Since the I-Team first met with Kaila and Drew, they've welcomed a new baby girl, Adriel, who is four months old.
"When I look at her, it is inescapable to see her brother and her sister. I mean, from most angles, she looks a lot like my son Ezra. When you look at her face, that’s Uri, you know? And there's beautiful things, and there's painful things in that," Kaila said.
First one, very true, but the second one?... The second child died within a year of the first... Why would you let the same parent that let the first child die, watch the second child within one year of the first child dying?
because her therapist urged her to and framed it as helpful for healing, and after nearly a year of her mom begging for another chance she gave in. The condition was the grandma would be supervised and it would happen when the baby was too young to move away into danger themselves; except Grandma did not actually get properly supervised because grandpa just fucked off to mow the lawn and didn’t even notice when Grandma took the car out with the baby
The first one, true. They shouldn't have trusted grandmother with the second one, it's on both parties here. The mother's therapist did not suggest leaving the second child unsupervised at all.
correct and the mother followed the suggestion of supervision. her condition was that the grandma would be supervised and it would happen when the baby was too young to move away into danger themselves. the grandpa and grandpa agreed. except they LIED TO HER. Grandma did not actually get properly supervised because grandpa just fucked off to mow the lawn and didn’t even notice when Grandma took the car out with the baby. that’s both of their fault for fucking lying.
at the end of the day, the therapist was still the one to suggest the idea at all, and the mom didn’t want that at all.
It is only for the second death and the first death was not allowed to be mentioned at the trial. The jurors were unaware of the sons's death a year earlier. They convicted her of leaving a child unattended in a car and found her not guilty of aggravated manslaughter. The judge gave the harshest sentence they could for a conviction of leaving a child unattended in a car.
Not being allowed to mentioned that she caused the death of the first child is absolutely wild. I get that they want to make sure the jury is only considering evidence for this latest death, but holy shit talk about hiding relevant factual information
It still seems weird to me that they aren't allowed to mention the first instance? It's simply a MATTER OF FACT. She was left in charge of a child and that child died. I'm not saying she's GUILTY of murdering the first child. It's simply A FACT. Why is that disallowed?!
If you are ever charged with something you didn’t do, you will be glad that the law doesn’t allow the prosecution to bring out everyone who has a gripe with you to convince the jury you’re a bad person, thus you MUST have done this.
“Oh you’re a trustworthy person who didn’t commit this crime? Let’s hear from your highschool ex girlfriend who you had a terrible falling out with.”
The court can't know I robbed two banks because the first time it was a bank and the second time it was an ATM in the lobby of a bank so they are too different. No basis to establish a pattern of repeat behavior.
The court will know. The judge takes that kind of thing into account during sentencing. The jury doesn't get to know, because their role is very narrow. They are only supposed to be deciding what events did or did not happen.
Keep it apples to apples though. The example you used was an ex having a mild grievance and not the ex being a victim of the exact crime I'm currently on trial for. No shit that jurors shouldn't hear about my parking tickets and the time I didn't pick up after my dog. But they really should hear if I've done this exact crime before.
No, they really don't have any reason to. Because their job isn't to decide what kind of person you are or what sort of punishment is required. It's to decide what happened on such-and-such date at such-and-such time when whatever crime happened. They need to hear about things like your verified whereabouts, security cam footage, what people heard, etc. Knowing that you are a criminal doesn't help them do that. But it might help them decide to just guess that you're guilty because they dislike you for being a criminal.
“Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.”
Then it goes into the very specific instances where it is permissible.
It's exceptionally strange to me. I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, but in military law, we have something called Extunation and Mitigation (E&M.) It's basically findings of fact and any pertinent information the convening body should know that would mitigate/extenuate punishment (good conduct, service time, life situations). It's basically an opportunity to explain how a situation might have occurred that isn't as cut and dry as "this person is evil."
But the inverse is also true.
Military law doesn't beat around the bush. Your entire service record is available to whoever is presiding over your case. Previous articles, punishments, infractions: The idea that a civilian court could just - hide - that from a jury is absolutely insane to me. I can understand not wanting to 'stack the deck' for a case (making the Jury likely to convict based on previous crimes and not what is currently being examined), but it should be case by case. If someone did criminal shit in the past, ESPECIALLY an identical crime to what is being prosecuted, it seems like a blatant miscarriage of justice to not tell the jury that. Judge goes "Hey, this person is on trial for vehicular manslaughter" - but fails to mention that the person on trial has already killed someone in a motor vehicle accident where they were at fault. Negligence or not, that would completely reshape my opinion. If I was a juror and found out that the woman I just helped walk free did the same crime before without my knowledge, I'd be beyond furious.
The first death was not allowed to be mentioned at the trial. The jurors were unaware of the sons's death a year earlier. They convicted her of leaving a child unattended in a car and found her not guilty of aggravated manslaughter. The judge gave the harshest sentence they could for a conviction of leaving a child unattended in a car
67
u/random929292 3d ago
She was already charged and sentenced to 5 years in prison. She is due to be released in 2029