Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Brooke continues to provide good coverage

Since I can't be there, and she is there, and she is providing the coverage,
it's really best to hear it from her. I think that unless Walther is instructing the jury that the prosecution is pushing the limits on procedures, apparently agreed to by both side, then Mark Stevens call for a mistrial is justified.

From other reports I was getting the impression that Stevens was essentially saying he was being maneuvered into looking like the bad guy before the jury, which is subtly prejudicial, and that of course, was what he was complaining about. I hope to have something to say on this later, but the trial is moving fast enough, that my observations may be dated.

It does look like (for now) that the variance in DNA odds that Raymond fathered the child in question would not be very large even if there was a far smaller "initial" chance used for his paternity. This is a point Ron took me to task on earlier. It appears for now, he is right. Sorry Ron, I just don't take your word for it until it's verified. I could have done the math myself ( a matter of time and lack of interruption ) or I could wait to see how it worked out in court. You seem to be right. That is, unless the defense brings in a witness later that credibly torques the odds in a different direction.

The next observation is that venue is a big deal and as of yet, I don't see how it is going to be proved that Raymond was on the ranch. I have no reason to believe Mark Stevens is an incompetent defense attorney and the prosecution is supposed to supply him with witness lists and evidence it is using against Raymond Jessop. If that's the case and the prosecution can prove Raymond was on the ranch, Mark Stevens should know that. He has argued that it can't be proved, and so far the state has done little to show that it can place him on the ranch. They seem to be centering their effort on proving he "resided" there.

If Raymond traveled in his line of gainful employment, and stayed away for extended periods of time, then it isn't going to matter a hill of beans if he resided there or not. He has to be shown to have been there at the time of conception of the child. Let us say there is a two week window for conception, and the prosecution can't place Jessop's bride or him there during that entire period of time, then even if it is proved he is the father (and he probably is) it can't be proved he committed a crime in Texas.

The venue question is important. A lot of noise has been made by FLDS haters over the last year and a half that it wasn't important. The state seems to think it is. Venue has been said not to matter because what happened was as crime in Texas. Since the state is trying to prove Raymond's location, it would seem venue is important, and if it can't be shown to have happened in Texas, or perhaps merely not to have happened in Eldorado, it should be game over.

I think the judge is biased, and the jury tilted and the playing field, not level, so it won't surprise me if a guilty verdict comes out of this jury. But, perhaps there is an honest soul among them.

Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

duaneh1 said...

Venue is very important in this case because the act Raymond is alleged to have committed is not even a crime in 34 states, Canada, and Mexico.