Justified evidence or jury contamination?

MorganGrayson · 10-15-2005

Part of the article:

TOMS RIVER, N.J. (AP) - The case is so grisly the prosecutor thinks jury selection may take longer than usual. Jurors in the trial of Richard W. Rogers will hear about the slayings and dismemberments of four gay or bisexual men, and pore over photos of severed arms and legs, decapitated heads and mutilated genitals.

Rogers, 55, is charged with killing only two of the men, but the judge is allowing evidence from all four slayings, agreeing with prosecutors that the evidence was so similar that it could amount to a "signature" of a single killer.
"It is bizarre. It is unique. It's chilling," Superior Court Judge James N. Citta said in his ruling. "I don't know if that's a legal term, but that's what it is."

First of all, I'd like to answer Judge Citta's question. It's not a "term," it's a collection of simple, declarative sentences. No it's not a legal term. It's not even a legal "opinion," it's just an "opinion," and one he should not have given. A judge publicly commenting on evidence before a trial? I thought that sort of thing wasn't done?

Now. The gut reaction to this is "hang the bastard." However, this judge has allowed evidence for two crimes for which this subject has not been charged into the trial for the other two crimes. How can this possibly be legal?

I put the poll up to see if anyone else has an opinion on this.

PornoDoggy · 10-15-2005

I am of the opinion that only the evidence in cases for which the individual has been charged or convicted should be admissible.

I don't think the prosecutors should be allowed to introduce evidence for crimes which have not been adjudicated.

TheEnforcer · 10-16-2005

Definately something that should not be introduced.

ReighlynnRaine · 10-16-2005

Although I'm sure if he did one, he probably did them all. But admitting the evidence for crimes he's not being charged for is ridiculous.

Subsequently, should he be found guilty... I hope "Bubba" treats him real good like.

sarettah · 10-16-2005

It seems to me a good twist for the defense is "even the prosecutors think there is a possibility that he didn't do it. They are saying the 4 killings were done by the same guy. But yet, by not charging him with 2 of the crimes, they are saying they think someone else did it"

Or something to that effect

View Poll Results: Should evidence from uncharged murders be included?
Yes, the "signature" makes it likely he did it.	2	33.33%
No, only the evidence from the murders for which he is charged should be included.	4	66.67%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

10-15-2005	#1
MorganGrayson None $100 for every ImLive sign-up Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,321	Justified evidence or jury contamination? Part of the article: TOMS RIVER, N.J. (AP) - The case is so grisly the prosecutor thinks jury selection may take longer than usual. Jurors in the trial of Richard W. Rogers will hear about the slayings and dismemberments of four gay or bisexual men, and pore over photos of severed arms and legs, decapitated heads and mutilated genitals. Rogers, 55, is charged with killing only two of the men, but the judge is allowing evidence from all four slayings, agreeing with prosecutors that the evidence was so similar that it could amount to a "signature" of a single killer. "It is bizarre. It is unique. It's chilling," Superior Court Judge James N. Citta said in his ruling. "I don't know if that's a legal term, but that's what it is." First of all, I'd like to answer Judge Citta's question. It's not a "term," it's a collection of simple, declarative sentences. No it's not a legal term. It's not even a legal "opinion," it's just an "opinion," and one he should not have given. A judge publicly commenting on evidence before a trial? I thought that sort of thing wasn't done? Now. The gut reaction to this is "hang the bastard." However, this judge has allowed evidence for two crimes for which this subject has not been charged into the trial for the other two crimes. How can this possibly be legal? I put the poll up to see if anyone else has an opinion on this.

10-15-2005	#2
PornoDoggy Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois Posts: 5,366	Re: Justified evidence or jury contamination? I am of the opinion that only the evidence in cases for which the individual has been charged or convicted should be admissible. I don't think the prosecutors should be allowed to introduce evidence for crimes which have not been adjudicated. __________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...

10-16-2005	#3
TheEnforcer Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,781	Re: Justified evidence or jury contamination? Definately something that should not be introduced.

10-16-2005	#4
ReighlynnRaine Punk Rock Porn Queen Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: California Posts: 548	Re: Justified evidence or jury contamination? Although I'm sure if he did one, he probably did them all. But admitting the evidence for crimes he's not being charged for is ridiculous. Subsequently, should he be found guilty... I hope "Bubba" treats him real good like. __________________ Pretend I said something interesting and quote me. - ME

10-16-2005	#5
sarettah Stay Out Of The Box Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lost in the ozone Posts: 10,318	Re: Justified evidence or jury contamination? It seems to me a good twist for the defense is "even the prosecutors think there is a possibility that he didn't do it. They are saying the 4 killings were done by the same guy. But yet, by not charging him with 2 of the crimes, they are saying they think someone else did it" Or something to that effect __________________ Free Adult Webcams