We'll take a break this week from the series on your rights, finishing that up next week with your rights when police stop you while on foot in public. In the mean time, I want to take a quick peak at the Amy Senser trial in Hennepin County in light of the flurry of activity with that case in the past couple days.
I had an article almost completed yesterday on the surprising ruling by the judge in the case that would have allowed the prosecution to use Senser's unwillingness to speak with investigators against her in trial. It was a very odd ruling and was against most precedent on the subject. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution protects us from self-incrimination. It gives us the right to decline to speak with law enforcement officials in order to protect our interests. However, as I was about to start writing my final paragraph, I took a quick constitutional over to the Star Tribune's website, only to see that the judge had reversed his ruling and had allowed the motion by the defense to preclude the prosecution from using Senser's silence against her. As an advocate of justice, I was pleased. As a writer who had spent the better portion of my morning researching the precedent behind the ruling and the consequences of such a decision, I was a little bitter that my hard work was for naught. Either way, Thursday was an important day in the Amy Senser trial. Here are a few of the big decisions made by the judge regarding motions made by both the defense and the prosecution. I won't go through all 16 of them, just three that I found particularly important.
1. The defense's motion to disallow the prosecution from using Amy Senser's silence as incriminating evidence was ultimately upheld. What this means is that the old adage of "what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" doesn't hold up to what you don't say. This isn't anything new. Any attorney worth his or her salt would have instructed Mrs. Senser to refrain from contact with investigators. This was a case in which there is a dearth of concrete evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial stuff that points to Mrs. Senser's guilt, but without her statements to bind everything together, I think it's going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove that she knew she hit Mr. Phanthavong. Her knowledge of having hit a person is necessary to create the duty for her to stop and attend to the victim. By not allowing into evidence the fact that Mrs. Senser didn't speak with investigators, it takes away the theory that her silence has been intended to hide something. This is important for the defense in a case that will be built so much around what the prosecution can prove, not what the defense can disprove. I think the judge's reconsideration of this motion was clearly the correct ruling. It's good that he was able to realize his mistake before this went to trial. Such an error would have given the defense a clear issue to appeal upon a guilty plea. Kudos to the judge for doing the right thing and reversing his initial decision.
2. A motion to prevent the defense from introducing evidence that Mr. Phanthavong had a large amount of cocaine in his system at the time of his death was upheld. This isn't a surprising ruling. Such evidence would be more useful to the defense in a civil trial, where they could argue that the victim was guilty of contributory negligence, which would lessen the culpability of Mrs. Senser. In a criminal case, however, such evidence would clearly be prejudice against the prosecution. Whether Mr. Phanthavong had cocaine in his system does not change the alleged actions of Mrs. Senser. If she indeed knew that she hit a person on that night, the condition of the person has nothing to do with her decision to flee the scene. The only purpose for such evidence would be to prove that the accident itself was not the fault of Mrs. Senser, but since that fact isn't at issue in this trial, the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs its exculpatory elements.
3. Judge Mabley has agreed to allow the prosecution to show video clips of vehicle-pedestrian accident recreations. Not having seen the actual video, I can't comment on its content. I can say, however, that recreation videos like this are typically the bane of defense attorneys' existence. They tend to be incredibly prejudicial towards the defense and paint the picture the prosecution wants painted. Senser's attorney, Eric Nelson, has said that he feels the clips do not accurately depict the crash scene. The prosecution, on the other hand, says that the videos are intended only to bolster the credibility of a specific expert witness they plan to call and that it should be viewed by the jury in that limited scope. I understand the point made here by the prosecution, but I can assure you that it is nearly impossible to tell something to the jury but inform them only to consider it through a limited lens. Once the jury learns something, it colors the way they think about the case in its entirety. However, I assume that Judge Mabley took into consideration any prejudicial affect these videos could have and weighed that against their necessity. I will say that this is something to keep an eye on during the trial.
There were numerous other motions ruled on by Judge Mabley, but most of them were either pretty straight-forward or inconsequential. This thing is close to getting very interesting, however, as the trial won't be too much farther down the road. I'll keep adding commentary to the proceedings as it moves along, as this case interests me greatly. As a defense attorney, it's always useful to get a high-profile case to follow in order to get some insight into how other lawyers handle certain situations. In our profession, you either continue to learn new techniques or you become obsolete. I'm excited to see how everything plays out in this trial.
If you or a loved one find yourself in the middle of a criminal investigation, you should follow Amy Senser's lead and contact a Minnesota criminal defense attorney before you offer any information to law enforcement. Doing so could be the difference between innocence and guilt.
As always, the contents of this blog are not intended to be legal advertising, legal advice, nor does the reading of this information create an attorney/client relationship between yourself and the author. If you are in need of legal advice, stop browsing the internet for information and get on the phone with a qualified Minnesota criminal defense attorney. Your situation is unique and you should treat it as the serious threat to your liberty that it is.
Showing posts with label Minnesota Vikings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minnesota Vikings. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Trial of the Week: Minnesota Viking Chris Cook's Felony Domestic Assault Trial
From time to time, I'll be doing a segment here that I call Trial of the Week. Basically, I'll give you a rundown of the trial going on in the state of Minnesota that I find most interesting. I'd like to say I plan on making this a weekly thing, but more likely it will be every month or so. Maybe I should call it Trial of the Month? Whatever.
This week, we'll take a look at the trial of Minnesota Vikings cornerback Chris Cook. Cook was charged with felony domestic assault and 3rd degree assault in conjuction with an alleged incident between Cook and his girlfriend in October of 2011. Cook was put on leave from the team and missed the rest of the season.
Initially, the crux of the case against Cook was the statement given by Cook's girlfriend that the defensive back hit and choked her, leaving her with scratches and bruising around her neck, swelling in her face, and a ruptured eardrum. The injuries allowed prosecutors to charge Cook with the aggravated 3rd degree assault as opposed to a more common 5th degree charge, meaning that both charges he faces can result in more than a year in jail, plus significant fines.
The prosecution had to feel good about this case initially, but those good feelings might be washing away. Not only did Hennepin County prosecutors have the testimony of the girlfriend, Chantel Baker, who claimed that Cook viciously attacked her, but also the forensic evidence to back it up with the bruises, scratches, swelling, and injury to the ear drum.
Recently, Ms. Baker has recanted her original explanation to the police. She now says that Cook never strangled her, and that she only claimed he did because she was mad at him and wanted him to go to jail. She claims to have immediately regretted her lie and felt guilt over her false representations.
Now that Baker's testimony was something of a question mark, the prosecution would have to lean more heavily on the forensic evidence. Unfortunately for them, that evidence took a bit of a hit yesterday, as well. Cook's defense team introduced an expert witness who testified that the marks on Baker's neck were not consistent with injuries one would sustain during an attempted strangulation. The defense's alternate theory of how the marks got on Baker's neck involved her earring leaving the scratches, and the bruising being attributable to hickeys given to her by Cook. This, coupled with Cook's testimony that Baker attacked him first, causing him to hit her in self defense (which is what the defense claims caused the ruptured ear drum), means that all the evidence prosecutors expected to use has a reasonable defense against it.
In order for the felony convictions to stick against Cook, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not only did Cook physically assault Baker, but that his assault is what caused the injuries she sustained. However, if the jury believes Cook's account of the evening, his claim of self defense would act as an affirmative defense to the charges and exonerate him from any legal wrongdoing.
So, what's my take on this? Well, the jury went into deliberation today, so we should hear something final by the end of the week. If I were the prosecutor on this case, I'd offer up a plea of misdemeanor domestic assault and 5th degree assault, no jail time, and in lieu of a fine (which really wouldn't hurt an NFL player anyway) I would propose some amount of community service. I'd be worried that my star witness didn't say what I thought she was going to say. I'd be worried that the defense had a doctor say the injuries weren't consistent with strangulation. Mostly, I'd be worried that a guy who I thought I had dead to rights a few months ago has a good chance to walk away from this unpunished. The jury has been instructed to consider these misdemeanor charges as lesser included charges in case they are not comfortable convicting Cook of the felonies. This is good for the prosecution, because they can still get a conviction even if the jury doesn't buy the entire story.
If I'm the defense team, I'd consider a deal that would avoid a felony and jail time. Cook, as an NFL player, has quite a bit riding on not doing jail time. The NFL will likely suspend him for a couple of games regardless of the outcome of this trial, but by avoiding jail time he can still practice with the team and continue to prepare for the 2012 season. Obviously, if I were Cook's attorney, I'd look for the best deal I can get, but I would probably accept the above deal from the prosecution. Yes, there is a chance that the jury is going to come back with a not guilty verdict, but juries are historically tougher on men accused of harming women than they are in other instances.
At this point, however, it certainly appears that this case will be decided by Cook's peers. My gut tells me that he won't be convicted of the felony charges, but that at least one of the lesser included misdemeanors will stick. Cook won't do any more jail time than the 4 days he did waiting for arraignment. He'll do a little community service, and he'll receive a 4 game suspension from the NFL. All in all, there are just too many things for the jury to question regarding what actually happened that night for them to confidently put a man in jail for the next few years.
Cases like this are always tough to figure out. It's difficult to separate the emotions from the facts, and juries find themselves trying to separate their own preconceived notions from the facts of the case. For Cook, being a big guy (6'2", 215 lbs) doesn't work in his favor, either. Often, when the charge is that a significantly larger man did something physical to a smaller woman, the jury feels an obligation to protect the alleged victim (even though they shouldn't). As a defense attorney, I would try to stress these factors to my client, making him aware of the fact that his actions aren't the only things on trial in a case like this. Cook, while he has a strong case, will do well to avoid jail time. I'm sure his lawyers know that.
Ultimately, this case will hinge on whether the jury believed the testimony Cook gave on Tuesday. When a defendant takes the stand, a lot of the other testimony and evidence gets discounted by the jury. It's the whole "straight from the horses mouthWhen an attorney recommends to his or her client, they have to make sure that their client will be convincing because so much will ride on that testimony. If Cook did as well in the eyes of the jurors as he did in my eyes, he could be seeing a very favorable outcome when the jury ends their deliberation.
If you are in a situation where a criminal trial may be in your future, it's important to get legal representation immediately in order to set up the strongest possible defense. Delaying hiring an attorney only increases the chance of you saying the wrong thing to police, missing out on opportunities to agree to a plea bargain, and decreases the amount of time your lawyer will have to evaluate your case and prepare for court. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime or fear that you will be, contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer today to get the jump on your defense.
As always, information contained in this blog is for entertainment purposes, only, and should not be construed as legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice or representation, contact a Minnesota attorney to receive the specialized guidance you need in your time of trial.
This week, we'll take a look at the trial of Minnesota Vikings cornerback Chris Cook. Cook was charged with felony domestic assault and 3rd degree assault in conjuction with an alleged incident between Cook and his girlfriend in October of 2011. Cook was put on leave from the team and missed the rest of the season.
Initially, the crux of the case against Cook was the statement given by Cook's girlfriend that the defensive back hit and choked her, leaving her with scratches and bruising around her neck, swelling in her face, and a ruptured eardrum. The injuries allowed prosecutors to charge Cook with the aggravated 3rd degree assault as opposed to a more common 5th degree charge, meaning that both charges he faces can result in more than a year in jail, plus significant fines.
The prosecution had to feel good about this case initially, but those good feelings might be washing away. Not only did Hennepin County prosecutors have the testimony of the girlfriend, Chantel Baker, who claimed that Cook viciously attacked her, but also the forensic evidence to back it up with the bruises, scratches, swelling, and injury to the ear drum.
Recently, Ms. Baker has recanted her original explanation to the police. She now says that Cook never strangled her, and that she only claimed he did because she was mad at him and wanted him to go to jail. She claims to have immediately regretted her lie and felt guilt over her false representations.
Now that Baker's testimony was something of a question mark, the prosecution would have to lean more heavily on the forensic evidence. Unfortunately for them, that evidence took a bit of a hit yesterday, as well. Cook's defense team introduced an expert witness who testified that the marks on Baker's neck were not consistent with injuries one would sustain during an attempted strangulation. The defense's alternate theory of how the marks got on Baker's neck involved her earring leaving the scratches, and the bruising being attributable to hickeys given to her by Cook. This, coupled with Cook's testimony that Baker attacked him first, causing him to hit her in self defense (which is what the defense claims caused the ruptured ear drum), means that all the evidence prosecutors expected to use has a reasonable defense against it.
In order for the felony convictions to stick against Cook, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not only did Cook physically assault Baker, but that his assault is what caused the injuries she sustained. However, if the jury believes Cook's account of the evening, his claim of self defense would act as an affirmative defense to the charges and exonerate him from any legal wrongdoing.
So, what's my take on this? Well, the jury went into deliberation today, so we should hear something final by the end of the week. If I were the prosecutor on this case, I'd offer up a plea of misdemeanor domestic assault and 5th degree assault, no jail time, and in lieu of a fine (which really wouldn't hurt an NFL player anyway) I would propose some amount of community service. I'd be worried that my star witness didn't say what I thought she was going to say. I'd be worried that the defense had a doctor say the injuries weren't consistent with strangulation. Mostly, I'd be worried that a guy who I thought I had dead to rights a few months ago has a good chance to walk away from this unpunished. The jury has been instructed to consider these misdemeanor charges as lesser included charges in case they are not comfortable convicting Cook of the felonies. This is good for the prosecution, because they can still get a conviction even if the jury doesn't buy the entire story.
If I'm the defense team, I'd consider a deal that would avoid a felony and jail time. Cook, as an NFL player, has quite a bit riding on not doing jail time. The NFL will likely suspend him for a couple of games regardless of the outcome of this trial, but by avoiding jail time he can still practice with the team and continue to prepare for the 2012 season. Obviously, if I were Cook's attorney, I'd look for the best deal I can get, but I would probably accept the above deal from the prosecution. Yes, there is a chance that the jury is going to come back with a not guilty verdict, but juries are historically tougher on men accused of harming women than they are in other instances.
At this point, however, it certainly appears that this case will be decided by Cook's peers. My gut tells me that he won't be convicted of the felony charges, but that at least one of the lesser included misdemeanors will stick. Cook won't do any more jail time than the 4 days he did waiting for arraignment. He'll do a little community service, and he'll receive a 4 game suspension from the NFL. All in all, there are just too many things for the jury to question regarding what actually happened that night for them to confidently put a man in jail for the next few years.
Cases like this are always tough to figure out. It's difficult to separate the emotions from the facts, and juries find themselves trying to separate their own preconceived notions from the facts of the case. For Cook, being a big guy (6'2", 215 lbs) doesn't work in his favor, either. Often, when the charge is that a significantly larger man did something physical to a smaller woman, the jury feels an obligation to protect the alleged victim (even though they shouldn't). As a defense attorney, I would try to stress these factors to my client, making him aware of the fact that his actions aren't the only things on trial in a case like this. Cook, while he has a strong case, will do well to avoid jail time. I'm sure his lawyers know that.
Ultimately, this case will hinge on whether the jury believed the testimony Cook gave on Tuesday. When a defendant takes the stand, a lot of the other testimony and evidence gets discounted by the jury. It's the whole "straight from the horses mouthWhen an attorney recommends to his or her client, they have to make sure that their client will be convincing because so much will ride on that testimony. If Cook did as well in the eyes of the jurors as he did in my eyes, he could be seeing a very favorable outcome when the jury ends their deliberation.
If you are in a situation where a criminal trial may be in your future, it's important to get legal representation immediately in order to set up the strongest possible defense. Delaying hiring an attorney only increases the chance of you saying the wrong thing to police, missing out on opportunities to agree to a plea bargain, and decreases the amount of time your lawyer will have to evaluate your case and prepare for court. If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime or fear that you will be, contact a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer today to get the jump on your defense.
As always, information contained in this blog is for entertainment purposes, only, and should not be construed as legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice or representation, contact a Minnesota attorney to receive the specialized guidance you need in your time of trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)