Harold Kasselman, click
here to update your pages on AuthorsDen.
Blogs by Harold Kasselman
Motions in the James Holmes Trial in Aurora Theater case decided 11/12/2013 8:41:10 AM
The judge assigned to try James Holmes for the mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora Colorado has issued two significant rulings in recent days. In the first ruling, the court agreed with the prosecution that Holmes' online dating profiles will be admissible at his trial.
The two profiles, Match.com, and AdultFriendFinder.com were posted before the July 20, 2012 shooting. In both profiles, the post says, "Will you visit me in prison?" The prosecution deems this to be compelling evidence that Holmes planned, calculated, and knowingly engaged in a systematic killing of twelve people and the wounding of seventy others. This ruling would appear to me to be extremely relevant for the state which has to disprove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, the defense will likely argue that this statement reflects a sick mind that was unable to comprehend the nature of his acts. In my opinion, the state wins this point hands down.
In the second ruling the judge gave both sides a partial victory. At stake in the motion to suppress are statements allegedly made by Holmes to the police both at the crime scene and at police headquarters which allegedly connect Holmes to the shooting. Testimony at the hearing indicated that after his arrest at the scene, while dressed in dark clothing wearing a Kelvar, ballistic looking helmet, and wearing a gas mask, police placed Holmes under arrest. Based on the chaotic scene, police were concerned about the possible existence of other perpetrators. Before giving Holmes the Miranda warnings(right to a lawyer etc.), police asked him if there were others involved still at the scene.
Holmes is quoted as having quickly responded, "No, it's just me". Equally as damaging was his response to police concerns about the whereabouts of the weapons used in the attack.(None were found on his person). When asked about guns, he allegedly responded, that he "had four guns"and that there were explosives at his house that would detonate if police set them off. Naturally those statements if made, and believed by a jury, would be very damaging as to Holmes' state of mind.
Back at the police station, detectives videotaped their formal interrogation of Holmes two hours after the shooting. When police formally gave Miranda warnings, Holmes asked for a lawyer just eight minutes into the interrogation. But detectives continued to ask three additional questions about whether others had been involved in the shootings. Holmes gave answers to all three.
The judge allowed the statements allegedly made by Holmes at the scene to be used by the state at trial. He found that public safety permitted the police to ask about the whereabouts of potential guns in the public's interest(danger of guns being taken or used by others) regardless of the fact that Miranda warnings had not been given first. On the other hand, the judge disallowed the use of Holmes' answers to the police regarding others involved in the crime spree. He found that the police had violated Homes' right to have a lawyer present.
You may ask, "what difference does it make they still have his statements at the scene?". True, but they are oral statements which will come out through testimony from the police. If the video itself were admitted, the jury could have heard and seen it from Holmes' own lips. Moreover, they could have judged his demeanor, his ability to understand what was going on, and elements of his frame of mind that bear directly on the insanity defense. That will be lost and it may have been very important evidence in the case.
There is another major issue which I'll address shortly about a reporter and her sources that could end up in a contempt for her. But that's enough to digest for today
