence never addressed the paving stone. These two are guilty as sin.


  • Options
    #385
    mikeybrennan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    she must have gone out to get the paving stone when he was asleep

    daddy heard the commotion and came up with the bat


  • Options
    #386
    jbt123
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭jbt123


    The paving stone has me a little perplexed.

    Was the bedroom on the ground floor with some patio door access?

    Surely if the bedroom was upstairs then how on earth would a paving stone be upstairs?

    Seems to me there is not enough emphasis on it....


  • Options
    #387
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,714 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Did the neighbour mention the in-laws coming at all? If the relationship between JC and his father in law was as toxic as another witness claimed then surely it would have been mentioned.
    I reckon daddy is taking the full blame for his precious little girl!


  • Options
    #388
    Lirange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭Lirange


    Missix wrote: »
    4 adults in the house that night....One dead,one admits on oath that he hated the victim and smashed him 12 times with a bat,and the other 2 (Molly Martens and her Mother) refuse to testify.


    There just HAS to be a guilty verdict.

    As bad as looks for her not to testify her defence team may have thought it would be even worse for her to take the stand. People refer to it as her decision, whilst that's nominally correct, much of the time these decisions are taken on the recommendation of counsel. Any number of reasons you wouldn't want certain people to take the stand...but usually it's because the defence worries about their client making a bad impression on the jury.


  • Options
    #389
    mikeybrennan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    Lirange wrote: »
    As bad as looks for her not to testify her defence team may have thought it would be even worse for her to take the stand. People refer to it as her decision, whilst that's nominally correct, much of the time these decisions are taken on the recommendation of counsel. Any number of reasons you wouldn't want certain people to take the stand...but usually it's because the defence worries about their client making a bad impression on the jury.

    be torn apart by the prosecution..


  • Options
    #390
    Lirange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭Lirange


    notjustsweet wrote: »
    It's more common for a defendant not to testify than it is for them to take the stand.
    She doesn't have to clear her name, she's innocent until proven guilty by law and it's up to the prosecution to prove her guilt not the other way around.
    There's no way her lawyer would let her do it even if she wanted to!
    The jury will be told it's her right not to take the stand and they are to infer nothing from it as is the law.

    True but in this case the defence is claiming that Molly was also a victim of abuse. It is more common for the defendant to testify if they're using the Battered Woman Defence. But not in Molly's case...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    Lirange wrote: »
    True but in this case the defence is claiming that Molly was also a victim of abuse. It is more common for the defendant to testify if they're using the Battered Woman Defence. But not in Molly's case...

    Have they gone for that though? Only the dad has briefly touched on that.
    I thought they were going on the over protective daddy route!


Advertisement