11/6 update--Baby Grace Trial [MOM GUILTY/LWOP] [Stepfather GUILTY/LWOP]

[R~O~S]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crim...-death-penalty

In Texas, apparently you don't even have to commit murder to be death penalty eligible.

However, if you commit murder, you need to have one of the nine aggravating circumstances as well. This link doesn't list what they are, however I did read elsewhere (no idea where at this point) that the murder of a child under 6 qualifies.

So, I was trying to help, but I am now more confused than ever about why they felt this one was one they couldn't win.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/19.03.00.html

(1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who
is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the
person knows is a peace officer or fireman;

(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), or (6);

(3) the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;

(4) the person commits the murder while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution;

(5) the person, while incarcerated in a penal institution, murders another:

(A) who is employed in the operation of the penal institution; or

(B) with the intent to establish, maintain, or
participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination;

(6) the person:

(A) while incarcerated for an offense under this
section or Section 19.02, murders another; or

(B) while serving a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of 99 years for an offense under Section 20.04, 22.021, or 29.03, murders another;

(7) the person murders more than one person:

(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but
the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;

(8) the person murders an individual under six years
of age; or

(9) the person murders another person in retaliation
for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a judge or justice of the supreme court, the court of criminal
appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district
court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a
justice court, or a municipal court.

(b) An offense under this section is a capital felony.

(c) If the jury or, when authorized by law, the judge does
not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offense under this section, he may be convicted of murder or of any other lesser included offense.

[R~O~S]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

Gotcha, but what about 2?
2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;

That's exactly what they did.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/19.03.00.html

19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1)
and:

[Amy]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/15899627/detail.html

They said they believe a death sentence would be thrown out on appeal."If emotions and just the brutality of the crime alone were the deciding factor in reaching a decision of whether or not we are seeking the death penalty, we wouldn't be having this conversation today," said Kurk Sistrunk with the Galveston County District Attorney's Office.Sistrunk said he made the decision based on the law -- a 2007 ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.The court overturned a death sentence in a similar case because there was no evidence the child's mother would be a continuing threat to society.Sistrunk said he does not believe it can be proved that Ziegler or Trenor would be, either.

I guess the article I had read earlier (and have been unable to find) only printed the part about them not being a continuing threat. This says more.

Still this reason (given in April) after Trenor's trial, is not exactly the reason given in January during her trial.

Maybe Sistrunk was taken to task by many people for his reason given in January, about a state court appeals ruling where a parent shouldn't get the DP for killing his own child. I just can't figure that statement out. It just does NOT compute!!!!!

[cantstandnuts]

Originally Posted by R~O~S

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/19.03.00.html

I understand that R~O~S and am not trying to be dense, really, but take capitol murder out of it, and again, why doesn't #2 qualify them?

[cantstandnuts]

Originally Posted by Amy

http://www.click2houston.com/news/15899627/detail.html



I guess the article I had read earlier (and have been unable to find) only printed the part about them not being a continuing threat. This says more.

Still this reason (given in April) after Trenor's trial, is not exactly the reason given in January during her trial.

Maybe Sistrunk was taken to task by many people for his reason given in January, about a state court appeals ruling where a parent shouldn't get the DP for killing his own child. I just can't figure that statement out. It just does NOT compute!!!!!

So, it was about continued threat? Why, though? If they met criteria, they met criteria, right? Where does it say anything in the criteria for the death penalty about continued threat?

And I am sorry, but that statement doesn't make sense. Who, but parents CAN protect their own? My Goodness, there is no better reason to use the DP than when a parent kills his/her own!!

Gosh, I feel like an idiot right now, because I don't understand this at all.

[cantstandnuts]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

Gotcha, but what about 2?
2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;

That's exactly what they did.

Again...why doesn't it qualify?

[R~O~S]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

I understand that R~O~S and am not trying to be dense, really, but take capitol murder out of it, and again, why doesn't #2 qualify them?

You can't get to #2, until you pass the test of 19.02 (b)(1). You must be guilty of 19.02 (b)(1) before the 9 special circumstances apply.

The first consideration is 19.02 (b)(1), then and only then can you move on. You can't take that part out.

If it's not capital murder, by way of being guilty of 19.02 (b) (1) AND one of the special circumstances or more, the death penalty does not apply.

It's like trying to win a race, you can't win, you can't be eligible to win, unless you line up at the starting line and start with the signal from the starter gun. You can't jump in at the midway point and claim victory.

[R~O~S]

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/vlibra.../deathpen.html

In Texas, the district courts have original jurisdiction for all criminal felony cases. If an individual is convicted of a capital felony, he or she may be subject to punishment by death, if the State sought such punishment. A capital felony is one in which an individual "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual," under special circumstances. In particular, the:

* murder of a public safety officer or firefighter in the line of duty
* murder during the commission of specified felonies (kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated rape, arson)
* murder for remuneration
* multiple murders
* murder during prison escape
* murder of a correctional officer
* murder of a judge
* murder by a state prison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses; [or]
* murder of an individual under six years of age1.

In Texas, a person must be of at least 18 years of age at the time of the crime to have the death penalty imposed upon him or her.

It must be a capital felony with one of the nine special circumstances to be eligible, you can't the the Capital part out of it.

I honestly don't know how to say it any differently. I can give you the penal code, I've worked with it too long to even attempt interpreting it for anyone.

They write them the way they do for a reason, trying to explain it in different words will only result in folks nit-picking it apart, even though I've already posted the statute word for word.

Florida law & Texas law are two completely different things & Massachusetts law is a third animal all together. You can't compare apples and oranges.

[cantstandnuts]

Originally Posted by R~O~S

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/vlibra.../deathpen.html



It must be a capital felony with one of the nine special circumstances to be eligible, you can't the the Capital part out of it.

I honestly don't know how to say it any differently. I can give you the penal code, I've worked with it too long to even attempt interpreting it for anyone.

They write them the way they do for a reason, trying to explain it in different words will only result in folks nit-picking it apart, even though I've already posted the statute word for word.

Florida law & Texas law are two completely different things & Massachusetts law is a third animal all together. You can't compare apples and oranges.

I'm not trying to be dense, truly. I just don't understand how some crimes are DP eligible even though not death. Like aggravated kidnapping, rape, etc. Am I reading it all wrong?

[cantstandnuts]

Originally Posted by R~O~S

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/vlibra.../deathpen.html



It must be a capital felony with one of the nine special circumstances to be eligible, you can't the the Capital part out of it.

I honestly don't know how to say it any differently. I can give you the penal code, I've worked with it too long to even attempt interpreting it for anyone.

They write them the way they do for a reason, trying to explain it in different words will only result in folks nit-picking it apart, even though I've already posted the statute word for word.

Florida law & Texas law are two completely different things & Massachusetts law is a third animal all together. You can't compare apples and oranges.

Mass doesn't even have the DP, not sure why you included us.

[R~O~S]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

I'm not trying to be dense, truly. I just don't understand how some crimes are DP eligible even though not death. Like aggravated kidnapping, rape, etc. Am I reading it all wrong?

Yes, none of them are DP eligible unless there is a homicide.

They can result in a sentence of life, they can not result in a sentence of death.

The only way to be sentenced to death in Texas is to be guilty of murder & guilty of murder under 19.02 (b)(1) & guilty of one of the nine special circumstances.

You cannot get to penal code 19.03, until you are found guilty of penal code 19.02 (b)(1).

If you kill the guy who tried to stop you from committing felony rape, you can be sentenced to death. If you kill the woman while in the processes of committing felony rape you can be sentenced to death. If you don't kill anybody, but you commit felony rape, you cannot be sentenced to death, you could be sentenced to life.

[R~O~S]

Unrelated case out of Fort Worth, dtd 11/05/09.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1737492.html

The jury was given two charges to consider — capital murder or the lesser charge of felony murder. A conviction of capital murder requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim. A conviction of felony murder would mean that while robbing Wilkerson, Nall committed a dangerous act that led to her death.

(skip)

If convicted of capital murder, Nall, 27, would face death by lethal injection or life without parole. A felony murder conviction carries a maximum penalty of life in prison with the possibility of parole.

You can be convicted of felony murder in Texas & never face the death penalty. It is only a death penalty eligible case if there is "intent" & one of the special circumstances also applies.

You can never be sentenced to death in Texas, if there isn't a murder.

[R~O~S]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

Mass doesn't even have the DP, not sure why you included us.

That's exactly the point. You (more accurately aubrey04) can't compare the Anthony case to this one & you can't compare any case in Massachusetts to one tried in California. The laws are completely different. Texas isn't going to try any case under Florida law, and Florida isn't going to try any case under Texas law.

It's faulty logic from the start. You can't compare apples to oranges.


FWIW: The US Supreme Court recently ruled the LA law that sought to make sexual abuse of a child punishable by death unconstitutional. The Supremes ruled you can't punish a crime with a harsher sentence than the crime itself. You can't sentence anyone to death unless there's been a death.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/wa...scotuscnd.html

The court went beyond the question in the case to rule out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to “offenses against the state,” such as treason or espionage — “where the victim’s life was not taken.”

[Amy]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

So, it was about continued threat? Why, though? If they met criteria, they met criteria, right? Where does it say anything in the criteria for the death penalty about continued threat?

And I am sorry, but that statement doesn't make sense. Who, but parents CAN protect their own? My Goodness, there is no better reason to use the DP than when a parent kills his/her own!!

Gosh, I feel like an idiot right now, because I don't understand this at all.

The continued threat part isn't in the criteria. Some court of appeals overturned a decision in 2007 based on the perp not being a continued threat. I don't know where they got that, but it is what it is, no matter how much sense it doesn't make.

It was in Jan when Sistunk says he based his decision on an appeals court decision (but did not give a year) that DP isn't appropriate for a parent killing his/her own child. Which, IMO, makes less sense that the latter one. It's all confusing, to me.

[cantstandnuts]

Thanks, R~O~S and Amy, for the explanations.

[bhardy1956]

The state will rest its case today?

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?...25af7eb4766d10

I don't understand how come this thread isn't more on the main page?

[aubrey04]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

Gotcha, but what about 2?
2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;

That's exactly what they did.

Exactly.

As Amy stated -- the reason the prosecution gave for not seeking the DP wasn't that it didn't meet any of these qualifiers.. It is because they didn't think they could prove Zeigler & Trenor posed a future threat,. Which I think is absurd.. but that's the excuse they gave.

But yes, #2 should make it qualify, along with the fact that Riley was under 6 years of age.. Like I said in a previous post, I can't imagine the prosecution couldn't find a psychiatrist willing to state that anyone who could inflict such horrific injuries on a child over such a long period of time.. *is* a continued threat..

but maybe they were just scared it would be overturned on appeal.

imo

[aubrey04]

Originally Posted by R~O~S

That's exactly the point. You (more accurately aubrey04) can't compare the Anthony case to this one & you can't compare any case in Massachusetts to one tried in California. The laws are completely different. Texas isn't going to try any case under Florida law, and Florida isn't going to try any case under Texas law.

It's faulty logic from the start. You can't compare apples to oranges.

~snipped~

My point in comparing Casey Anthony was because you brought up felony murder examples.. and IMO, Riley died during the commission of a felony, much like lil Caylee Anthony. Felony Child Abuse. Certainly the hours of torture inflicted on Riley would constitute as felony child abuse. So I stand by my comparison.

Regardless, the DA's office has NEVER stated that the crime didn't meet the standards outlined in the Texas Penal Code.. they have used the excuse that they didn't seek the DP due to the case which got overturned based on the appeal courts opinion that the perp didn't pose a "future threat".

MOO.

Anyway, I have moved on from this debate. I wish he was looking at the DP,but he's not.. so I hope he gets sent to the worst prison in Texas and has a miserable life!

[Amy]

Originally Posted by bhardy1956

The state will rest its case today?

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?...25af7eb4766d10

I don't understand how come this thread isn't more on the main page?

Reading @ the bottom, this article states that Trenor gave birth to a baby after her arrest, and says the baby lives with HER relatives. I'm just sure, in related articles in some of the links, that the baby has been adopted by someone in Zeigler's family. And that his parents (Zeigler) are trying to get visitation. In @ least one of the articles, the other son reports that he does not let his parents see his own kids.

Anyway, maybe the reporter needs to follow the case more closely? Or @ least look into what statements might be made to him/her.

[bhardy1956]

Originally Posted by Amy

Reading @ the bottom, this article states that Trenor gave birth to a baby after her arrest, and says the baby lives with HER relatives. I'm just sure, in related articles in some of the links, that the baby has been adopted by someone in Zeigler's family. And that his parents (Zeigler) are trying to get visitation. In @ least one of the articles, the other son reports that he does not let his parents see his own kids.

Anyway, maybe the reporter needs to follow the case more closely? Or @ least look into what statements might be made to him/her.

I don't know, the baby is the grandson of both Zeigler's parents and Trenor's. I imagine the baby went to Zeigler's side, since he is staying with a family in Texas. So, this reporter needs to get the facts.

I wonder why manslaughter is on the table? Not much news out there regarding this case. Are the jurors still in the jury room?

[wasapi]

I'm sorry if this has already been discussed. This case has been really difficult to read about, and at some point I may have missed some facts.

I'm wondering why these two - soul-less, heartless - creatures, weren't charged additionally with torture. Granted, I don't know Texas law, but it seems to me that it meets the criteria.

This innocent little angel did not have a quick death. She endured an entire day of repeated beatings, being thrown, held under cold water (reminds me of waterboarding), chooked, and beaten more. For hours. No doubt also being denied food or water. That sounds like torture to me.

That he had the audacity to whine about being "naked and cold" makes him even more repulsive and evil. If that's possible.

Another question. Does anyone have a link to the testimony of the nurse who removed the birth control devise from the breeder?

[Lavinya]

Father GUILTY of Capital Murder:

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/ne...convicted.html

[Lavinya]

Originally Posted by Lavinya

Father GUILTY of Capital Murder:

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/ne...convicted.html

Sorry, make that STEPFATHER.

[Amy]

Thanks for the update!!! Good news for Riley!!!!

I am assuming, from what I have read, that he automatically gets the LWOP? I see where this article says Trenor is serving a life sentence. I sure wish they would distinguish whether it is with or without parole when they report sentences. That is LWOP for her, I'm pretty sure.

[cantstandnuts]

Thank you Lavinya, for the link!

I'm not sure, Amy. Is this going to automatically be LWOP?

RIP little girl. Justice has been served for you (assuming LWOP for the stepfather.)

I hope Sheryl Ann, her son and the rest of the family get some comfort from this.

[bhardy1956]

I can't believe this has not been announced on NG at all or in the news!

Yes! I was getting worried, because they had Manslaughter on the table.
I am so sorry little angel for what you had to go through that horrible day, I have peace that your spirit went on before all the abuse. In these cases of child abuse and death, I believe that their little hearts, soul, and spirits leave their body.
I have heard of rape victims say, that while being raped, they were looking at the situation outside of their body. Maybe that is the shock that a physical person goes through to protect oneself.
I was in a very bad car accident and I was in shock and I don't remember a lot of it, it was as if I was in a dream. But, the car was wrapped around a tree, I had 2 broken legs, a broken pelvis, and severe wounds.
Sorry for getting O/T, but my heart has to believe that the same thing happens to these precious innocent lives.

Riley told her mother that she loved her, and I believe that to be true, but she was speaking from her spirit that had departed already. Even when her mother was torturing her, she loved her mother.

RIP little precious Riley, may you be fuzzy warm in heaven.

[cantstandnuts]

http://www.inforum.com/event/apArticle/id/D9BQB7200/

Appears it is automatice life in prison. However, is it LWOP? They never came out and said that in the article, although I think that's what they meant. I just wished they'd said it, I need to hear it said. Wonder when the sentencing is...

As for the belief that she loved her mother when "out of her body," not sure, but either way she loved her mom and said as much while being brutalized and slowly killed. Her "mother" killed her anyway. I just wish MOTHERS would take parenting seriously and not terrorize, brutalize and murder their kids. RIP little Riley. Grandma Sawyers and your Daddy loved you and would have saved you if they could have. Your life has not and never will be for nothing. Play with the angels now, little one, it's over.

[bhardy1956]

Originally Posted by cantstandnuts

http://www.inforum.com/event/apArticle/id/D9BQB7200/

Appears it is automatice life in prison. However, is it LWOP? They never came out and said that in the article, although I think that's what they meant. I just wished they'd said it, I need to hear it said. Wonder when the sentencing is...

As for the belief that she loved her mother when "out of her body," not sure, but either way she loved her mom and said as much while being brutalized and slowly killed. Her "mother" killed her anyway. I just wish MOTHERS would take parenting seriously and not terrorize, brutalize and murder their kids. RIP little Riley. Grandma Sawyers and your Daddy loved you and would have saved you if they could have. Your life has not and never will be for nothing. Play with the angels now, little one, it's over.

Your post made me cry....I just feel that I don't think I could live knowing that these little ones could suffer as much as they do at the hands of the ones that should be loving and protecting them.

Why was Kimberly able to leave the state without approval from dad? When I got divorced, I had to get approval from my ex-husband if I wanted to leave the state. Is it different with each state? I wish grandma Sawyer and little Riley's dad could have saved her from this. FGS, it was only 2 months later that Riley was dead after their move to Texas!

[SoggyBayou]

Yes, it is LWOP for ziggyII.
"GALVESTON — A Galveston County jury deliberated for more than fours hours today before finding Royce Clyde Zeigler II guilty of capital murder in the death 2-year-old Riley Ann Sawyers, who became known as Baby Grace."

"The jury had the option of convicting Zeigler of the lesser crime of manslaughter, which has a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment. If he is convicted of capital murder, he will automatically be sentenced to life in prison without parole because the prosecution is not seeking the death penalty."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6707102.html

FINAL JUSTICE FOR RILEY ANN SAWYERS

[SoggyBayou]

Tears in my eyes.........

[Amy]

Originally Posted by bhardy1956

Your post made me cry....I just feel that I don't think I could live knowing that these little ones could suffer as much as they do at the hands of the ones that should be loving and protecting them.

Why was Kimberly able to leave the state without approval from dad? When I got divorced, I had to get approval from my ex-husband if I wanted to leave the state. Is it different with each state? I wish grandma Sawyer and little Riley's dad could have saved her from this. FGS, it was only 2 months later that Riley was dead after their move to Texas!

IIRC, they did know she was taking Riley to TX. Wasn't there some sort of custody they (the Sawyers) were going after? It seems there had been some communication between TX and OH.

[aubrey04]

Originally Posted by Amy

Thanks for the update!!! Good news for Riley!!!!

I am assuming, from what I have read, that he automatically gets the LWOP? I see where this article says Trenor is serving a life sentence. I sure wish they would distinguish whether it is with or without parole when they report sentences. That is LWOP for her, I'm pretty sure.

I read LWOP. Thankfully we have LWOP in Texas now.. We didn't have it until a few years ago..

Here is where I read LWOP:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/.../6707102.html#

[cantstandnuts]

Originally Posted by aubrey04

I read LWOP. Thankfully we have LWOP in Texas now.. We didn't have it until a few years ago..

Here is where I read LWOP:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/.../6707102.html#

Ah, there it is in black and white. Thanks for the link.

[cantstandnuts]

Originally Posted by Amy

IIRC, they did know she was taking Riley to TX. Wasn't there some sort of custody they (the Sawyers) were going after? It seems there had been some communication between TX and OH.

They did know. IIRC, Sheryl was going through the courts to get some sort of visitation, custody, something, can't recall the details. I wonder if there is anything out there still about this. I'll have a looksee...

[cuddlyrunner]

Thank goodness for a good verdict. I'm so glad. I hope the new baby is protected from ever finding out where he'she came from x