Hoe Can this Murder Case Not Win on Appeal or Be Set Aside?

[Hershon]

What is the name of your state? CA

Sorry for the How typo! I just watched on TV, 48 hours Mystery, what I believe to be one of the most outrageous verdicts ever in a murder trial and can't believe they won't win on appeal or the verdict wasn't set aside (maybe you can't set aside verdicts if the jury convicts someone based on a false assumption). Specifically, in Wisconsin, a man was convicted of murdering his wife (the DA somehow got an earlier letter she wrote before her death stating her husband was trying to posion her) and the prosecution originally believed it was murder by poison but then changed their theory- I can't give better details sorry, that while she was poisoned, it didn't kill her but the husband suffocated her. They did not have Medical Evidence that the husband suffocated her but used a jailhouse snitch to say in Court that the husband told him in jail he suffocated her. The jury convicted the guy on murder but when they were all interviewed afterwards, they said they didn't believe the jailhouse snitch and didn't believe the husband murdered her by suffocating her but did believe that he poisoned her which they believed was the cause of death even though the prosecuter said it wasn't. How can a jury convict a person of murder, if they don't believe the murder was caused by suffocation which was the DA's case. I realize I'm simplifying things but this is how it was presented on 48 Hours and this seems like a total abuse of the legal process.

 

[FlyingRon]

We don't discuss TV show cases (which usually deviate widely from reality as you are realizing) nor hypothetical cases.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

If the jury honestly didn't believe that the victim was murdered by the specific manner and means alleged in trial, than they should not have found guilty. But since they did, on appeal the analysis is not what THIS specific jury found but what a jury of reasonable people, any reasonable people, could find...with complete deference to the finding of the original jury. In other words, the question is whether any given jury could look at the evidence of death by suffocation and believe it, even if the actual jury thought death was by another means. Also, it is entirely permissible for the State to allege that the death was by a combination of poison and suffocation, and the jury could then pick either one as long as they believed the other one was also a minor contributor.

I like those 48 hour mysteries but watch anyone of them and you ALWAYS ask the question of how in the world could that have happened? You are either amazed at the guilty verdict or disgusted at the not-guilty verdict. But the truth is that its just tv so they only present you with one side of the story. The verdicts typically make alot more sense once you research the actual case yourself. Maybe its possible that the State did allege death by suffocation and poison, and 48 hrs just isn't mentioning that. That's exactly the type of thing that is done to create a more compelling episode.

 

[quincy]

I agree with CavemanLawyer that a lot of what you see on shows like 48 Hours Mystery and the Dateline mysteries is designed specifically to make for more compelling TV. This is not unlike the "true crime" novels you might read, where dialogue is created to make the characters come to life for the reader, or the historical novel, where people are imagined in the context of historical events.

Although presented as a crime story researched thoroughly by journalists intent on uncovering the truth behind the crime, and although presented using real facts and details secured through court documents, evidence, and witness testimony, these shows often present a particular slant - perhaps leaving out some important, even vital, facts and details that may make the verdicts rendered in these cases easier to understand.

While it is true that many, far too many, people have been tried and convicted of crimes that they did not commit - discovered only after DNA evidence finally was able to clear them of any involvement in the crime and subsequently free them from wrongful imprisonment - most murder cases are not quite as "mysterious" as the ones depicted on TV.

 

[Hershon]

I Agree With What You're Saying But

In regards to Flying Ron, 48 Hours Mystery is a Documentary Show on real cases.

I agree these shows are totally slanted and simplified.

To clarify and simplify my question better, if a Prosecuter's case is based on a person drugging the victim and then killing the person by suffocating them, if the jury doesn't believe
the person suffocated them but thinks the cause of death was from the drugs, can they still legally find the person guilty of murder even if the prosecuter stated the drugs didn't kill her?
If they can't, could that be set aside later on or easily won on Appeal? I'm not quite sure if set aside verdicts need to be made immediately at the time of the verdict.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Hershon I think I already answered those questions in my first post. The jury is supposed to decide whether the State proved their case as alleged. If they believe the State proved murder but didn't prove the correct means of murder that was alleged, then they would have to find not guilty if they follow the law as presented in their jury charge. If they convict anyway then on appeal the question is not whether those specific jurors followed the law but rather 12 reasonable people, any people, could have convicted based on the evidence that the State put forth.

Also the State does not have to just pick one way or the other. They probably alleged both, but the show wouldn't have been as "mysterious" if they told you that.

 

[garrula lingua]

and then there's jury nullification.
I believe it happens more frequently than people think.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Ok after a bit of research I'm pretty sure you are talking about the trial of Mark Jensen. The murder was alleged to have been caused by poison. The prosecution did not change their theory, the medical examiner did. After his first day of testifying he took another look and thought that it was possible that suffocation was the ultimate cause of death. He also said that even if suffocation was the cause of death, its possible that the poison would have killed her anyway. The prosecution never said anything other than that she was killed by poison, and that's ultimately what the jury believed.

This case will be a huge story on appeal but not because of the means of death, it will be because the judge allowed in a letter that the victim has written before her death stating that if anything happened to her, that her husband should be considered a suspect. Its a bizarre piece of evidence and not one that has been tested under Crawford v. State yet...but it will be.

 

[Hershon]

Yeah Its the Jensen Case

Sorry, I forgot the guys name when I posted. Personally, the guy gave me the creeps as he came off as cold and emotionless and my opinion was based on how the show was presented which I agree was slanted. It gave me the impression that they gave the cause of death as suffocation. But thanks for clarifying, "the reasonable person" theory.

That whole case as presented was bizarre.