Areal Flood Advisory issued July 25 at 10:01PM MDT expiring July 25 at 11:30PM MDT in effect for: Dolores, Montrose, San Juan, San Miguel
Areal Flood Advisory issued July 25 at 9:59PM MDT expiring July 25 at 11:30PM MDT in effect for: Rio Blanco
Flash Flood Watch issued July 25 at 12:33PM MDT expiring July 26 at 12:00AM MDT in effect for: Archuleta, Delta, Dolores, Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, San Juan, San Miguel
Flash Flood Watch issued July 24 at 8:59PM MDT expiring July 26 at 12:00AM MDT in effect for: Garfield, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt
Aurora movie theater shooting day 54: Prosecution hopes to move to next sentencing phase
Day 54 in the Aurora movie theater shooting trial – People vs. James Eagan Holmes. Today, prosecutors hope to move on to the second phase of the sentencing hearing. The jury found Holmes, the admitted gunman, was sane when he went into the midnight premiere of the Dark Knight Rises in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater and opened fire on the audience, killing 12 and wounding 70. 7NEWS and TheDenverChannel.com will have gavel to gavel coverage of the trial starting at 8:15 a.m. (MST) everyday and ending around 5:30 p.m. (MST) Watch new live video on our YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/7NewsDenver/live Additional resources:LIVE VIDEO & BLOG: http://bit.ly/theatertrialTIMELINE of the case: http://bit.ly/theatertimelineJURY PROFILE: http://bit.ly/theaterjury CONTINUING COVERAGE: http://bit.ly/theatercoverage
Juror w/ bad back was retired army nurse and she is an alternate.
by trl27/23/2015 7:17:25 PM
by Good 7/23/2015 7:17:50 PM
If the decision was unanimous why are they polling each juror?
by Sarah7/23/2015 7:26:33 PM
@Sarah - Just for confirmation that no one's decision was altered.
by anica.padilla7/23/2015 7:27:01 PM
@tammy they only have to unanimously agree on one. and #2 has to do with a child under the age of 12 so only veronica even qualifies for that one.
by blue7/23/2015 7:27:03 PM
Anica, right that's to go on to phase 2, but didn't they spend all this time over the deliberation for Phase 3?
by Tammy Garrison7/23/2015 7:27:10 PM
is someone crying or sneezing?
by Tammy Garrison7/23/2015 7:27:12 PM
@LC: Factor #2 was the intentional killing of a child under the age of twelve.
by Cindy L7/23/2015 7:27:13 PM
Tammy you are correct. I think if only one victim got one factor he'd be eligible for DP on that count. They can only put him to death once, even if he gets 12 death sentences.
by Lori James7/23/2015 7:27:16 PM
by Thanks God 7/23/2015 7:27:18 PM
@Lori James, yes he shot her 4 times, but no proof the whole purpose was to kill children.
by Kate7/23/2015 7:27:21 PM
Wow courtrooms are so repetitive and drawn out.. seriously everything the judge has said the past 20 minutes can be summed up in a couple sentences..
by polisalwaysright7/23/2015 7:27:25 PM
jury's verdict for #2 on Veronica had to be unanimous - think they spent quite some time deliberating this but not everyone agreed on it
by mandi7/23/2015 7:27:26 PM
by Tammy Garrison7/23/2015 7:27:29 PM
Just about all executions are in western and southern states, with the exception of NM (abolished capital punishment, like 18 other states and DC). Abolishments of capital punishment based on many factors, but consistently that it is extreme cruelty and excessive punishment against the values within society. Killing of mentally ill people is considered especially heinous, beyond any crime committed.
by okx7/23/2015 7:27:44 PM
@Lori James: Is it possible that she just happened to be sitting in a seat that got hit 4 times instead of assuming that he aimed at her 4 times? Didn't someone else get hit 6 or more times? I am lead to believe that JH just shot the gun, he didn't aim, just pulled the trigger. Perhaps since they were not moving to get away from the gunfire they were just hit repeatedly. I just pray that they were already deceased so that they didn't feel it each time.
by Stephany7/23/2015 7:27:51 PM
I guess I don't understand the point in polling the jury. Doesn't have to be unanimous on each count in order for them to go through?
by Saira 7/23/2015 7:27:55 PM
So the Jury went with the spraying rounds vice aiming. Fair enough.
by NT87/23/2015 7:28:00 PM
Iv'e been in and out. Can someone please explain phase 2 and 3?
by caz7/23/2015 7:28:03 PM
I can see how a reasonable group of jurors might not be able to get unanimous agreement on aggravating factor #2, even though I would personally have voted for it. It is a bit unclear from the evidence that the monster was fully aware that there were children in the theater. I think it is probable that he knew, but difficult to prove--may have led to reasonable doubt for some of the jurors. Overall they did a great job, IMO.
by flip7/23/2015 7:28:08 PM
Why poll a unanimous jury?
by Lynn7/23/2015 7:31:56 PM
@Saira The defense HAS to do that for the file and for any appeals that might come up in the future. That's just the defense doing their job. Just to get it on the record.
by Despicable Me7/23/2015 7:31:57 PM
I think it was the word intentional that get the jurors in #2. He was shooting randomly and they didnt see him as intentionally killing her
by Stacie7/23/2015 7:32:09 PM
@flip - agreed.
by colo7/23/2015 7:32:11 PM
Thanks for the link @anica
by caz7/23/2015 7:32:11 PM
Have any of the 3 (I believe you said 3 Phil) inmates on death row argued insanity?
by Sarah7/23/2015 7:32:18 PM
Comments will be considered and posted after a short break.
by anica.padilla7/23/2015 7:33:11 PM
Here is a full recap of the jury's decision, the prosecution's argument and what's next in phases 2 & 3: bit.ly
by anica.padilla7/23/2015 7:49:10 PM
by Tammy Garrison7/23/2015 7:49:15 PM
A mitigating factor, in law, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence.
by Stacie7/23/2015 7:49:23 PM
nevermind anica answered my question :)
by What is going to happen in...7/23/2015 7:49:25 PM
The problem with #2 is that it could be read two different ways: 1) 'intentionally kill' a child, or 2) intentionally 'kill a child'. He certainly did the first thing, unclear whether he did the 2nd. Any ambiguities should go to the favor of the defendant (always true in law), so the jury did the right thing, even if it disappoints poor Ashley's family yet again.
by Sophiamtn@gmail.com7/23/2015 7:49:28 PM
I think you poll a jury to have each individual express their verdict. I suppose if any juror felt coerced or had second thoughts it's an opportunity to give voice to their doubts. Having served on a jury, you as an individual take accountability for you decision as part of the jury. Maybe a lawyer in the chat can explain?
by Edy7/23/2015 7:49:31 PM
I disagree with the verdict on Veronica Moser-Sullivan. You can accidentally shoot someone on purpose. He knew there were children in that theatre. He knew that, although he shot blindly most of the time (except for the one's fleeing... those he shot deliberately as he could see them) he intentionally tried to kill everyone in that theatre and had the means to do so.
by Cindy L7/23/2015 7:49:34 PM
phase 1. details of verdict formal legality, no surprise or challenge @anon. no one, other than a facilitator can tell people not to respond to your statements. I understand what you are saying, except that it seems that we can author some thoughts when they are based in actions around us Awareness is the expander of thought and that is a personal pursuit.
by okx7/23/2015 7:49:50 PM
by panda9117/23/2015 7:49:52 PM
Dang, leave us on mute huh? Can't even get any background music? Life should have built in background music.....oh well, gotta sing my own....... "I just want to tell you how I'm feeling, gotta make you understand, never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you, never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you, ooohhh"
by Stephany7/23/2015 7:49:58 PM
I think most states avoid that ambiguity by simply listing as an aggravator that one of the victims was a child. Would be interesting to know if Colorado intended the aggravator to mean the killer had to specifically WANT a child victim rather than just HAD a child victim. That would be unique to Colorado, I think.
by Sophiamtn@gmail.com7/23/2015 7:50:02 PM
what was the action? what happened?
by Tara7/23/2015 7:50:03 PM
Tara, on to phase 2. Opening statement is next.
by Tammy Garrison7/23/2015 7:51:47 PM
Glad I bought plenty of cheese to go with the upcoming Whine session.