What's new
By:

Brian David Mitchell Circus Put on Hold...

The Thriller

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700078645/Elizabeth-Smart-kidnapping-trial-postponed.html

Anyone else read about this? So the trial has been put on hold and perhaps they'll move this circus to a completely different state. What are your feelings about this?

For those that are involved with our legal system, how common is it to move a high profile case like this to a different state after the jury has already been selected? How much longer is this thing going to take?

What's the probability that we'll ever see this guy brought to justice?
 
Makes sense. Everyone in Utah thinks he is guilty(and why not, he was caught red-handed pretty much). So I guess it makes sense to move it to another state where he can at least have some jurors would have been just following the case on tv.
 
Defense attorneys filed Mitchell's petition Wednesday night, arguing that it's impossible for their client to get a fair trial in Utah because nearly all of the prospective jurors had heard about Elizabeth Smart's alleged kidnapping and most knew that Mitchell was with her when she was found.
Click to expand...

That truly seems ridiculous to me, unless the defense is trying to argue that Mitchell WASN'T with her when she was found. I highly doubt the defense will do that. So big whoop if the jurors know that already?

It also seems ridiculous that 8 years after he was arrested, Mitchell has still not gone to trial. Doesn't the victim also have rights?
 
Chad Feldheimer said:
Makes sense. Everyone in Utah thinks he is guilty(and why not, he was caught red-handed pretty much). So I guess it makes sense to move it to another state where he can at least have some jurors would have been just following the case on tv.
Click to expand...

Ummmm, I've only faced the case on tv.

In fact, I imagine 99.9% of Utah is in the same boat as me. I highly doubt any of the selected jurors have first hand one on one experience with Brian David Mitchell that would taint their judgment of him any worse than anyone else in the country. Prior to being selected, they all took tests to see how biased they were. The judge didn't have a problem then, why would he have a problem now? Did the majority of jurors send the judge an email saying that they had lied about their tests?

The focus isn't necessarily on guilt. He's clearly guilty. Are you arguing that he really didn't kidnap and rape her? the focus is whether he's competent. Which, again, I'm not sure how any juror in California is more qualified or less biased than any of the jurors selected in this case. Is there a different test taken in a different state that would prove their unbiased judgment better?
 
colton said:
That truly seems ridiculous to me, unless the defense is trying to argue that Mitchell WASN'T with her when she was found. I highly doubt the defense will do that. So big whoop if the jurors know that already?

It also seems ridiculous that 8 years after he was arrested, Mitchell has still not gone to trial. Doesn't the victim also have rights?
Click to expand...

8 years. And I believe he was arrested in the spring. So here in a few months we'll have 9 years. If this trial needs to be scrapped, how much longer will it take to get it going in another state? A decade after he was arrested will he finally be brought to justice?

I just don't understand the complete neglect of Elizabeth's rights. Just bringing her all the way from France alone only to stop the trial is pretty idiotic.

Why does it seem that Mitchell is toying our system? Why must the smart family be tortured? Where's their rights? Again, I'm not an expert so maybe Kicky or someone can set me straight. But it seems like the 6th amendment is totally being trashed here.
 
The Thriller said:
Ummmm, I've only faced the case on tv.

In fact, I imagine 99.9% of Utah is in the same boat as me. I highly doubt any of the selected jurors have first hand one on one experience with Brian David Mitchell that would taint their judgment of him any worse than anyone else in the country. Prior to being selected, they all took tests to see how biased they were. The judge didn't have a problem then, why would he have a problem now? Did the majority of jurors send the judge an email saying that they had lied about their tests?

The focus isn't necessarily on guilt. He's clearly guilty. Are you arguing that he really didn't kidnap and rape her? the focus is whether he's competent. Which, again, I'm not sure how any juror in California is more qualified or less biased than any of the jurors selected in this case. Is there a different test taken in a different state that would prove their unbiased judgment better?
Click to expand...

They already deemed him "competent", that's why they had a competency hearing. and trials are all about determining guilt. Thus innocent until proven guilty.

My point was when they were selecting jurors most of them believed he was guilty without hearing or seeing the evidence. Wouldn't it make sense to move it to say Denver where he could at least have some jurors who haven't heard all the details of the story through the news like most Utahns have?
 
Chad Feldheimer said:
Wouldn't it make sense to move it to say Denver where he could at least have some jurors who haven't heard all the details of the story through the news like most Utahns have?
Click to expand...

Possibly... but if so that was a decision that should have been made BEFORE the trial started. Not DURING the trial. Based on the newspapers articles I read this morning, stopping a trial like this after opening arguments began is completely unprecedented. No one involved has ever seen this before.
 
Chad Feldheimer said:
They already deemed him "competent", that's why they had a competency hearing. and trials are all about determining guilt. Thus innocent until proven guilty.

My point was when they were selecting jurors most of them believed he was guilty without hearing or seeing the evidence. Wouldn't it make sense to move it to say Denver where he could at least have some jurors who haven't heard all the details of the story through the news like most Utahns have?
Click to expand...

Interesting.

But with it being such a high profile case, how are you to find jurors that haven't already heard many of the details already? I guess we could go and get some people from Iran or Afghanistan to come aboard as jurors...

Like the article says above, the jurors passed the tests. They had selections. They jury is set. If they weren't found as biased before why all of a sudden the fear now that the trial has finally started?
 
colton said:
Possibly... but if so that was a decision that should have been made BEFORE the trial started. Not DURING the trial. Based on the newspapers articles I read this morning, stopping a trial like this after opening arguments began is completely unprecedented. No one involved has ever seen this before.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I suppose the defense should be blamed for filing for this so late. I guess they were pretty surprised at some of the jury selection also.

Ultimately this guy is going down one way or another. I just don't see how he couldn't.
 
The Thriller said:
Interesting.

But with it being such a high profile case, how are you to find jurors that haven't already heard many of the details already? I guess we could go and get some people from Iran or Afghanistan to come aboard as jurors...

Like the article says above, the jurors passed the tests. They had selections. They jury is set. If they weren't found as biased before why all of a sudden the fear now that the trial has finally started?
Click to expand...

It is still high profile here in Utah, but it is somewhat old news elsewhere. No I think Denver or OKC would be enough to find some jurors who have been seeing this on the new every night for the last 6 years.

The step daughter for Mitchell was at the jury selection and she said she was shocked by how the legal system worked and how they could pass so many jurors who already believed he was guilty. She felt the only juror who was unbiased or fairly ignorant to the case was a man who moved to SLC in 2007. I bet you could find more like that in Denver or OKC.

I believe he is guilty. I don't think I would make a good juror based on that. I think he deserves a fair trial just like any other American. Whether he is a fruit loop or not.
 
from the article linked in the original post (on pg 2) it appears that the motion to change venue was filed in the 10th Circuit some time ago but the appeals court had reasons to delay their final decision, at least that's what I get from this:

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver made it clear in its last denial that it wanted to hear what the prospective jurors had to say before making a final decision on whether to consider moving the trial out of Utah, Douglas said. Now that the evidence has been submitted, the court is willing to look at it.
Click to expand...
 
Chad Feldheimer said:
They already deemed him "competent", that's why they had a competency hearing. and trials are all about determining guilt. Thus innocent until proven guilty.

My point was when they were selecting jurors most of them believed he was guilty without hearing or seeing the evidence. Wouldn't it make sense to move it to say Denver where he could at least have some jurors who haven't heard all the details of the story through the news like most Utahns have?
Click to expand...


Dude, the defense attorney had better have some freaking awesome trick up his sleeve. I mean, the guy was caught with the girl walking down the street (if memory serves me correct). But maybe it was his twin brother or some aliens from another planet that actually kidnapped her and repeatedly raped her? I mean, it could happen, right? I guess I better hold off on my judgement until I know the "facts".

Wouldn't you want people who had heard the details of the story? Who knew a little bit of what the case was about? If you are going to leave educating the jurors on the case up to the attorneys and their "experts" then heaven help us all.
 
Wouldn't you want people who had heard the details of the story? Who knew a little bit of what the case was about? If you are going to leave educating the jurors on the case up to the attorneys and their "experts" then heaven help us all.
Click to expand...

That's what a trial is... I suppose we should just convict everyone without both sides of the story then?
 
It should go to trial but its not like is he going anywhere. He is in jail and its not like he is getting the death penalty. His life isnt going to change much when he is proven guilty. So that is the good news. But it needs to be done with so the Smart family can have closure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top