Skip to content
Timothy Jones Jr.- Case Archive
2019 Murder Trialtrial-daytrial-dayDay 26 - June 5, 2019Penalty-phase hearings resulted in rulings on photographs and opening argument, while the court deferred a mental-health evidence ruling.
← Day 252019 Murder TrialDay 27 →

Day 26 - June 5, 2019

Penalty-Phase Evidence and Opening Argument Rulings

Judge Eugene C. Griffith, Jr.
6Proceedings
6Pages
0Witnesses
249Lines
Day 26 of 32

Penalty-phase hearings resulted in rulings on photographs and opening argument, while the court deferred a mental-health evidence ruling.

Full day summary

Penalty-phase hearings addressed participation by counsel for Timothy Jones, Sr. as a victim, the possible use of prior mental-health material, and the scope of visual evidence. The court deferred a ruling on the mental-health material until hearing anticipated defense testimony, admitted the logging-road video and selected scene and autopsy photographs with limits on the autopsy presentation, and reserved possible neck-injury images for later consideration. The court also barred a proposed defense opening argument about the effect of a single juror choosing life and discussed retaining two alternates while releasing four others.

1. Victim Representation Motion Hearing

Counsel for victim Timothy Jones, Sr. sought a role in examining him and addressing sentencing; the State opposed it, and the court took the request under review.

→
Procedural
Victim Representation Motion Hearing
29 lines

Victim's counsel sought a role in sentencing advocacy; the State objected and the court took the request under review.

Highlights

Victim Representation Motion HearingrulingThe court said it would read Dickerson closely and later notify the parties, noting that the motion had arrived the previous night.

2. Hearing on Prior Mental-Health Evidence

Defense counsel sought to exclude prior court-ordered mental-health evidence from the penalty phase. The court deferred a ruling until hearing any testimony from Dr. Maddox.

→
Procedural
Hearing on Prior Mental-Health Evidence
58 lines

The court deferred a ruling on whether prior mental-health evidence could be used in the penalty phase until it heard any testimony from Dr. Maddox.

Highlights

Hearing on Prior Mental-Health EvidencerulingThe court treated the defense request as a motion in limine and deferred a final ruling on the use of Dr. Kruse's material until it heard any testimony from Dr. Maddox.

3. Penalty-Phase Photograph Admissibility Hearing

Defense counsel sought to exclude post-mortem photographs from the penalty phase; no final ruling appears in this exchange.

→
Procedural
Penalty-Phase Photograph Admissibility Hearing
23 lines

Defense sought to exclude post-mortem photographs from the penalty phase; the State outlined a limited proposed presentation, and the court requested discussion of the specific images without issuing a final ruling.

4. Alternate Juror Conduct Inquiry

The court addressed a report concerning alternate juror Donna Lee and discussed retaining two alternates while releasing four others.

→
Procedural
Alternate Juror Conduct Inquiry
32 lines

The court discussed concerns about an alternate juror and a proposal to retain two alternates while releasing four others.

5. Penalty-Phase Photograph Admissibility Hearing

Before the jury entered, the court ruled on penalty-phase video and photograph evidence, admitting selected scene and autopsy images with limits on their presentation.

→
Procedural
Penalty-Phase Photograph Admissibility Hearing
97 lines

The court admitted the logging-road video and selected penalty-phase photographs over defense objections, including color versions of autopsy images.

Highlights

Penalty-Phase Photograph Admissibility HearingrulingOver the defense objection, the court allowed the scene photographs and video, finding them admissible under Rules 401, 402, and 403.Penalty-Phase Photograph Admissibility HearingrulingThe court ruled that the proposed autopsy photographs were admissible, generally limiting the presentation to two photographs per child and reserving any neck-injury photographs for possible later consideration after Dr. Ross's testimony or a proffer.

6. Ruling on Proposed Penalty-Phase Opening Argument

The court limited the defense's proposed penalty-phase opening argument and recessed until the next morning.

→
Procedural
Ruling on Proposed Penalty-Phase Opening Argument
10 lines

The court barred a proposed defense opening argument about one juror choosing a life sentence and said it would use its jury-qualification instruction instead.

Highlights

Ruling on Proposed Penalty-Phase Opening ArgumentrulingThe court barred the defense from arguing in opening that one juror choosing life would end the case, and said it would instead use the jury-qualification instruction that jurors could not be coerced to abandon a moral position.
← Day 252019 Murder TrialDay 27 →