Deanna Hoak

11 Responses to “Unspeakable”  

1. 1 penpusher/Dean Sep 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm

   That’s not just a load. That’s inhuman. I don’t even know if that’s not an infringement on constitutional rights. And saying it’s grounds for a mistrial BEFORE it happens also seems outrageous. That doesn’t seem like fairness in a court case to me.

2. 2 Archangel Beth Sep 13th, 2006 at 1:48 pm

   *shudder*

   At least they compromised on a recorded version that could be “approved.”

   Still. Damn, if you’re going to do that, do the recording suggestion yourself first.

3. 3 Southern Writer Sep 13th, 2006 at 5:14 pm

   Jesus. The legal system just gets more stupid every day. What happened to the truth, the whole, truth, and nothing but the truth? If tears and grief are part of the truth, then it is. Simple as that. Grrrr. That is just outrageous.

4. 4 Andrew Wheeler Sep 13th, 2006 at 7:22 pm

   Well, I can’t entirely agree. Seeing a woman crying on the witness stand about the death of her children is something that would bias a jury. And, reading between the lines, it sounds like that’s why the prosecutor called her as a witness: she’d be very sympathetic and would tend to bias the jurors towards the prosecution. It sounds like the only matter of fact she testified about was the time sequence, since she was the one who discovered the bodies. (It also sounds — from the “sanitized version” comment by the report — that the prosecution may have been planning to ask questions about the gore to deliberately make her cry.)

   It’s the defense’s job to try to stop the other side from getting an unfair advantage, and it’s the judge’s job to keep everything fair. They both did that.

   So I don’t see this as a terrible thing. There is a place for emotional statements from family members, but that’s in sentencing, not during the trial. The prosecutor thought he could put one past the judge, but the judge shot him down.

5. 5 Deanna Hoak Sep 13th, 2006 at 7:32 pm

   Andrew: If I had found my kids that way, I do not believe I would be able to talk about the scene of their deaths without crying; to tell me I had to do so would be inhumane. It’s not as though you cry intentionally, the way that made it sound.

   I can understand that the crying might make the jury sympathetic to the woman; it does not follow that it would make them think the accused was guilty.

6. 6 saffster Sep 15th, 2006 at 8:06 pm

   How can you force someone not to cry when faced with such terrible memories? Dope her on tranquilizers before she testifies? Induce her in a catatonic state? I would like to see him “not cry” after finding his children butchered. What an ass.

7. 7 Deanna Hoak Sep 15th, 2006 at 8:09 pm

   Saffster, I can only imagine that since it was finally done on video, they must have had to turn the camera off over and over again while she wiped away her tears.

8. 8 saffster Sep 15th, 2006 at 8:09 pm

   Errr…”her” not cry after finding “her” children butchered.

9. 9 Deanna Hoak Sep 15th, 2006 at 8:12 pm

   Ah, you’re right, Saffster. I hadn’t paid enough attention to the name before. I’ll correct the gender in the post above.

10. 10 Mack Sep 16th, 2006 at 4:01 am

    I’m a lawyer, but I can’t defend that to you, so I won’t.

    I’ve never been involved in a situation like that on either side. I hope I wouldn’t feel the need to make a motion to supress like that, or be the prosecutor who had to try such a wrenching case.

    Mack

11. 11 Deanna Hoak Sep 16th, 2006 at 5:27 am

    Mack: It would be awful. I’ll hope for you that you never have to face a situation like that too. :-)

Leave a Reply