In Defense of the "Super-Trial"
May 17, 2019 21:34:44 GMT
magnumforce73, goldrusher, and 7 more like this
Post by Lawman (LS1) on May 17, 2019 21:34:44 GMT
My opinion is that the so-called "Super-Trial" is the way to go. I'm sure this decision was not reached lightly by prosecutors for various reasons, but here are my reasons:
1. This story needs to be told in its entirety - not just in bits and pieces.
2. From a legal perspective, the Maggiore case is the weakest of the bunch. No DNA, just circumstantial evidence, and 40 year old eye witness recollection. Is there reasonable doubt here? Probably. However, when put in context of all the cases combined, a reasonable juror could see GSK/EAR's pattern and M.O.and convict on the Maggiore's; wherein they otherwise might not think the case in isolation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The series of crimes as a whole would bolster those with less evidence.
3. Furthermore, can you imagine how disgusted a jury might be with DeAngelo by the time they were to hear all the evidence of this whole case? I don't see how they don't convict on the majority of the charges. The defense's argument is going to have to be that it was all a coincidence that DeAngelo's DNA was in all the victim's homes, all over the State of California, and all of these victims were raped and/or murdered. This one jury is going to hear about the murder of Claude Snelling in Visalia; they are also going to hear about the some of the EAR rapes in the context of a kidnapping (which is going to showcase EAR's M.O. as an intruder and his penchant for bindings, etc.), They are going to hear about the Maggiore's being gunned down in their neighborhood, they are likely going to hear from the couple on on Queen Ann Lane in Goleta, they are going to hear about the DNA connected murders of Dr's Offerman and Manning, Cheri Domingo and Greg Sanchez, Lyman and Charlene Smith, Keith and Patrice Harrington, Manuela Witthuhn, and Janelle Cruz. There is no telling what else they are going to hear depending on what current investigators digging up as we speak, such as incriminating evidence found in JDD's house. That is going to be an insurmountable mountain for the defense to overcome. However, on a smaller scale- if each of these cases were tried separately in their own jurisdictions, the defense's chances at success are slightly increased, because the jury is not likely to be given evidence of DeAngelo's other murders given that it is unduly prejudicial to the particular case at hand.
4. The "Super-Trial" will finally give this case the attention that it deserves. For years, many of us on this board were frustrated because this case was not given its well-deserved attention. If the case was tried in separate trials in the separate jurisdictions, my guess is each trial would dilute the whole case at large and each trial would receive less and less media coverage than it otherwise would have if it was tried all at once.
5. Finally and most importantly, justice for the victims is more likely to happen before JDD dies with the Super-Trial. By the time the last jurisdiction tries its case against JDD, it could be 20 years from now. Furthermore, some of the jurisdictions might decide not trying him at all especially if he was already convicted and sentenced to death in a previous trial. This would be similar to what happened in the Ted Bundy trial. Utah, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington decided not to extradite Bundy back to be tried for the murders in those states because he had already been sentenced to death in Florida. Furthermore, by the time those later trials in the GSK case roll around, witnesses’ memories fade and evidence tends to get worse - not better.
Just my opinion.
1. This story needs to be told in its entirety - not just in bits and pieces.
2. From a legal perspective, the Maggiore case is the weakest of the bunch. No DNA, just circumstantial evidence, and 40 year old eye witness recollection. Is there reasonable doubt here? Probably. However, when put in context of all the cases combined, a reasonable juror could see GSK/EAR's pattern and M.O.and convict on the Maggiore's; wherein they otherwise might not think the case in isolation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The series of crimes as a whole would bolster those with less evidence.
3. Furthermore, can you imagine how disgusted a jury might be with DeAngelo by the time they were to hear all the evidence of this whole case? I don't see how they don't convict on the majority of the charges. The defense's argument is going to have to be that it was all a coincidence that DeAngelo's DNA was in all the victim's homes, all over the State of California, and all of these victims were raped and/or murdered. This one jury is going to hear about the murder of Claude Snelling in Visalia; they are also going to hear about the some of the EAR rapes in the context of a kidnapping (which is going to showcase EAR's M.O. as an intruder and his penchant for bindings, etc.), They are going to hear about the Maggiore's being gunned down in their neighborhood, they are likely going to hear from the couple on on Queen Ann Lane in Goleta, they are going to hear about the DNA connected murders of Dr's Offerman and Manning, Cheri Domingo and Greg Sanchez, Lyman and Charlene Smith, Keith and Patrice Harrington, Manuela Witthuhn, and Janelle Cruz. There is no telling what else they are going to hear depending on what current investigators digging up as we speak, such as incriminating evidence found in JDD's house. That is going to be an insurmountable mountain for the defense to overcome. However, on a smaller scale- if each of these cases were tried separately in their own jurisdictions, the defense's chances at success are slightly increased, because the jury is not likely to be given evidence of DeAngelo's other murders given that it is unduly prejudicial to the particular case at hand.
4. The "Super-Trial" will finally give this case the attention that it deserves. For years, many of us on this board were frustrated because this case was not given its well-deserved attention. If the case was tried in separate trials in the separate jurisdictions, my guess is each trial would dilute the whole case at large and each trial would receive less and less media coverage than it otherwise would have if it was tried all at once.
5. Finally and most importantly, justice for the victims is more likely to happen before JDD dies with the Super-Trial. By the time the last jurisdiction tries its case against JDD, it could be 20 years from now. Furthermore, some of the jurisdictions might decide not trying him at all especially if he was already convicted and sentenced to death in a previous trial. This would be similar to what happened in the Ted Bundy trial. Utah, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington decided not to extradite Bundy back to be tried for the murders in those states because he had already been sentenced to death in Florida. Furthermore, by the time those later trials in the GSK case roll around, witnesses’ memories fade and evidence tends to get worse - not better.
Just my opinion.