I can agree that Waco sucks.
The Innocence Project
- Thread starter NJlonghorn
- Start date
I can agree that Waco sucks.
I have no qualms about that premise.
Although I do not recall that 'suck' is what Sam Ukwuachu was convicted of...it was something more substantial that the TxCCA has returned to the 10th CoA on two occasions.
State v. Barry Jones, 188 Ariz. 388, 937 P.2d 310 (1997)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Pima) of sexual assault, child abuse, and first-degree felony murder, and was sentenced to death for the murder. This is the defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD
Cruel: Upheld.
Physical Pain: Found. The Court found that the victim suffered physical pain for many hours after defendant assaulted her. "She was crying and vomiting and had bruises on her face, fingers, and hands. The emergency room physician testified that the blow to Rachel's bowel would have caused great pain initially and would have continued to cause pain to a lesser extent thereafter." 188 Ariz. at 399. The victim also suffered painful genital injuries, as well as defensive wounds that establish that she was conscious during the beating. "It is beyond question that Rachel suffered especial cruelty within the meaning of section 13-751(F)(6) during her terrifying last day of life." 188 Ariz. at 400.
Knew or Reason to Know that Victim Would Suffer: Found. "When the suffering is experienced after the infliction of a fatal wound, that suffering must have been `objectively foreseeable' to support a finding of cruelty. The defendant's subjective intent to cause suffering is irrelevant." 188 Ariz. at 399 (citations omitted). Here, defendant knew how severely he had beaten the victim. She was struck dozens of times by fists, elbows, and perhaps blunt instruments. The victim was physically ill for the remainder of the evening. Defendant told others that he had taken the victim for medical attention when he had not, which prevented others from seeking the medical attention the victim desperately needed. The Court found that defendant intentionally extended the victim's suffering by ensuring she did not receive medical care.
Heinous or Depraved: Not addressed.
(F)(9) (Victim under Fifteen Years of Age) - UPHELD
The defendant was an adult and the victim was four years old when she was beaten and sexually assaulted. She ultimately died from her injuries. The Court found the existence of this aggravator with no discussion beyond establishing the defendant's and the victim's respective ages.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Court found that there were no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. More specifically, the Court found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following as mitigating circumstances:
(G)(1) Significant Impairment
Impairment [methamphetamine use at time of murder]
Difficult Childhood/Family History
Responsibility of victim's mother [for not taking child to hospital for treatment]
JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences affirmed.
It appears as if the innocent Barry Jones is not very innocent. Why lie about taking the child to the hospital? I think the death sentence looks appropriate.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Jones never said he took the girl to the hospital. He testified that he took the girl to a Quik-Mart to get some supplies, that he ran into an off-duty EMT there, and that the EMT looked at the girl's head injuries and told Jones it wasn't an emergency. Also, Jones's girlfriend was a former nurse, and after she got home she told Jones that there was no emergency. (In a separate trial, she was convicted for failing to seek medical care.) Here's a link to the Federal District Court's opinion that explored all of this evidence, and more, in great detail.
It is true, as you quoted, that the judge in the State trial court found that Jones had "told others that he had taken the victim for medical attention when he had not, which prevented others from seeking the medical attention the victim desperately needed." This was based on disputed evidence -- much of which was the testimony of two other suspects -- the girlfriend and her adult son. The testimony was not enough to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the boyfriend did anything wrong, much less committed a murder.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
There was no investigation to take over as far as I could tell. There were people investigating staff at the university itself of course, but nobody with authority over them looking into whether the law enforcement and prosecutors in the area had aided in the cover up by systematically burying allegations and things of that nature.
If he really did beat a child to death, sure. The issue, of course, is the reasonable doubt as to whether he actually did that.
He did state he took Rachel to the Rural Metro Fire Department, which was a lie. No EMT ever reported treating a girl at the Quick Stop, which is standard procedure. The Lopez kids said they saw a man in a yellow van hitting a girl, and they had no idea who the Petitioner and Rachel were. That is too coincidental to be made up. Petitioner said "I'm sorry Rachel, I love you". He's guilty as hell, and the momma, Angela, should be locked up as well.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
This is, by far, the strongest evidence against Jones. However, it is a far cry from proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."
First, and most importantly, the medical evidence (not presented at trial due to the attorney's incompetence) was that the fatal injury occurred at least a day, and likely more than a day, before the "yellow van" incident. Anything the Lopez kids might have seen was conclusively not the cause of death.
Second, there were grounds to doubt whether the kids could've possibly seen what they said they saw, given their own height, the victim's height, the size and location of the van's windows, and their relative positions. A competent defense attorney would've had an expert recreate the scene to analyze lines of sight.
Third, the attorney's cross-examination did reveal numerous inconsistencies between what the kids told police in their initial statements and what they said at trial, as well as inconsistencies between the two kids' stories. There is an abundance of scientific research about how young witnesses (8-year-old twins in this case) are unreliable and susceptible to the power of suggestion.
Finally, the kids' testimony was basically that they saw Jones hitting the girl in the head/face. The fatal injury was severe trauma to the abdomen, leading to a liver bleed. It is quite plausible that Jones did hit the girl, but that someone else killed her. The defense attorney never explored this.
Once again, Jones himself never said that. His initial statement to the police, and his testimony at trial, was that he ran into an EMT from the Rural Metro Fire Department at the Quick-Mart.
The girlfriend's adult son testified that Jones told him he had taken the girl to the fire station to be looked at. A suspect himself, the guy had every incentive to lie. Or, it could have been an innocent misunderstanding.
A competent defense attorney would've pointed this all out. Instead, the attorney just sat there and let the prosecution paint a picture of a lying defendant.
The testimony was that it was standard procedure for EMTs to report any treatment they gave while on duty. There was no requirement that an off-duty EMT report anything. Jones' attorney made no effort to investigate this issue.
This was said after Petitioner took Rachel to the hospital. He testified that he felt guilty for deciding not to bring her to the ER earlier. He also might've felt guilty about hitting her in a non-fatal way. In either case, it's not the same thing as murder.
Taken together, the evidence shows that Jones might have committed the murder. But a competent attorney would have been able to show the jury that Jones might not have committed the murder. Then, a jury could have decided whether the evidence proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the jury only got one side of the story.
I guess ultimately the issue comes down to whether you believe that suspects should be convicted -- especially in capital cases -- only if their crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't seem to believe in that. I do.
I have no doubt that scumbag killed her. Yes, he needs to die.
He did state that he took the girl to the fire station for assistance. You just have it wrong because you state he told the police. But ignoring evidence helps your case.
Kids, who have no idea who these people were, ran home to tell their momma a man was in a yellow van beating Rachel. Combined with lying, multiple injuries over more than one day, hauling her around by himself just before death, not taking her for medical treatment, no EMT reporting treatment at Quick Mart even though they would, on or off duty (just ask them unless you know it never happened), the fact that an EMT would not tell them what petitioner claims he was told, no Quick Mart employee ever seeing treatment, and petitioner being a first class loser, there is no doubt. Maybe the murdering, pedophile fairy did it.
He did state that he took the girl to the fire station for assistance. You just have it wrong because you state he told the police. But ignoring evidence helps your case.
Kids, who have no idea who these people were, ran home to tell their momma a man was in a yellow van beating Rachel. Combined with lying, multiple injuries over more than one day, hauling her around by himself just before death, not taking her for medical treatment, no EMT reporting treatment at Quick Mart even though they would, on or off duty (just ask them unless you know it never happened), the fact that an EMT would not tell them what petitioner claims he was told, no Quick Mart employee ever seeing treatment, and petitioner being a first class loser, there is no doubt. Maybe the murdering, pedophile fairy did it.
Last edited:
I would not have made a good juror.
NJ
So there is no dispute Jones hit her??
But a good defense attorney should have argued someone else could have been the actual murderer?
That would have to have been a hell of a coincidence that after Jones was through beating her up and before he took her to a off duty medic someone else came in and beat a badly beaten 4 yo some more.
I know every effort must be made but don't you have to have some semblance of plausibility?
NJ
So there is no dispute Jones hit her??
But a good defense attorney should have argued someone else could have been the actual murderer?
That would have to have been a hell of a coincidence that after Jones was through beating her up and before he took her to a off duty medic someone else came in and beat a badly beaten 4 yo some more.
I know every effort must be made but don't you have to have some semblance of plausibility?
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Yes. And after reviewing all of the evidence, the Federal District Judge found that there was a "reasonable probability" that, absent the attorney's deficient performance, the jury would not have convicted Jones.
I wouldn't say there's "no dispute" but it does look that way to me. However, the extent of the hitting is not clear. The jury was led to believe he beat the crap out of the girl, but it seems equally plausible that he slapped her face in a way that caused no long-term injury. I don't defend that, but if that is all that happened, it is a far cry from murder.
You have it backwards. The medical testimony was that the fatal blow happened at least a day BEFORE the yellow-van incident. Someone inflicted brutal blows to the girl's abdomen and ruptured her liver, and she was bleeding out for an extended period of time. What isn't clear is whether that "someone" was Jones. Unfortunately, it isn't at all unusual for kids to be beaten by multiple family members.
I’m okay with both “parents” going to jail forever or getting the death penalty. Those kids are better off in the foster care system. The other two kids are doomed to a potentially terrible existence given their environment. One dead child is too many. Defend the guy all you want, but a crime in 1997 should have been settled long ago. Our legal system sucks, despite being as good or better than anywhere else.
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
