The trial of Molly Martens

Hitman3000

Gadgetman496 wrote:

Attorneys for Thomas Martens and Molly Corbett, convicted of murdering Irish businessman Jason Corbett, say in court papers filed Wednesday 16th August 2017 that the jury verdict should be thrown out, accusing some of the jurors of misconduct.

P*ssing in the wind. Best they can hope for is a new trial. Same result.

gctest50

Cr@p jury should've been thrown out

this one is just lying filth :

Perez vomited when looking at an autopsy photo and told Lee outside the presence of other jurors that it was because she had skipped breakfast, the motion says.

But in the 20/20 interview, Perez said, “I don’t think there’s anything or any experience in life that can prepare you to look at those pictures.”

The Martens could walk if there's more of that

Call me Al

In light of their allegations of jury misconduct what happens?
Does a judge (same one from trial or different?) call the jury members in and ask them individually what happened?
Does the DA refute? Or have any input before a judge?
How does this work?
I know it's a lot of questions.

pilly

gctest50 wrote:

The Martens could walk if there's more of that

What difference does it make if that was after the case was over?

Hitman3000

gctest50 wrote:

The Martens could walk if there's more of that

Not a hope of them walking.

retro:electro

A lot of straws being clutched in North Carolina right now.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Deise Vu

gctest50 wrote: »

Cr@p jury should've been thrown out

this one is just lying filth :



The Martens could walk if there's more of that

I'd say you are onto something big there alright. If the defence can prove that Perez had a breakfast that morning there would surely be an automatic acquittal and a film deal for Molly.


I really, seriously, hope you are just trying to spark a reaction. If that is the best the defence can come up with, they should hand back the gofundme money.

seamus

The judge will look at everything and decide on balance if the allegations are true and if so, if the actions would have been sufficient to sway jurors.

It is virtually impossible to prevent jurors having private conversations with other jurors, and to prevent them from forming personal opinions about the individuals involved in the trial.

Forming an opinion that Molly is bipolar doesn't mean that factored into one's verdict. The judge will decide whether there's enough evidence that the jury were swayed by factors outside of the trial.

This is pretty common kitchen-sink stuff. No conviction would ever be safe if a juror forming an opinion outside of the facts of the case was enough to have them dismissed. It's human nature.

Deise Vu

seamus wrote: »

The judge will look at everything and decide on balance if the allegations are true and if so, if the actions would have been sufficient to sway jurors.

It is virtually impossible to prevent jurors having private conversations with other jurors, and to prevent them from forming personal opinions about the individuals involved in the trial.

Forming an opinion that Molly is bipolar doesn't mean that factored into one's verdict. The judge will decide whether there's enough evidence that the jury were swayed by factors outside of the trial.

This is pretty common kitchen-sink stuff. No conviction would ever be safe if a juror forming an opinion outside of the facts of the case was enough to have them dismissed. It's human nature.

I agree about human nature but I think the inference is that they were discussing it on social media during the trial (even though the only 'evidence' seems to be stuff that happened after the trial).

It would be an entirely different matter if it could be proved that, for example, a juror was reading and contributing to this thread during the trial.:eek:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Deise Vu

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know about that. It mightn't apply in this case but sooner or later some defence counsel is going to scour twitter and find a juror tweeting something on the lines of: "Jeez if I have to look at that bitch defendant smirking and fixing her hair for a minute longer in this courtroom I'll scream". Then one of her followers will tell her some story she heard from her friend who was at the hairdresser whose sister is going out with a fella, whose brother was talking to the wife of a cop, that they suspect the defendant in another case but haven't the proof.

Automatic retrial.

Gadgetman496

https://twitter.com/AlexRoseNews/status/898178411469963266

RacoonQueen

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AlexRoseNews/status/898178411469963266

Interested to see how they're going to prove any of that

Gadgetman496

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Interested to see how they're going to prove any of that

If it were that easy to get off a murder rap there would be many empty cells in NC.

Hopefully it's nothing more than a desperate attempt.

Gadgetman496

Speaking to RTÉ News, DA Garry Frank said that the motion was filed "late yesterday afternoon".

He said: "We do not believe that the motion has any merit. We will review it and it will be up to a judicial official to make a decision."

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0817/898071-corbett-martens-trial/

Missix

Is that really the best they can come up with? Blaming the jury?


Jesus,they really don't take any responsibility for what they did at all,do they?The week inside hasn't given them pause for thought at all,just the same old 'we're righteous,you're beneath us' attitude.

And their lawyers don't seem to be any great shakes either,I think.

Gadgetman496

Missix wrote: »

Is that really the best they can come up with? Blaming the jury?


Jesus,they really don't take any responsibility for what they did at all,do they?The week inside hasn't given them pause for thought at all,just the same old 'we're righteous,you're beneath us' attitude.

And their lawyers don't seem to be any great shakes either,I think.

Their lawyers see dollar signs.

retro:electro

They really are willing to blame everything and anything around them aren't they, instead of looking inside themselves, acknowledging what happened that night and accepting the verdict. It's typical narcissistic behaviour. Ego has taken over at this point.

Hitman3000

anna080 wrote:

They really are willing to blame everything and anything around them aren't they, instead of looking inside themselves, acknowledging what happened that night and accepting the verdict. It's typical narcissistic behaviour. Ego has taken over at this point.

I'm firmly of the opinion the jury came the correct conclusion based on the evidence that was presented to them. If however I were one of the convicted killers I would expect my legal team to do everything and anything they could (legally) to get me out. Standard behaviour of convicted crinmals especially if they have money or their family has.

Missix

They'll try anything rather than put Molly Martens on the stand.

They must be absolutely bricking it about the Civil case,imagine;they'll have to put Molly up to speak then.She won't just hang herself and Tom,she'll get the mother into it too.

I reckon they are trying this for exactly that reason....get the verdict declared invalid because of the jury and then the civil case will stumble too.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Gadgetman496

The State have 10 days to respond and the DA Garry Frank said "We do not believe that the motion has any merit" and he expected the matter to be concluded "within 30 days".

Hitman3000

Missix wrote:

I reckon they are trying this for exactly that reason....get the verdict declared invalid because of the jury and then the civil case will stumble too.

Not that simple, a retrial is the best they could hope for. All the evidence from the prosecution would remain the same. They might even focus on the presence of the brick more and the contradictions about the bat. Civil case will still proceed.

Missix

It's yet more stress for the Corbett family to deal with.

Pity the Martens family didn't spend a fraction of the time/effort/money they have expended on getting off these charges on getting Molly the help she needed before they sent her off to be 'someone else's problem'.

Deise Vu

Apologies for not keeping up but is there some civil case coming up or are people just assuming that the Corbetts will sue for Molly Corbetts share of the estate? Also lots of people have referred to Molly's psychiatric condition and I have seen bipolar mentioned. Is that a matter of record or just speculation? (I think I saw a juror had mentioned it).

Gadgetman496

Deise Vu wrote: »

Apologies for not keeping up but is there some civil case coming up or are people just assuming that the Corbetts will sue for Molly Corbetts share of the estate? Also lots of people have referred to Molly's psychiatric condition and I have seen bipolar mentioned. Is that a matter of record or just speculation? (I think I saw a juror had mentioned it).

See HERE:

Hitman3000

Deise Vu wrote:

Apologies for not keeping up but is there some civil case coming up or are people just assuming that the Corbetts will sue for Molly Corbetts share of the estate? Also lots of people have referred to Molly's psychiatric condition and I have seen bipolar mentioned. Is that a matter of record or just speculation? (I think I saw a juror had mentioned it).

Wrongful death is the civil action. Her mental health or lack thereof is a matter of record.

ohnonotgmail

Deise Vu wrote: »

Apologies for not keeping up but is there some civil case coming up or are people just assuming that the Corbetts will sue for Molly Corbetts share of the estate? Also lots of people have referred to Molly's psychiatric condition and I have seen bipolar mentioned. Is that a matter of record or just speculation? (I think I saw a juror had mentioned it).

she cant get any share of his estate. she cant benefit from his death.

Deise Vu

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

See HERE:

Again apologies for being pedantic, but the only reference in that report to a psychiatric condition is what I was aware of myself: one of the juror's said something on the lines of "whether she was bipolar or whatever". (Which I think was a follow up to a comment that she thought Molly was weepy when the kids were mentioned but perfectly calm when Jason's injuries were shown / discussed). Is there any evidence that she was being treated or had been treated for anything.People are discussing it as if it is common knowledge and I just haven't seen confirmation anywhere (there was something handed to the Judge after the verdict before sentencing which I thought was bizarre - if it was relevant. But I don't think we ever found out what that was about).

Also, that article doesn't seem to address my query about whether there is a civil case in the pipeline.