You have got to be ******* kidding me.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
6,937
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/13/no.crying/index.html

This is outrageous. I can't even articulate how pissed off I am at this story. Let's see what you people make of it.

BARTOW, Florida (Court TV) -- Warned by the judge that tears could trigger a mistrial, a mother was stoic in front of a Florida jury Tuesday as she relived the day she discovered the bloodied bodies of her children.
Nicoletta Dosso was the first person to come upon the bloody crime scene where her children, Frank Dosso, 35, and Diane Patisso, 28, were shot to death.
In the same office where her son lay dead in a pool of blood from gunshot wounds to the head, Nicoletta Dosso also discovered her daughter's husband, George Patisso, 26, slumped against the body of 68-year-old George Gonsalves, her husband's business partner.
Dressed from head to toe in black, the grieving mother had barely taken her seat in the witness box Tuesday before she began stifling sobs while family members and friends sat red-eyed in the gallery holding tissue boxes.
The emotional display prompted a swift response from lawyers representing the defendant, Nelson Serrano, who faces the death penalty if convicted of four counts of first-degree murder.
"Mrs. Dosso's role in this case is more emotional than any witness identification situation I can imagine," defense lawyer Robert Norgard told the court after the jury was quickly rushed out of the room. "If she breaks down in front of the jury, we will ask for a mistrial."
Fears of juror bias

Circuit Judge Susan Roberts agreed that an emotional display would unfairly bias the jurors against the defendant, and issued a stern warning to the prosecutor and, indirectly, to the witness and her family.
"If she gets emotional, I will grant a motion for a mistrial," Roberts said, eliciting emphatic headshakes from Dosso's friends and family. "If [the prosecutor] wants to put her on the stand with that in mind, he may do so."
In a compromise, both sides agreed to let the witness give her testimony outside the presence of the jury and then play a video of the testimony for the jury if it was deemed "unemotional" enough.
As a result, the Sicilian-born mother of three offered a sanitized version of the events that took place on December 3, 1997.
 

Stew21

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
27,651
Reaction score
9,136
Location
lost in headspace
what a crock of ****! apparently defendant has quite an ******* for an attorney.
 

writerterri

It's a dorky day!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
6,706
Reaction score
3,998
Location
Good'ol Southern California *quakes*
Whoa! That's pretty scary if you think about it. But could the judge rule in their favor of a mistrial?



You wouldn't be able to stop me from crying through the whole proceeding.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
6,937
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
More to the point, a judge should not demand that you do so and threaten that you'll have to sit through the whole ordeal again if you can't manage to relate, dry-eyed, how you found your two children, son-in-law and a business partner cooling in puddles of their own blood. Christ.
 

DeborahM

I need espresso & chocolate!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
3,606
Reaction score
657
Location
On top of a laptop
What a crock is right!

Have you ever been to Bartow? Save yourself the trip. It's a little redneck country town. Any of you remember the country sheriff in the old crysler car commercials. A smart asz!?

That's basically the same mentality they have there, in their judicial system!
 

Stew21

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
27,651
Reaction score
9,136
Location
lost in headspace
i wonder if the judge and the defense attorney have cocktails together at the club....PUKE! What a jackass ruling.
 

writerterri

It's a dorky day!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
6,706
Reaction score
3,998
Location
Good'ol Southern California *quakes*
What will they think of next in a court room. I've never heard of that. You're right Perks. It's a disgrace when a mother isn't able to cry for her children upon recalling the scene. Who ever heard of such a thing. That's all I've ever seen in a court room when that happens.
 

aadams73

A Work in Progress
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
6,428
Location
Oregon
That's absolutely appalling and disgusting :(
 

DeborahM

I need espresso & chocolate!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
3,606
Reaction score
657
Location
On top of a laptop
Stew21 said:
i wonder if the judge and the defense attorney have cocktails together at the club....PUKE! What a jackass ruling.

Bartow isn't that big or affulent...maybe the local tavern!
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 42

That does a little like badgering a witness, frankly. I can't believe that that is either legal or acceptable. Where was the mother's legal counsel?
 

Patricia

California Dreaming
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
364
Location
Doing Serious BIC
Website
www.freewebs.com
More and more of this type of junk is taking place in the court rooms. The zeal to protect the "accused" and grant a fair trial, has gone too far.

The victims have become the criminals.
 

RG570

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
105
Location
British Columbia
I don't get it. It seems reasonable to me.

Juries are hardly objective to begin with. Ordinary people really have no business deciding if someone else is a criminal or not. Especially if you have someone up on the stand bawling.
 

Stew21

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
27,651
Reaction score
9,136
Location
lost in headspace
RG - she isn't implicating the defendant...she's emotional about what she saw. How could that bias a jury toward a defendant? She isn't pointing at him and saying "AND HE DID IT", she's crying over the loss of two children, a son-in-law and a business partner. Mistrial on the grounds of emotional witness? Give me a ****ing break!
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
6,937
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
The woman's state of mind while testifying has no bearing on the facts of what occurred. To admonish her to do it dry-eyed is cruel and nonsensical. The jury needs to be instructed to pay attention to the facts, not the feelings. That's their job.

Frankly, I'd be so distracted by a stoic Italian mother relating the discovery scenario, that I might miss the whole point.
 

kristie911

Happy to be here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
4,449
Reaction score
2,460
Location
my own little world
There is no way you could expect a mother to sit through the description of her family being killed, seeing pictures of the crime scene, and having to look at the person that allegedly committed the horrible crime, and not shed a tear.

The judge is an idiot.
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
It would seem to me the more logical thing to do would be to let the mother be... a freakin' human being, and have the defense lawyer make the case that no matter WHO killed the family, she'd be reacting in that way -- his client, a different suspect, wouldn't matter. Those tears don't define guilt, they define grief.
 

StoryG27

Miss Behave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
10,394
Reaction score
4,062
Location
TN
dclary said:
It would seem to me the more logical thing to do would be to let the mother be... a freakin' human being, and have the defense lawyer make the case that no matter WHO killed the family, she'd be reacting in that way -- his client, a different suspect, wouldn't matter. Those tears don't define guilt, they define grief.
I agree!

She found them murdered, whether the defendant did it or not, the mother is going to be emotional when she has to relive finding the bodies. It's not like she was making a huge scene and screaming at the alleged killer or anything. She was simply holding back her sobs the best she could. That judge must be an idiot.
 

Stew21

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
27,651
Reaction score
9,136
Location
lost in headspace
exactly, Dave! Instead of doing that, the defense attorney decided that the mother's grief equals the defendant guilty and the judge bought that load of crap. I imagine the attorney had something along the lines of logic that if he could make it less of a human tragedy that it wouldn't seem quite so heinous and would not require a death penalty. He is trying to make it as sterile and removed from humanity as possible. That if it isn't even worth their mother getting worked up over then it just wasn't that big of a deal. Again, I say, what a load of ****.
 

deacon

i agree, it wrong for the judge to force a mother to hold her feelings in.

on the other side of the coin: that sounds like the defense lawyer we'd all like to have if we were faced with a felony trial.
 

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
Never heard of a judge making an "order" like this. Seems odd. That said, what exactly is the mother's role in taking the stand? She's there to testify that she found the victims shot and dead? That's it? Just curious...
 

deacon

Jcomp said:
Never heard of a judge making an "order" like this. Seems odd. That said, what exactly is the mother's role in taking the stand? She's there to testify that she found the victims shot and dead? That's it? Just curious...

i think the prosecutor put her on the statnd to intentionally gain the sympathy of the jury. it was a good move and should have worked, but for the judge's weird ruling. people cry on the stand everyday, and are not told to shut up.
 

SpookyWriter

Banned
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
9,697
Reaction score
3,458
Location
Dublin
deacon said:
i think the prosecutor put her on the statnd to intentionally gain the sympathy of the jury. it was a good move and should have worked, but for the judge's weird ruling. people cry on the stand everyday, and are not told to shut up.
shut up deacon...:D just kidding...
 
Last edited:

GPatten

Dang...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
157
Location
Titusville Florida
Website
forum.m1911.org
DeborahM said:
What a crock is right!

Have you ever been to Bartow? Save yourself the trip. It's a little redneck country town. Any of you remember the country sheriff in the old crysler car commercials. A smart asz!?

That's basically the same mentality they have there, in their judicial system!


Yup. I’m sorry to say, Florida has its share of sorry azz judges who haven’t the mentality of the local garbage collectors. There was once one in Melbourne who fell asleep in most of the cases. Thank Heaven he was removed from the bench.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.