And did the kids testify about any abuse suffered by their mother?

 

That would a no.

For those of you that have been following the trial what evidence did the defense offer up to prove that the abuse was a continuing course of conduct? Were there prior police reports? Prior medical reports of injury? Prior court action? Prior EPO/DVO orders? Or is it he said, she said or in this case only she said?

From what's being reported in the media, the defense has really offered no other evidence than Cheryl's own words and hearsay. They did have the ER nurse that said she saw some evidence of minor facial injuries, but nothing concrete. As far as I know, the kids said nothing about abuse. I think we're all just like shaking our heads at the lack of evidence presented. I personally think she's guilty, but still surprised the defense hasn't offered up a stronger argument.

I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought the battered wife defense was conciderered to be a mental state of trapped and can't get out so the last resort is to kill the captor. Almost like a P.O.W. trying to escape and would do anything to get out.

 

Where self defense is more of an immediate physical danger, if I don't do something I'm going to die.

 

So history would not necessarily matter in a self defense case, just that she thought she was going to die. That is the way I've always persieved it, but like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

 

A woman is beaten senseless with regularity for 10 years. Suffering from the battered spouse condition, she does not see any way out of her predicament, and in many cases feels it is her fault. One day, she breaks a picture frame, and knows that her husband will beat her for it. She knows its coming, based upon the history. So while he is sleeping, she puts a .32 pistol to his temple and pulls the trigger.

 

The defense is that she is defending herself against an imminent physical threat. The threat is deemed imminent because of the history. The objective mental state is proven by the battered spouse condition.

What is she being charged with? Murder 1?

 

If so and there being no question that she shot her husband, who has the burden of proof? If its the prosecution, do they have to prove that it WASNT self-defense? If so, have they?

 

Assuming that there was no abuse (and I am not taking any position because I have no idea) how is the prosecution supposed to disprove a negative?

 

My thinking is if the defense is using this as a defense then they should have to offer up proof that it is a valid defense. If not, I think it is very difficult for the jury to take her word for it.

A woman is beaten senseless with regularity for 10 years. Suffering from the battered spouse condition, she does not see any way out of her predicament, and in many cases feels it is her fault. One day, she breaks a picture frame, and knows that her husband will beat her for it. She knows its coming, based upon the history. So while he is sleeping, she puts a .32 pistol to his temple and pulls the trigger.

 

The defense is that she is defending herself against an imminent physical threat. The threat is deemed imminent because of the history. The objective mental state is proven by the battered spouse condition.

 

If this were to occur, there should be plenty of ways to corroborate her claims of being a battered spouse. Not that I've really followed this trial, but apparently the defense offered no such evidence, which I find rather odd.

If this were to occur, there should be plenty of ways to corroborate her claims of being a battered spouse. Not that I've really followed this trial, but apparently the defense offered no such evidence, which I find rather odd.

You're right. Perhaps there's a reason for that. And perhaps that's why we didn't hear any questioning of the kids on that point.

A woman is beaten senseless with regularity for 10 years. Suffering from the battered spouse condition, she does not see any way out of her predicament, and in many cases feels it is her fault. One day, she breaks a picture frame, and knows that her husband will beat her for it. She knows its coming, based upon the history. So while he is sleeping, she puts a .32 pistol to his temple and pulls the trigger.

 

The defense is that she is defending herself against an imminent physical threat. The threat is deemed imminent because of the history. The objective mental state is proven by the battered spouse condition.

 

:thumb: Thanks

Assuming that there was no abuse (and I am not taking any position because I have no idea) how is the prosecution supposed to disprove a negative?

 

My thinking is if the defense is using this as a defense then they should have to offer up proof that it is a valid defense. If not, I think it is very difficult for the jury to take her word for it.

 

In Kentucky, the burden of persuasion is initially upon the defense to offer sufficient facts to warrant a self-defense instruction, and then the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution to prove that she did not act with the justification of self-defense.

If this were to occur, there should be plenty of ways to corroborate her claims of being a battered spouse. Not that I've really followed this trial, but apparently the defense offered no such evidence, which I find rather odd.

 

That could be, I have not really followed the trial, either. If there is no concrete history of abuse, then the battered spouse condition is a stretcher and I would not offer it up. I was merely ilustrating some answers from up above.

That could be, I have not really followed the trial, either. If there is no concrete history of abuse, then the battered spouse condition is a stretcher and I would not offer it up. I was merely ilustrating some answers from up above.

 

The evidence offered, according to what I read in the Enquirer, really seemed to be meant to build all around the events of the evening of 6/26/07. The only real mention of domestic issues was that the police were called by a neighbor either that night or the night before to respond to a domestic disturbance at their house. She was on the street w/ their son, and no report was filed.

 

For all the criminal lawyers, if there are any out there, is it better to emphasize just the events of that night, like the testimony that he put a gun to her head and shot at her to prove self-defense, or would it have been better to show a long history of abuse to show that this was a pattern of behavior and that she was in imminent fear for her life, or those of her children? Her testimony stated that on the evening of homicide, he fell asleep holding a gun at her side and threatening to kill their children in retaliation for telling them that they were getting a divorce.

Investigators found a jacket that had evidence that showed that it had been wrapped around the murder weapon -- ostensibly to muffle the sound. In the pile of clothes (where another bullet had been found) they found a shirt that had also been wrapped around a fired weapon.

 

The defense did not call the children, Cheryl's mother, family members, coworkers, abuse experts or therapists to testify about abuse.

The evidence offered, according to what I read in the Enquirer, really seemed to be meant to build all around the events of the evening of 6/26/07. The only real mention of domestic issues was that the police were called by a neighbor either that night or the night before to respond to a domestic disturbance at their house. She was on the street w/ their son, and no report was filed.

 

For all the criminal lawyers, if there are any out there, is it better to emphasize just the events of that night, like the testimony that he put a gun to her head and shot at her to prove self-defense, or would it have been better to show a long history of abuse to show that this was a pattern of behavior and that she was in imminent fear for her life, or those of her children? Her testimony stated that on the evening of homicide, he fell asleep holding a gun at her side and threatening to kill their children in retaliation for telling them that they were getting a divorce.

 

I'd much rather present that "the gun was pointed at my head" than rely upon "he beat me up for 10 years."

 

Its cynical, but juries have a hard time understanding patterns of abuse and can fully understand the gun at the head.

Investigators found a jacket that had evidence that showed that it had been wrapped around the murder weapon -- ostensibly to muffle the sound. In the pile of clothes (where another bullet had been found) they found a shirt that had also been wrapped around a fired weapon.

 

The defense did not call the children, Cheryl's mother, family members, coworkers, abuse experts or therapists to testify about abuse.

 

Those witnesses may have been excluded by the trial judge, in which case, if convicted this may be back on appeal. Believe it or not it may be a defense strategy.

I'd much rather present that "the gun was pointed at my head" than rely upon "he beat me up for 10 years."

Its cynical, but juries have a hard time understanding patterns of abuse and can fully understand the gun at the head.

 

But then why not just leave the house or call police once he falls asleep? The immediate danger had passed. I think trying to sell that she was of the mindset that murdering him was her only option becomes a much tougher sell this way. I would think that it'd much easier to claim that a "battered and abused wife" loses the capacity for rational thinking and feels under such control of her husband that the only way out is to kill him.

But then why not just leave the house or call police once he falls asleep? The immediate danger had passed. I think trying to sell that she was of the mindset that murdering him was her only option becomes a much tougher sell this way. I would that it'd easier to claim that a "battered and abused wife" loses the capacity for rational thinking and feels under such control of her husband that the only way out is to kill him.

 

I'm not sure a self-defense defense was presented.