Care to comment on the Liz Carroll verdict?
What kind of defense is NO defense?
Printable View
Care to comment on the Liz Carroll verdict?
What kind of defense is NO defense?
And what about the other two? I haven't paid much attention, but it sounds like 3 people knew Marcus was bound in a playpen in a closet, the same 3 people abandoned him for the weekend, and all 3 knew Marcus was dead when they returned...
The other two haven't come to trial yet, Lan.
He goes to trial March 19th. The Sentencing is today at 11 am for her...
Verdict reached in Carroll case
Will learn her fate today at 11 a.m. sentencing
BY BARRETT J. BRUNSMAN | [email protected]
BATAVIA - Liz Carroll leaned her head into her left hand and sobbed after being found guilty Wednesday of murdering her foster son, Marcus Fiesel.
She could be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 15 years on the murder charge.
Judge Robert P. Ringland is scheduled to sentence her at 11 a.m. today.
The jury of nine women and three men reached the verdict after deliberating about 5? hours.
Carroll was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, kidnapping, felonious assault and three charges of endangering a child.
Only three jurors watched Carroll as the verdict was read, trying to gauge her reaction.
After the verdict, Ringland gave jurors the chance to use the courtroom to talk to media, but they declined.
"We sort of wanted to forget about what we had to do," said juror Lee Carty, 72. "We made our decision and we're sticking to it."
But back at home, juror Denise Paschall, a lifelong Clermont County resident, offered some insight into the jury's deliberations, saying Carroll's own words weighed heaviest.
"It was really because of her grand jury testimony," she said. "Her remark about the dog at the end didn't help, either."
Paschall also said the prosecution's star witness wasn't convincing.
"The jury really didn't believe Amy Baker," she said.
Paschall said she was surprised at how little time it took the panel to reach a verdict. "I thought it would take longer. Once we started breaking down all the charges, it went very quickly."
After Carroll was led from the courtroom to the Clermont County Jail about 6 p.m., her mother, Audrey Sims, became hysterical, moaning uncontrollably.
Sheriff's deputies cleared the courtroom so she could recover.
"It's a horrible case any way you look at it," said Gregory Cohen, the defense attorney for Liz Carroll. "It's tough for jurors to put aside how bad this case is. They worked hard; they should be proud of themselves to spend five long, hard hours discussing. It's up to the court of appeals to say whether they were right or wrong."
Cohen said he expected an appeal but wouldn't handle it for Carroll.
Clermont County Assistant Prosecutor Daniel "Woody" Breyer said he wouldn't comment on the guilty verdict until after Carroll is sentenced.
Carroll spoke just four words Wednesday during the trial and they came just as closing arguments ended.
Carroll's words came after a fiery closing argument by Breyer, who told jurors Carroll treated the developmentally delayed boy worse than a dog.
At one point, he showed jurors a color photo of the boy.
"That was Marcus Fiesel," Breyer said.
"What's left of Marcus Fiesel would fit in this cup," Breyer said, holding up a small Styrofoam one - a reference to evidence that only a few bone fragments were retrieved after the boy's body was burned in Brown County to hide his death.
"And who did it? She did," Breyer said, pointing to Carroll.
The sobs of the 30-year-old woman could be heard throughout the courtroom as Breyer described her as a woman who abandoned her duties as a mother.
"They say you wouldn't treat a dog like that," Breyer said. "And you know what? She wouldn't! She took the dog with her. She took the dog with her."
Immediately after Breyer ended his argument with those words, Carroll, who was seated at the defense table, said: "The dog was alive!"
The implication was that 3-year-old Marcus was dead before Carroll went to a family reunion in Grant County, Ky., the weekend of Aug. 4.
The family dog was taken on the trip by Liz and David Carroll Jr. and the couple's live-in girlfriend, Amy Baker.
Cohen, who was seated to the right of Carroll, elbowed her and grabbed one of her arms to keep her from saying more.
It was unclear whether the entire jury heard what Carroll said, but an Enquirer reporter seated close to the jurors did.
The judge didn't address her outburst, nor did Breyer.
And the prosecutor had to avoid engaging Carroll in a conversation because that might have been grounds for her to appeal.
Because Carroll, who blames Baker for the boy's death, declined to take the witness stand before the defense rested Tuesday, she had spoken little during the trial - aside from whispering to her attorney.
During his closing argument, Cohen attacked the credibility of Baker, who was the key witness for the prosecution.
"You can't believe Amy Baker," Cohen said. "There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt Liz killed or hurt Marcus. The only evidence of that is Amy Baker."
Cohen made a reference to press reports that the public had been surprised the defense attorney hadn't cross-examined Baker harshly when she was on the witness stand.
"Everybody expects me to pound on Amy Baker," Cohen said to the jury. "Why do I have to pound on Amy Baker? She lies.
" 'I don't remember'?
"She lies.
" 'I don't know'?
"She lies.
" 'I forgot.' "
Cohen held up a photo of Marcus.
The boy was "happy and thriving" after Liz Carroll became his foster mom in May, Cohen said. "He was in a good place. So what changed? Amy Baker."
Baker, 25, moved into the home on Valley Wood Drive soon after the foster child's placement with the Carrolls by Lifeway for Youth.
"Liz considered Marcus her child," Cohen said. "Even Amy said Liz was a good mother."
A stronger woman never would have allowed David Carroll, 29, to let Baker live in their Union Township home, Cohen said.
Liz Carroll sobbed and moaned numerous times as Cohen told jurors she had been dominated by her unfaithful husband and Baker.
David Carroll, whose murder trial is to begin March 19, told The Enquirer that Baker bound Marcus in a blanket with tape to keep the boy out of the way while they had sex when Liz Carroll wasn't home.
Baker testified during the trial that she didn't see who bound Marcus in the blanket, but that Liz Carroll had told her David Carroll did it while Liz held the boy.
It was nearly 90 degrees outside the weekend the boy was left bound in the closet, prosecutors said.
Marcus was dead when they returned home Aug. 6, Baker testified, after David Carroll decided they should rush back from the family reunion in Kentucky because he had a bad feeling about leaving him so long.
Baker testified that Liz Carroll faked collapsing in an Anderson Township park Aug. 15 so she could say Marcus had wandered off.
Mark Piepmeier, a Hamilton County assistant prosecutor who is helping Breyer try the case in Clermont County, made the first closing argument to the jury.
"One thing that came out in this case was how Marcus loved to hug," Piepmeier said.
Marcus probably drew his last breath Aug. 5, the day after Liz Carroll left for the family reunion, he said.
"If there's any time a child needs his mom to hug him, it's then," Piepmeier said.
"And all he had hugging him at that point was the little ... blanket that they left him in."
Staff writers Lori Kurtzman and Margaret McGurk contributed to this report.
Liz's response to the prosecutor regarding his closing statements that they took the dog to Kentucky, but left Marcus...
THE DOG WAS ALIVE!
Inferring that Marcus was already dead before they left.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 22, 2007 08:32 AM: Message edited by: craig in northside ]</font>
I am of the opinion, and it's not like I hold the rank of Brigadier Attorney General or anything like that, that, while you don't legally have to take the stand, in reality you almost have to. The jury has heard nothing but you did it, you did this, you did that. They need to hear you get on the stand, look them in the eye, and tell them that you didn't do it.
The only time you don't take the stand is when the prosecution has put on a weak case, or one that has fallen apart (O.J., for example). I suppose Cohen may have thought that, by Amy Baker admitting she was a liar, that was enough. And maybe he was right; if that quote is accurate, the jury didn't believe Amy Baker. Well hello, if you don't believe the star witness, why are you convicting? I don't think that quote is enough to provide a successful appeal but it will be interesting to see if her appellate lawyers can follow-up with that. You don't know how frustrating it is to hear a juror tell you they ruled one way despite believing another.
I kid you not, one time I was involved in a trial over a life insurance policy where the insured had committed suicide two days before the policy could have been redeemed (life insurance policies often exclude suicide within the first two years). The "grieving widow" had remarred two weeks (you read right) after her husband killed himself. The jury popped us anyway. And afterwards, we were talking to some of them, and I kid you not, they said they felt sorry for the widow because she had such a crappy attorney. It was at that point I contemplated running my head into a marble column, hoping perhaps that I would hit hard enough to knock myself out for the next 5 years.
But back to Amy and Liz.....give Amy Baker credit. You think O.J. got over, but remember no one ever went to jail for Ron & Nicole's murder. Amy Baker got over, and Liz is going to go to jail.
Now let me add this- my guess is, the prosecution felt that if it's a three-way battle, there is a risk of everyone getting over. But, if they give Amy immunity, then there's a better shot of at least one if not two people being convicted. Now, you're not supposed to give immunity to someone if you think they committed murder, but still....I was under the impression that Amy was their star witness, that they had to have her testimony. Well, if the jury didn't believe her, then again, where does the conviction come from? From Liz not testifying? Like I said, legally that's a no-no, but in reality, it happens all the time.
Oh great leagl mind, or Lew -- whoever answers first. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Could it not be that her attorney was simply inexperienced and overwhelmed, and is waiting for the court of appeals to take the trial apart?
I'm really interested in what you have to say.
If I were Liz, I wouldn't be getting my hopes up. You have to remember that most cases (depending on where you are, between 80 and 90 percent) are upheld on appeal.
The best analogy that was explained to me was to think of it as appealing a baseball game. If the umpire called a strike, and it was clearly a ball, too bad. If he called the runner safe, and he was really out, again, too bad. But if it could be shown that the other team used an illegal player...that might be different.
Reversal requires something extraordinary. You may be able to show that the judge should have allowed in evidence he excluded. But the appellate court may still find that, even if that evidence had been admitted, the jury would still have found the way they did.
In a case I lost one time, I got the victim to admit she was drunk while on 4 prescription meds. Well, then she wanted to testify that, the reason she took those meds was because she was depressed over the suicide of her late husband. Well of course I didn't want that in (the late husband had nothing to do with the case). And I argued it was prejudicial and the jury should never have heard that, because it made them more sympathetic to the victim. Well, the Court of Appeals agreed with me, that it shouldn't have gotten into evidence, but went on to find that it didn't matter anyway.
So it takes a lot to overturn a case on appeal, it's not as easy as you might think.
Now,one thing that they probably handled well was her shouting out about the dog being alive. A younger, hotshot prosecutor might have jumped all over that and argued she was waiving her right to testify and that she opened the door to cross-examination. And maybe she did, but they did the smart thing in letting it go. If I were Cohen I'd have crapped myself when she did that. My former boss would have punched her in the mouth.
And let me follow-up my earlier post, as I've been reading a lot of criticism of Liz not testifying. Let's not kid ourselves, hindsight is 20/20. She was found guilty, so of course the natural reaction is question whether she should have testified.
But let's assume she did testify, and that she was still found guilty (which is likely). What is everyone saying then? The prosecution had a weak case, Amy Baker lied, Liz would have been acquitted until she got up and opened her mouth, etc.
So I mean, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Contrary to what the public thinks, lawyers are not alchemists. Yes some are better than others at expressing ideas, raising doubts, presenting evidence, and so on. But at the end of the day, you really can't change the facts.
And you really can't change the most important thing of all- the jury's likes and dislikes. I don't care what anyone says, that's the most important thing of all. If they like you, they'll be more forgiving. If they don't like you, you're in trouble.
People whined about the O.J. verdict. Bottom line is, the jury didn't like the State's witnesses. They didn't like the lying and the inconsistencies. When Chris Darden gave him that glove to try on, he (Darden) should have been head-slapped. Now had the Juice taken the stand, they probably would have turned on him but he didn't and that was that.
In Marcus' case, you had a horrible killing involving a little boy. It's hard to come up with a worse fact-pattern. And on top of it, you've got liars left and right. And they were all living together. So even if the jury doesn't like Amy Baker (which apparently they didn't), they also don't like David and Liz.
Obviously I am privy to no more info than anyone else, but if I were David's attorney, I'd try to work some kind of plea. I'm no saying his defense is identical to Liz, but it took that jury almost no time at all to reach their verdict (5 hours is a long time in some cases but this was a murder case, one would expect a longer deliberation although granted there wasn't that much evidence to sift through)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The jurors also said that the reason they convicted was Liz Carroll's Grand Jury testimony. That is why she was convicted even though the jury didn't believe the state's star witness.Quote:
Originally posted by Lew:
I am of the opinion, and it's not like I hold the rank of Brigadier Attorney General or anything like that, that, while you don't legally have to take the stand, in reality you almost have to. The jury has heard nothing but you did it, you did this, you did that. They need to hear you get on the stand, look them in the eye, and tell them that you didn't do it.
The only time you don't take the stand is when the prosecution has put on a weak case, or one that has fallen apart (O.J., for example). I suppose Cohen may have thought that, by Amy Baker admitting she was a liar, that was enough. And maybe he was right; if that quote is accurate, the jury didn't believe Amy Baker. Well hello, if you don't believe the star witness, why are you convicting? I don't think that quote is enough to provide a successful appeal but it will be interesting to see if her appellate lawyers can follow-up with that. You don't know how frustrating it is to hear a juror tell you they ruled one way despite believing another.
I kid you not, one time I was involved in a trial over a life insurance policy where the insured had committed suicide two days before the policy could have been redeemed (life insurance policies often exclude suicide within the first two years). The "grieving widow" had remarred two weeks (you read right) after her husband killed himself. The jury popped us anyway. And afterwards, we were talking to some of them, and I kid you not, they said they felt sorry for the widow because she had such a crappy attorney. It was at that point I contemplated running my head into a marble column, hoping perhaps that I would hit hard enough to knock myself out for the next 5 years.
But back to Amy and Liz.....give Amy Baker credit. You think O.J. got over, but remember no one ever went to jail for Ron & Nicole's murder. Amy Baker got over, and Liz is going to go to jail.
Now let me add this- my guess is, the prosecution felt that if it's a three-way battle, there is a risk of everyone getting over. But, if they give Amy immunity, then there's a better shot of at least one if not two people being convicted. Now, you're not supposed to give immunity to someone if you think they committed murder, but still....I was under the impression that Amy was their star witness, that they had to have her testimony. Well, if the jury didn't believe her, then again, where does the conviction come from? From Liz not testifying? Like I said, legally that's a no-no, but in reality, it happens all the time.
GS-
which would be another reason you would have wanted to call her to the stand. Jurors can sometimes accept lying if you come out and tell them why you lied (and assuming they are believe you are finally telling the truth). Again, in this case, I think she was dead to begin with. You come onto the news and you get the community to start looking for this missing boy who is in fact already dead...like I said, Cohen isn't an alchemist, he had a poor hand to deal with. Liz's mom wants to blame him, and I've been there, they always blame the lawyer because they simply cannot accept the fact that their child did something horrible.
Liz Carroll was going to be convicted regardless of her guilt or innocence (she's not innocent mind you but I digress...)or regardless of the evidence.
I find it hard to believe that Liz Carroll could have EVER gotten a fair trial. This "trial" was a complete and total farce. A sham if you will. The verdict was going to be guilty before the first jury challenge.
There is NO WAY....NO WAY....that a child killer...especially one that killed a child so brutally, would be found not guilty....EVEN IF AMY BAKER CAME FORWARD AND SAID "I DID IT WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF LIZ CARROLL, LIZ IS IS NO WAY RESPONSIBLE AND I TAKE FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MARCUS FISELS DEATH"
Just as Hussein was going to be found guilty (the trial was a formality) so was Liz.
American justice at its finest.
Looks like your boy is considering taking the plea deal. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched, there's nothing to say he can't change his mind (plus remember, a plea deal has to be approved by the judge; if he's not happy with it, he can deny it and the trial proceeds).
And if I can take a 30-second digression- plea agreements are supposed to be confidential, at least during the negotiating phase. The fact that all of this is in the news is ridiculous. Not to go against the grain, of course, but part of me wished his lawyer could do something with this. No, not because I feel pity for the bastard, but because I have issues with the way the media covers legal matters. That is, until I saw her on the TV talking about the terms of the plea deal. I have enormous issues with all of that, but so be it.
Back to Big Dave.....there are advantages in letting a co-defendant go first and you can see why. If he was going to try the case, they get a second shot at Amy Baker (plus remember Amy has to be consistent with what she testifies to in both trials). If he goes forward with the settlement, he knows what he needs to do- get up there and show contrition.
But this idea that he's going to be out in 16 years....I wouldn't count on it. He needs to go into this realize he may spend the rest of his life in prison (and certainly most of it). But he has a chance to argue his case, something Liz won't have.
And again props to Amy Baker for committing a crime, getting over, and then watching two others spend the rest of their lives in prison.
He took the deal and admitted guilt.
Last Updated: 8:51 am | Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Carroll pleads guilty
Foster father may still spend life in jail after plea deal
BATAVIA - David Carroll Jr. pleaded guilty to murder and gross abuse of a corpse in Clermont County Common Pleas Court. Judge Jerry R. McBride is expected to sentence Carroll to prison. Afterward, Carroll will be sent to the Correctional Reception Center in Orient, south of Columbus, for evaluation. Based on that, he would be transferred to a state prison deemed the best fit for him.
Carroll might spend the rest of his life in prison now that he has accepted a plea deal in the death of his foster son, Marcus Fiesel.
Carroll also pleaded guilty to gross abuse of a corpse ? for burning the body of the 3-year-old boy in Brown County in an effort to cover up his death in August.
?He?s relieved,? Adams said Monday of Carroll. ?It was very, very difficult to go through the process of making the decision.?
One reason he decided to make a deal with prosecutors was the long prison term imposed on his wife, Liz Carroll, who last week was found guilty by a jury of murder and six other charges in connection with Marcus? death.
Adams and David Carroll spent hours over the weekend talking about what his chances might be if his case went to trial, she said. The decision took awhile because she wanted him to make up his own mind on the deal, she said.
Carroll didn?t want his 8-year-old biological son to have to testify in the murder trial, which was scheduled to begin March 19, Adams said. ?That?s Dave?s main reason,? she said. ?He said, ?If I put my son through that, it?s like making him a victim ? and I can?t do that.? ?
If called to the witness stand, prosecutors said, the boy would have testified that his dad repeatedly taped the Marcus? hands behind his back ? and also subjected his other four children to domestic violence.
?It?s a good outcome because it?s a sure thing,? Clermont County Prosecutor Don White said of the plea deal. ?Any time you go to trial, you never know what?s going to happen.?
Carroll would have to serve at least 16 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole on a life sentence for murder and on a consecutive one-year sentence for abusing a corpse, White said.
?I don?t believe he?ll get it,? White said of parole. ?I don?t know what he thinks.?
Liz Carroll, 30, won?t be eligible for parole for 54 years under the sentence imposed last week by Judge Robert P. Ringland.
She faced the same charges as her husband, except for gross abuse of a corpse.
?He deserves to spend as much time as she does (in prison) ? though from the very beginning it?s always been my belief she was the ringleader,? White said of the Carrolls.
The Carrolls didn?t intend for Marcus to die, prosecutors have said, because the couple was paid about $1,000 a month to care for him.
Adams told White on Monday that Carroll would admit to the murder of Marcus and the burning of the body if all the other charges against the Union Township man were dropped in Clermont and Hamilton counties.
The other Clermont County charges are involuntary manslaughter, felonious assault, kidnapping and three counts of endangering a child.
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters agreed Monday to drop charges of making false alarms and inducing panic, White said.
After meeting in the judge?s chambers with McBride, White and Assistant Prosecutor Daniel ?Woody? Breyer, Adams spoke to Carroll?s mother, Debbie Hounshell, on the sidewalk outside the Courthouse.
?He feels like he?s betraying Liz,? Hounshell said of her son taking the plea deal.
He spoke to her from the Clermont County Jail, where he is being held in lieu of $10.1 million bail.
David Carroll had turned down a similar deal soon after being charged in September.
?I?m sure Liz?s sentencing had something to do with (taking the deal now), how much is hard to determine because the trials would have been very different,? Adams said.
?Liz?s grand jury (testimony in Hamilton County) is what the jurors say sunk her,? Adams said. ?He didn?t make any statement to the grand jury, so it would have been a very different trial.?
During her Aug. 28 grand jury testimony, Liz Carroll admitted Marcus was dead and his body had been burned by her husband.
The two were arrested after they claimed Marcus wandered off in an Anderson Township Park on Aug. 15 after Liz Carroll collapsed, a hoax that prompted about 2,000 people to search for the boy.
Prosecutors have said Marcus died after being bound in a blanket with tape and left in a closet of the couple?s Union Township home while they attended a family reunion in Grant County, Ky., the weekend of Aug. 4.
The primary witness in the trial against Liz Carroll was Amy Baker, 25, the former live-in girlfriend of the couple. She said Liz Carroll didn?t want relatives to see bruising on the neck of Marcus that resulted from David Carroll leaving the child in a car seat overnight.
The Carrolls had said in jailhouse interviews with The Enquirer that Baker killed Marcus before they left for the family reunion.
Baker bound Marcus to keep the developmentally delayed boy out of the way while she had sex with David Carroll, the foster dad claimed.
One factor that might be in Carroll?s favor when he becomes eligible for parole is that he apparently was the only one who had second thoughts about leaving Marcus bound in the closet.
Baker testified in Liz Carroll?s murder trial that David Carroll made them rush back from Kentucky early Aug. 6 because he had a bad feeling about Marcus.
But the boy was dead by the time they got home, Baker said.
Go read Cohen's op-ed piece in the Enquirer. I'd try to link it here, but then I'd get some nasty response from Gae about my UBB problems. And you know, I may have UBB problems, but they're personal and Gae has no right to come on this board and post about them (I mean, thanks Gae for making my medical records public; why don't you just come out and tell everyone about my zipper accident?)
I told you all that those jurors were going to cause problems. I'm not saying he's going to prevail on his motion, but I believe the juror's comments (if true; you can't believe it just because a media outlet reports it) certainly do make for some issues to be scrutinized. Especially about the comment where she knew in her heart, before-hand, that Liz was guilty.
Jumper hit it right on the head- this trial was over before it ever began. And I'm not saying Liz is not guilty, I'm saying there are rules to be followed, and if they're not followed, there must be some type of remedy.
And Cohen is absolutely right about not pounding on Amy Baker. Again, the media and Hollywood make it sound like all a defense counsel does is get up and scream "Now isn't it true" and that there's always going to be this Matlock moment when the witness breaks down and admits their lies only after brutal cross-examination. When the fact is, Amy did admit she was a liar from the get-go, how exactly are you going to get a "GOTCHA!" out of that?
Jurors do not like lawyers, and they empathize with witnesses. A good lawyer can elicit the points he/she needs to get out of witness without a dog and pony show.