SPECULATIONS ABOUT TRIAL/PLEA/PUNISHMENT

Originally Posted by hank Some new stuff ... "Sources tell CBS 6 Richard "Sam" McCroskey says he is "concerned for the victim's families"." http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-mccros...,6000933.story

Ok THIS STATEMENT tells us a lot of important things. It tells us that an insanity plea is off the table, this is a statement of remorse and borders on confession, although it is possible they could be going for temporary insanity with remorse being stated now that he realizes what he has done but in my experience IF THERE WERE GOING to be any trial by jury and a defense put forward Sam would be FORBIDDEN to make ANY STATEMENTS whatsoever, no talking AT ALL.

What this tells me is that the prosecution has offered the defense a deal that if Sam pleads guilty and issues statements of remorse they will take the DP off the table and give him life with no parole.

At this point IF Sam did in fact make the above statement I will say with some authority that there will be no trial, there will be a guilty plea and he will confess and state his remorse. The defense has seen the evidence and knows Sam has no chance and is now shifting gears to save Sam's life.

The above statement is very important and would NEVER be allowed to be said by Sam if his attorney had any plans to try this in front of a jury and put on a defense.

Originally Posted by PAXIMUS Lets talk about JURY SELECTION who does the prosecution want on that jury? Who does the defense want on that jury? Who is most likely to feel sympathtic towards Sam? Minorities, black males or females? Older while males or females? Educated or uneducated folks? Christians or non christian/atheist/pagan etc? I think the prosecution will favor older white christian females and the defense will want young adult or middle aged college graduates with no religious affiliation as these types will be less prone to making rash emotional decisions. Minorities could go either way, they may not respect a white boy trying to rap, for example. Divoriced males may be sympathetic towards Sam, perhaps understanding the feeling of rejection etc. Its a college town but I dont know how long a student must be a resident before they are required to serve on a jury, students could go either way, Debra was a professor afterall but they are also more likely to understand Sam's lifestyle and the culture that he was part of.

Unfortunately, unless they move the trial to another location, I don't see that they'll find many prospective jurors who may be sympathetic toward Sam. It's just not very likely that they'll find any young and jilted horrorcore fans in Farmville.

Further, the fact that his "rage" was unleashed on more than just the object of his affection will be problematic in the sympathy department. By the time the father arrived Sam had at least a day to cool off. At a minimum, the murder of Emma's parents will be perceived as cold blooded and not in keeping with a crime of passion.

If the attorney doesn't get a change of venue then he's not doing his job. Out of the area, IMO, Sam's best jury bet lies with those who can rationalize domestic violence. If online conversations are brought into evidence, the attorney can paint Emma as a tease. After all, her online missives were way over the top, and the sad truth is that there are some folks who cling to the "she asked for it" meme. Still, it will be hard to wrap the other murders around Emma's actions. If that is the motive, then Mel, Debra and Mark are, truly, innocent bystanders and IMO no jury will believe that they deserved to die. __________________
all my comments are just my opinion. jmho. moo. etc. etc.

• 
  
• 
  

• 
  


• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Originally Posted by LoveVA I know exactly what you are talking about. I have lived in Southwest and South Central VA my whole life. In the end, no one else wants to deal w/ anyone elses mess and Farmville is hungry for revenge. They will probably do everything possible to keep it there, and b/c of the economy etc, they will let them stay there. I never thought about it that way, but in the end who is going to come to Sam's defense and do anything about it? No one.

His lawyer will file a motion for change of venue. There will be a hearing on the motion. The economy and/or whether law enforcement wants to keep it there has nothing to do on the motion for change of venue. Whether anyone wants to deal with "someone elses mess" has nothing to do with the motion for change of venue. This is a capitol murder case. Everything will be ruled on with the utmost care to make sure Sam gets a fair, constitutional trial and to avoid appealable error.

The judge will rule on it based on prior case law and statutory provisions. If it is shown he wont get a fair trial in Farmville, the venue will probably be changed. If Farmville is hungry for revenge, that shows he wont get a fair trial.

Alright, I'm doing some research on a motion to change venue in Virginia. Here's what I have so far:

My information is culled from Virginia Practice Criminal Procedure Series 2008 by Ronald J. Bacigal (Va. Prac. Criminal Procedure § 14:21 (2008 ed.))

Venue in a criminal proceeding in Virginia is located in the county or city where the offense was committed.

A motion for a change of venue must be made at least seven days before the day fixed for trial. Either the Commonwealth or the accused may move for a change of venue. The burden of proof is on the party making the motion.

A need for change of venue can be established in two ways: based on pre trial climate and during selecting of the jury pool.

In regards to pretrial climate, “Sheer volume” of media coverage does not establish that the accused cannot receive a fair and impartial trial. However, Affidavits from a diverse group of residents which disclose the polarization of public opinion may justify a change of venue.

During selection of a jury pool, the need for change of venue can be established as well. The difficulty or ease with which an impartial jury is selected may be evidence of community prejudice.

The court should grant a change of venue when the voir dire (jury selection) indicates that (1) there has been extensive publicity or widespread knowledge of the crime or the accused, (2) this publicity has generated a widespread feeling of prejudice within the community, and (3) this feeling of prejudice is reasonably certain to prevent a fair and impartial trial.

In considering a change of venue motion, the court must look to the conditions at the time of the trial, not to the conditions at the time of the crime.

Motion Change


Bear with me while I figure out how to reply.

There was a ton of information on the Knox County Newsom-Christian murders and how it works. It looks similar and I think you can go to Knoxnews or WBIR over there and actually watch the arguments on this. One guy wanted a Knox jury, but the judge actually tried to block it or at least talk some sense into the dude. (I think it's the guy who got DP in that case)

The dismemberment rumors and horror-core connection alone will be reason enough to change the venue.

But, what does that do? Get you down the street from the people most likely to be offended?

Hardly matters where you go here....his outcome has the same likely mess attached.

And if I recall correctly, don't neighboring towns in the South talk more about how the madness goes down around them?

Like.....didn't you hear about Aunt Bea in Mayberry.....

The problem with the insanity defense all along has been that he isn't legally insane. He knew what he was doing when he tried to leave town and he very likely was planning to hide the bodies out on Poorhouse Road somewhere before he left town. Attempting to hide his crimes indicates an understanding of their consequences.

Originally Posted by boygenius Why would you want to keep this monster alive? That's the great thing about TX and VA, we've got express lanes to death for idiots like Sam. He had no remorse for the horrific things he did to the families he killed (I don't care if he "says" he's concerned now.) The only thing I hate is that we don't really fry people anymore we are too concerned about these monsters and give them death by lethal injection. Maybe we should punish people to die by the same means they committed their murders.

Then we become monsters ourselves.

I disagree! I just don't think spending our tax money to keep him or people like him in prison for the rest of their lives is worth it. I do not value him as a human as he did not value the lives of his victims.

Originally Posted by nakedmanjoe I believe that the death penalty should only be used if it can be a deterrent in future crimes. That's very open to debate. Now the old adage "an eye for an eye" that boygenius refers to would not be a bad way to go if it applied to horrific crimes committed on wholly innocent people. I imagine that there would be a significant drop in vicious premeditated crimes of torture and murder. Perhaps as much as 10-20% (pulling #s out of my butt of course). The remainder of the people that would still commit these acts are likely to be psychopaths who don't have a conscience and don't experience fear like we do. Hence they wouldn't really care what happened to them anyway.

The death penalty does not have a deterrence factor. It's just for retribution. And, I don't know what kind of drop you're imagining, but where the DP is applied, there is no drop in violent crime.

I am talking about "eye for an eye" here. If we tortured and murdered people the same way that they did it to others it may be a detterent. There's no studies on this as far as I know.

So you mean like, the perp would be killed in the exact matter he did the killing? You wouldn't be troubled by a society that condoned rape, torturing, and murdering people, regardless of the circumstances? Just clarifying, not arguing or anything.

What about where, as often happens, DNA evidence exonerates the person after the fact? Do you know how many times courts get DP cases wrong? It would make you sick to your stomach.

Originally Posted by nakedmanjoe I am talking about "eye for an eye" here. If we tortured and murdered people the same way that they did it to others it may be a detterent. There's no studies on this as far as I know.

First of all that is unconstitutional. Secondly, where does the state get the right to do such. I am not willing to give the state that sort of authority, you may be willing to in a short sighted manner but if you think of the other possible long term consequences and precedents of doing such you may change your mind.

Originally Posted by nakedmanjoe Yeah, basically that's what I'm saying. If murdering, raping, and torturing guilty people that everybody agreed 100% on their guilt meant saving innocent people you would be against it.

I have had the worst done to my family, but I do not believe in the death penalty. We have no right to take a life. God or no god it is just wrong. It seems wrong, it feels wrong, so to me that makes it wrong. What can we do with these people who can no longer be free in society? Make them work for free or give the money they make to the remaining family? Send them over seas to war? Lab testing? Heck if I know....

Here is what P!$$es me off most about lifers...
They marry
They procreate

I don't want these so-called "bad seeds" passing their genes on...getting married and having the conjugal visits and other pleasures in life that they took away from the person or persons they killed.

I would be against the death penalty if prison, for murderers, was actually real and just punishment. NWIM?

Further I would like to add that I dont think prisons should NOT be about punishment, I think they should be about rehabilitation. Yes there has to be consequences for our actions and Sam is experiencing those now, he is locked up in a cell, but he is also very willing right now to LISTEN TO PEOPLE and really absorb what they say, those who send him hate mail and call him names and show cold blooded indifference to him are only feeding in to the very world view that led Sam down this path to begin with. Sam needs to know that isnt what the world is really about and that he can overcome this and make something of himself while imprisoned, he can get an education and reach out to others who are on the same destructive that he was on and maybe make a difference in the life of someone else who may be on their way to doing what he did. If all we do is punish Sam and remind him of what a loser and cold blooded killer he is, he will continue to see the world through that delusional lense and never better himself or become a productive human being.

When our kids make a mistake we dont lock them in their room or beat them with a belt, if you do I can assure you that you are not helping them, you sit them down and talk to them and teach them the right way, YES there should be consequences for what they did, take away the video games and cell phones etc, but rehabilitate them instead of just punishing them.

Sam can be rehabilitated, I dont think he should ever be free again and that is the consequence of what he did, but he can be made to be a productive member of the prison system and even use his time in a postive way to reach out to others and help them get off the very same path that led him to where he is today.

There is a myth that needs to be busted you are not saving money by executing a convict rather than putting him away for life. The stats are pretty clear that it is more costly to execute them than it is to house and feed them for 30 years or so. After all the appeals and everything the cost of an excecution can sometimes reach in to millions of dollars.

Originally Posted by boygenius I hear people say that, but please explain to me how that's the case. I imagine that someone in jail for 50-60 years cost a hell of a lot more than hooking him/her up to the electric chair or lethal injection.

Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more so:
More pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered.
More experts will be hired.
Twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution.
Jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered.
Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment.
The trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials
And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row.

EST cost of life in prison 1 million.

EST cost for DP case and execution 3 million on average.

It would seem to me that a life sentence would be much worse than being on death row and being put to death.

If I really wanted to punish someone and I had either option at my disposal , then I would impose the life sentence. This choice wouldnt have anything to do with morals but rather what I would consider to be the most severe of the two.
I live a few miles from the prison that does the executions in my state. A real big hoopla up there at execution time ....................

Like I said before this mob mentality that I see in some people on these forums and folks who watch Nancy Grace for example, calling for people to be fried and raped in prison, seemingly getting pleasure from the suffering of those who have been accused of crimes (and I say accused because nobody ever talks about any of these cases AFTER the trial when the person is actually found guilty or innocent, they spend all their time judging them before the trial even takes place then lose interest when the trial actually begins or is finished) anyway, this mob mentality is much, much more dangerous and a threat to us all than any single deranged criminal walking around on the streets. Some of the comments I see from people on these forums and how quick others are to join in and cheer for more people to be thrown to the lions makes me more fearful than I would be walking down a dark alley at 2 am in the Bronx.

Hi Saint - the way I see it if there is a plea bargain it will be for all and the same with a trial. For the sake of cost alone I can't see the murder of Mark being tried separately but AE can weigh in on that.

Prosection wise, it depends on what can be brought out from the SKR folks about what went down at the festival. I would think they would want to show a couple of things; that Sam was angry with Emma and perhaps Mel too and that he immersed himself in the horror of murder and mayhem and while the music may not insight everyone to commit crimes, Sam took it to heart and fantasized about his murder spree and happened upon the perfect victims for what they had done to him and fueled by the concert, he began to act out his fantasy. His anger will relate to motive along with his desires to act out his music or perhaps be an idol in the underground for what he'd done. If any of them were awake upon attackek - heat of passion won't mitigate for Sam because just finding a text on a girl's phone you are "hooked up" with nor any of the dissing from the girls is going to cut it for adequate provocation. If he waited for them to go to sleep it satisfies a cooling off period which wipes out any heat of passion argument. He's got nuttin.

I'm amused that Raz tries to put rumors to rest. No doubt she says "prolly" because she also lost her Dad, God rest his soul as I'm sure she did everything while he was alive to disappoint and worry him. Then again, I don't know but what he was the reason she went sideways...family secrets can be a real *****.

No, the music (if you can call it that) is not a direct cause of the murder of Emma, Mel, Debra and Mark. We can't blame horrorcore but there ARE people behind the music who develop personal relationships with underage kids and poison them against their parents and into their lair of depravation. The law does provide for punishment when adults contribute to the delinquency of minors and from what I've seen, they have some culpability here even if it is trivial in respect to murder, it still pisses me off.

Perhaps I'll start a "perverted justice" type effort and infiltrate the underground scene and find out how young you'd have to be before any of these depraved a-holes would turn your attention away. Anyone want to place a bet before we begin????
Would they encourage attendance to their festivals, drinking, drugs...would they condone a relaltionship between a 14 year old girl and a 20 year old guy? Where would they ever draw the line in their "love" for their fans?

Originally Posted by thesaint This Cary Bowen? http://www.lawyers.com/Virginia/Rich...1747343-a.html Sorry, but he sounds like an ambulance chaser/settler/plea-bargainer, not a great trial attorney. Maybe he's better than I'm getting from that brief profile.

Some have said Bowen is one of the best CD lawyers in the state of VA...

Originally Posted by thesaint May I ask if you're against the DP in general or just not in favor of it in this case? (feel free to ignore this question). I'm generally against it, but in some extraordinary cases (John Wayne Gacy comes to mind) my principles gives way to wanting this person no longer walking around breathing the same air as the rest of us. I completely agree there is a lot we don't know about this case. And I have this feeling that there's going to be a major curve ball introduced at trial (most likely involving the time of death of one or more of the 1st 3 victims (Debra, Emma, Melanie)) which is part of the reason I'd favor trying Mark's murder separately and first.

I agree with it in certain instances. Mostly domestic terrorism. I would say serial killers such as Gacy as well, though I'm hesitant as there has been some debate as whether Sam was a serial killer. I don't think he is one. I'm against the DP as some sort of retribution to society. People deriving pleasure from another person's suffering (regardless of how loathsome that person is) disturbs me.

Originally Posted by PAXIMUS Always against.

I was raised that way (in the first state to ban the death penalty) and continued to be until I was old enough to start following and reading about some of these cases and experiencing a little, tiny, tiny, microscopic, almost undetectable bit of the horror and despair that the families/friends of the victims experience.

I appreciate the families who ask that the death penalty not be imposed and hope their wishes are respected.

But I also can see that having the individual responsible for their loved one's horrific death still walking, breathing, looking at the same moon and stars each night as they do no longer able to intrude on their thoughts that way (what's he eating tonight? what's he reading? what tv show is he watching? oh, look, my child's killer just got married in prison)--especially where the victims were many and children-...well, there but for the grace of....

I used to think it was a black and white, bright-line issue and thought ppl who supported the DP were primitive heathens. But, as with many other of my youthful beliefs, I'm no longer so certain about that.

Originally Posted by DoctorZ If Sam's attorney requests a change of venue, at what point will that happen?

This can happen any time after arraignment and I would assume it will certainly happen, if it is going to happen, at his next court date on Jan 19th since that is when the trial date is to be set. Every state has their own Rules of Procedure but certainly by the time of his next court date which is when his trial date will be set we should see a motion of venue change if his lawyer plans to file for that. If he doesnt they could certainly set a court date and begin Jury Selection at which time his lawyer could argue that he cannot seat a fair and impartial jury and motion the court at that time to change the venue but that would be rare and out of the norm and usually it would happen at the time the trial date is set which will be Jan 19th.

Originally Posted by piXy i meant i wanted to hear it...

I see. My bad, it's impossible to determine someones tone when reading a post online. I just took it as you was mocking me or something. My apologies.

And as far as dishing out the details of our letters, like I've said before, we don't talk about anything of much interest to you all I'm sure. I guess I do have a few things to stir up some conversation though...I found out recently that his parents won't talk to him, or won't reply to his letters, and his sister has sent him one letter asking what stuff of his she could have. I don't understand how his family could be like that, but at least he does have some people that care enough to write him. FWIW, He also has said that "Going to Farmville was the worst mistake of his life". (I don't doubt that any!) Also, something that I wasn't really gonna say, But I don't see the harm in it I guess, in the first letter I received from him he said "There's actually a chance I might get 10-20yrs, which i'm praying for...". I honestly don't see him getting off on a short term sentence like that, but then again, no telling what his lawyer has up his sleeve...?