Williams Abuse Trial - Hana Alemu/Hannah Williams - Merge

[starfish]

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/09 ... edro.html#

This article mentions a lady that has been attending the trial in support of Carri Williams and states she has been

contributing to a fund to help pay their mortgage.....

[Palimpsest]

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/09/06/3188427/jury-deliberates-in-trial-of-sedro.html#

This article mentions a lady that has been attending the trial in support of Carri Williams and states she has been

contributing to a fund to help pay their mortgage.....

I find it hard to believe that anyone could support Carri Williams. WTF is this woman thinking? I hope she does not have any children in her care.

Along with the big question about whether Hana's life could have been saved after she collapsed, I've always been bothered by the claim that Hana refused to come inside that night.

Until I see the official trial transcript I can't be sure, but as far as I can see that statement is from Carri alone and is not supported by the bio children's testimony. The older boys were sent out to beat Hana so she'd do jumping jacks to keep warm, not to take her a coat or jacket, and not to bring her inside. Carri only went out after she started taking off her clothes, because -- modesty.

Also, how long was she collapsed outside? Carri claims that she or her daughter were checking every ten minutes or so. It could have been much longer between checks. Finally, the statement that Carri put dry clothes outside for Hana who refused to change into them is suspect and her claim only. She could have put them outside at any time after Hana collapsed, either before or after she called Larry and 911.

Bottom line, I don't believe a word of Carri's self-serving testimony.

[BravaAmica]

I'm sure the mortgage fund initiated at their church or Carri's family, likely a mixture of both.

I hope they're both convicted and serve prison time. I think Larry will serve less time than Carri, if he gets any extra time at all. His defense basically threw her under the bus to take the fall for him. And he did a good job of appearing contrite and remorseful on the stand whereas Carri came across as combative and blaming everyone else for Hana's death, including Hana.

I wonder what convictions would mean for them regarding their underage bio children? Would they be able to get custody back, even though they were convicted of manslaughter? I hope not but family court is a strange animal.

[WonderingInWA]

I have another novice courtroom question. If the jury miraculously comes to verdicts on all counts, say, TOMORROW, after only deliberating 1-2 days, can the defense call it a mistrial on the basis that the jury couldn't possibly have thoroughly processed? And if they do, can they base it also on the juror who has now been removed? I just don't trust that the defense isn't at some point going to cry "Mistrial" and are simply waiting for the right time.

Anyone know if this is possible?

[BravaAmica]

I have another novice courtroom question. If the jury miraculously comes to verdicts on all counts, say, TOMORROW, after only deliberating 1-2 days, can the defense call it a mistrial on the basis that the jury couldn't possibly have thoroughly processed? And if they do, can they base it also on the juror who has now been removed? I just don't trust that the defense isn't at some point going to cry "Mistrial" and are simply waiting for the right time.

Anyone know if this is possible?

The defense already has cried "mistrial" at every opportunity. Let's hope the jury at least deliberates a bit longer. Or if they decide quickly, that they hang out awhile playing cards in the room until a respectable amount of time passes.

[WonderingInWA]

The defense already has cried "mistrial" at every opportunity. Let's hope the jury at least deliberates a bit longer. Or if they decide quickly, that they hang out awhile playing cards in the room until a respectable amount of time passes.

(I just realized that my post count makes me eligible for "Hits the Pearls with Plumbing Line". How appropriate for this conversation).

I know the defense has objected a lot (and been overruled a lot), but I hadn't heard them cry "mistrial" yet. I probably haven't been reading closely enough.

I just wonder if the jury is ever required to substantiate their decisions or if part of the legal process is just that the jury decided and it's a done deal. I'm learning a lot from all of you here at FJ and appreciate your knowledge!

[socalrules]

(I just realized that my post count makes me eligible for "Hits the Pearls with Plumbing Line". How appropriate for this conversation).

I know the defense has objected a lot (and been overruled a lot), but I hadn't heard them cry "mistrial" yet. I probably haven't been reading closely enough.

I just wonder if the jury is ever required to substantiate their decisions or if part of the legal process is just that the jury decided and it's a done deal. I'm learning a lot from all of you here at FJ and appreciate your knowledge!

A jury does not have to explain why they voted the way they did or give an explanation as to the amount of time it took to reach a decision. If you remember, the OJ jury deliberated less than three hours, so no, there is requirement on how short the time is they deliberate. A jury does not have to speak to anyone after they make a decision other than confirming their vote to the judge if he asks immediately after the verdict is read. Even then, they only need to say yes or no. A juror never has to explain themselves to anyone and they have a right to privacy after the trial. Most states will not release a juror's name after trial unless they agree. Some jurors may decide to speak with the attorneys and press after a trial, others will not. The decision is on them and no one else. A judge will not ask why they came to the decision they did.

If they are found guilty, I am sure there will be many appeals and they will argue a million reasons why they deserve a new trial. It doesn't have to have merit, it is just something that happens. Don't be thrown off by the word mistrial. Everyone always asks for a mistrial every time they can. By objecting and asking for a mistrial you setting the stage for your appeal if convicted.

[WonderingInWA]

A jury does not have to explain why they voted the way they did or give an explanation as to the amount of time it took to reach a decision. If you remember, the OJ jury deliberated less than three hours, so no, there is requirement on how short the time is they deliberate. A jury does not have to speak to anyone after they make a decision other than confirming their vote to the judge if he asks immediately after the verdict is read. Even then, they only need to say yes or no. A juror never has to explain themselves to anyone and they have a right to privacy after the trial. Most states will not release a juror's name after trial unless they agree. Some jurors may decide to speak with the attorneys and press after a trial, others will not. The decision is on them and no one else. A judge will not ask why they came to the decision they did.

If they are found guilty, I am sure there will be many appeals and they will argue a million reasons why they deserve a new trial. It doesn't have to have merit, it is just something that happens. Don't be thrown off by the word mistrial. Everyone always asks for a mistrial every time they can. By objecting and asking for a mistrial you setting the stage for your appeal if convicted.

What a game! I do remember the OJ trial (I was in LA on business and watched the circus outside my hotel on a daily basis for about a week), but I did not remember the jury only deliberated for under 3 hours.

So really, in this case, there will likely be a string of appeals for years if the jury throws the book at them (as they should). Ugh.

[Palimpsest]

(I just realized that my post count makes me eligible for "Hits the Pearls with Plumbing Line". How appropriate for this conversation).

I know the defense has objected a lot (and been overruled a lot), but I hadn't heard them cry "mistrial" yet. I probably haven't been reading closely enough.

I just wonder if the jury is ever required to substantiate their decisions or if part of the legal process is just that the jury decided and it's a done deal. I'm learning a lot from all of you here at FJ and appreciate your knowledge!

No, juries are not required to substantiate or explain their decisions. They can voluntarily go to the press and explain their verdict after the trial is over. At their own risk, sometimes. The Casey Anthony jury decision was extremely unpopular when they acquitted her of everything except lying to the police. They were accused of being stupid and lazy by many people.

The verdict is pretty much a done deal for the prosecution. They get one chance to put the case and have to be content with the verdict. One exception would be if substantial new evidence comes to light and they can get a retrial. That is rare.

The defense can always appeal a verdict and ask for a new trial, or for the sentence to be overturned or modified. Appeals can drag on for years and years. If, hypothetically, Carri is convicted of Homicide by Abuse, she will probably appeal. On the other hand, if she is only convicted of Manslaughter 3, she would be unwise to appeal and ask for a new trial. The next jury could well convict her of the higher change.

The defense has called for a mistrial many times. Any time the judge has over-ruled the defense = possible grounds for appeal and asking for a new trial.

ETA. I see others have already answered this one!

[WonderingInWA]

No, juries are not required to substantiate or explain their decisions. They can voluntarily go to the press and explain their verdict after the trial is over. At their own risk, sometimes. The Casey Anthony jury decision was extremely unpopular when they acquitted her of everything except lying to the police. They were accused of being stupid and lazy by many people.

The verdict is pretty much a done deal for the prosecution. They get one chance to put the case and have to be content with the verdict. One exception would be if substantial new evidence comes to light and they can get a retrial. That is rare.

The defense can always appeal a verdict and ask for a new trial, or for the sentence to be overturned or modified. Appeals can drag on for years and years. If, hypothetically, Carri is convicted of Homicide by Abuse, she will probably appeal. On the other hand, if she is only convicted of Manslaughter 3, she would be unwise to appeal and ask for a new trial. The next jury could well convict her of the higher change.

The defense has called for a mistrial many times. Any time the judge has over-ruled the defense = possible grounds for appeal and asking for a new trial.

ETA. I see others have already answered this one!

I'm grateful for all answers, so thank you! The court system is confusing to me and is such a circus. Just a bunch of actors using intimidation tactics to persuade other people to make a decision about something. Yikes.

[Palimpsest]

I'm grateful for all answers, so thank you! The court system is confusing to me and is such a circus. Just a bunch of actors using intimidation tactics to persuade other people to make a decision about something. Yikes.

Thanks. At least socalrules and I both said pretty much the same thing even if it was repetitive!

The court system is really confusing, and jury trials can be frustrating. On the other hand the system is all that we have. I do trust it, 80% of the time. The other 20% not so much.

The OJ and Casey Anthony trials are both good examples of juries ignoring the evidence. But then, they were both very high profile trials. Bluntly, unless you had been hidden under a rock, then you probably would have read/seen/formed an opinion before being called for jury duty. So those juries seem to have been composed of people who were . . . somewhat out of touch with the real world.

Changing the subject to more positive things: Maureen of Lightofdaystories linked to a new article she has written and is also writing a book. Here is the article. I don't think you need a subscription to read it:

gazillionvoices.com/standards-of-practice-for-adoptive-parents-the-international-manifesto/#.Uix0Ol_D8cB

I have a few very minor quibbles with Maureen, but she is overall doing outstanding work. The depressing thing about her "international manifesto" is that it is voluntary for adoptive parents. Some parts of it seem no-brainers. Other parts of it may shock closed adoption advocates to the core. (Although she is very clear that the safety of the child is paramount.)

Adoption is such a fraught subject. Adoption reform is even more fraught. We have to keep working on all of this to make sure it is truly child centered.

That takes more than depending on well-meaning people adopting or well-meaning people in the adoption industry. And it is an industry, have no doubt.

It means pushing through improved legislation. Improved legislation may not protect children like Hana, in and of itself. It may help to force through better oversight of situations like Hana's so that they do not happen again.

It may serve to make it easier to punish abusers like Carri and Larry in the future.

[socalrules]

FYI, if they are acquitted, the prosecution does not have any recourse. If new evidence comes to light, they still cannot be retried. If they are found not guilty, they could go on tv, tell every detail about what they did and still cannot be retried. That would be double jeopardy and is never allowed. The only way there can be a retrial is if there is a mistrial. Not guilty means it is over.

[WonderingInWA]

So is this process fully explained to the jury so they know the future implications if they acquit them? I suppose that would be considered skewing (sp?) the jury to encourage them to give them a conviction. Ugh. I think I would want to know how this all works if I were on a jury because that probably WOULD sway my processing of what I was hearing. Which is probably why I should never be on a jury!

[thoughtful]

I finally girded up my loins, got out a box of tissues, and made myself read this thread.

I have no expertise to add, just another voice hoping the jury gives the Williamses what they deserve.

I am just about finished reading Child Catchers now, Chaotic Life, and I thought of you often as I read it, wondering if you were involved in helping her with her research. Now I know.

And Palimpsest, thanks for all of the updates and summaries.

I don't think I can find the words for how strongly I hope this will shed light on abuse in international adoption, the Pearls and their ilk, and people who use "homeschooling" and religion to isolate vulnerable children.

[apple1]

The verdict is pretty much a done deal for the prosecution. They get one chance to put the case and have to be content with the verdict. One exception would be if substantial new evidence comes to light and they can get a retrial. That is rare.

FYI, if they are acquitted, the prosecution does not have any recourse. If new evidence comes to light, they still cannot be retried. If they are found not guilty, they could go on tv, tell every detail about what they did and still cannot be retried. That would be double jeopardy and is never allowed. The only way there can be a retrial is if there is a mistrial. Not guilty means it is over.

Abolutely correct. This protection against double jeopardy is a foundational principle of the US justice system, and is part of our foundational rights as citizens.

[apple1]

So is this process fully explained to the jury so they know the future implications if they acquit them? I suppose that would be considered skewing (sp?) the jury to encourage them to give them a conviction. Ugh. I think I would want to know how this all works if I were on a jury because that probably WOULD sway my processing of what I was hearing. Which is probably why I should never be on a jury!

If the shoe were on the other foot, i.e. you personally were tried for a crime that, say you did not commit, the protection against double jeopardy would keep some rogue prosecutor who theoretically had some political gain to make by convicting you from coming back again and again on the some thing.

I am shocked that adult US citizens are unaware of this basic right.

[Palimpsest]

If the shoe were on the other foot, i.e. you personally were tried for a crime that, say you did not commit, the protection against double jeopardy would keep some rogue prosecutor who theoretically had some political gain to make by convicting you from coming back again and again on the some thing.

I am shocked that adult US citizens are unaware of this basic right.

Not everyone on FJ is a US citizen, me included. :)

Actually there are exceptions to double jeopardy but, as I said, they are very rare, very complicated, and would certainly not apply in this case. The case I was thinking of involved habeus corpus (substantial new evidence), but in addition to that, technically the same crime can be tried on a Federal as well as a State level. From Wikipedia, with all its faults:

This principle [double jeopardy] does not prevent the government from appealing a pre-trial motion to dismiss[51] or other non-merits dismissal,[52] or a directed verdict after a jury conviction,[53] nor does it prevent the trial judge from entertaining a motion for reconsideration of a directed verdict, if the jurisdiction has so provided by rule or statute.[54] Nor does it prevent the government from retrying the defendant after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency,[55] including habeas corpus,[56] or "thirteenth juror" appellate reversals notwithstanding sufficiency[57] on the principle that jeopardy has not "terminated." There may also be an exception for judicial bribery,[58] but not jury bribery.

The "dual sovereignty" doctrine allows a federal prosecution of an offense to proceed regardless of a previous state prosecution for that same offense[59] and vice versa[60] because "an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each."[61] The doctrine is solidly entrenched in the law, but there has been a traditional reluctance in the federal executive branch to gratuitously wield the power it grants.[62]

Another exception is that the perpetrator can be retried by court martial in a military court, if they have been previously acquitted by a civilian court, and are members of the military.[63].

End of thread derail, I hope.

I'll be watching for the verdict during the next few days. Should we start a new thread for that?

[2xx1xy1JD]

So is this process fully explained to the jury so they know the future implications if they acquit them? I suppose that would be considered skewing (sp?) the jury to encourage them to give them a conviction. Ugh. I think I would want to know how this all works if I were on a jury because that probably WOULD sway my processing of what I was hearing. Which is probably why I should never be on a jury!

The jury is simply explained the law, as it relates to finding that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the various charges.

They are not given information on possible sentences, nor the appeal process. Neither is relevant to the main question of "do the facts of this case support a finding of guilt?"

While there is a certain amount of legal knowledge among the general public, too much legal knowledge is not a good thing in a juror. I was already in law school by the time I got my first jury notice, so I was ineligible. Law students, lawyers and their spouses cannot be on a jury here.

[apple1]

Not everyone on FJ is a US citizen, me included. :)

Yes, I definitely realize that not everyone on FJ is US citizen.

But you presented yourself in this thread as an expert on the US justice system, other posters thanked you for doing so, and in doing so, you gave incorrect information. (I was not the only FJer to correct the wrong info). (your quote notwithstanding)

The bottom line is that, once I have been tried for a crime and found not guilty, the prosecutor cannot come back and try me again for the same crime. Now, if I commit a different crime, or evidence becomes available that I have committed a different crime, I can be tried for the different crime.

[Palimpsest]

Yes, I definitely realize that not everyone on FJ is US citizen.

But you presented yourself in this thread as an expert on the US justice system, other posters thanked you for doing so, and in doing so, you gave incorrect information. (I was not the only FJer to correct the wrong info). (your quote notwithstanding)

The bottom line is that, once I have been tried for a crime and found not guilty, the prosecutor cannot come back and try me again for the same crime. Now, if I commit a different crime, or evidence becomes available that I have committed a different crime, I can be tried for the different crime.

To the bolded: Who me? Why not at all!

I presented myself earlier on this thread as a person who used to work in protective services, now retired. To clarify, I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on the US justice system. In any way whatsoever.

As to your bottom line, I believe that there are rare exceptions to double jeopardy in US law, but people can decide for themselves.

I hope that settles it.

[Palimpsest]

The jury has resumed deliberations and the national news media is finally picking up on this story. There is a brief AP report, and I've just seen coverage by ABC and USA Today.

[WonderingInWA]

The jury has resumed deliberations and the national news media is finally picking up on this story. There is a brief AP report, and I've just seen coverage by ABC and USA Today.

Good! Great news! This case deserves national attention!

[2xx1xy1JD]

Good! Great news! This case deserves national attention!

Paging Anderson Cooper and Nancy Grace....

[javafriend]

I am glad that national news outlets are finally paying attention to this story. I was really surprised that there hadn't been much coverage of the trial outside of the immediate area. Do you think the coverage would have been different if the tortured child had been a photogenic white adoptee?

[Palimpsest]

I am glad that national news outlets are finally paying attention to this story. I was really surprised that there hadn't been much coverage of the trial outside of the immediate area. Do you think the coverage would have been different if the tortured child had been a photogenic white adoptee?

Yes. Pretty white girl syndrome.

But Hana was both photogenic and beautiful before the Williamses got their hands on her.