8.Post-Verdict Motion for New Trial
12 linesTHE COURT: Mr. Young, do you want to make your motions now and wait on the publication of the sentence or do you want to wait until after?
BOYD YOUNG: I'm happy to make them now.
THE COURT: Okay.
BOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, we'd move to set aside the verdict, not an exclusive list, but including based on the fact that we believe that the jury was overcome by passion off the record by the use of the autopsy photographs in the jury room as evidenced by the penalty phase verdict in less than two hours after five weeks of testimony. We would also move to set aside the verdict based on the unconstitutional limitations of mitigation evidence, including but not exclusively excluding the testimony of remorse from Mr. Sowards regarding whether or not he could see tears on Mr. Jones; excluding the testimony of Dr. Flores; allowing the State to use Dr. Frierson and Dr. Kruse outside of the determination of criminal responsibility; not granting the motion of a new trial based on the errors revealed in Dr. Kruse's testing; not allowing witnesses to fully testify about their life history. We would renew all previous motions and objections.
THE COURT: You want me to rule on those individually or can I do them as a group? And you know as well as I do, setting aside a jury verdict is almost -- a unanimous verdict in any phase, Courts are very reluctant to set aside any verdict unanimously reached by a jury. I understand all your grounds, but I respectfully deny your motion for a new trial. I'll rule on them individually if you'd like.
BOYD YOUNG: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
BOYD YOUNG: I apologize, Your Honor. I would request individual rulings on our grounds.
THE COURT: All right. Will you hand them up to me?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Regarding the Defense motion for a new trial, the introduction of autopsy photographs to the jury, the Court respectfully denies that motion for a new trial. Regarding the unconstitutional limitations placed on mitigation evidence, respectfully, the Court would deny that motion for a new trial. Regarding the exclusion of certain testimony of remorse and tears from Deputy Sowards, the Court likewise, denies that motion for a new trial. Regarding exclusion of testimony of Dr. Flores, which would be encounter to Dr. Kruse's testimony, the Court would respectfully deny that motion for a new trial. Regarding the State's use of Dr. Frierson and Dr. Kruse's reports in the determination of criminal responsibility and in the sentencing phase, the Court would respectfully deny that motion for a new trial. And regarding the alleged errors in Dr. Kruse's testimony, the Court would respectfully deny a motion for a new trial to that end. Regarding not allowing witnesses testify to a full mitigation evidence of a life history of the family, the Court will respectfully deny that motion on that basis. All other previous motions are also consistently ruled again as denied. Are y'all ready for the sentence?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.