Berhmans' comments don't cause mistrial

Berhmans' comments don't cause mistrial

There are 11 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Oct 20, 2006, titled Berhmans' comments don't cause mistrial. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

The defense attorney for John R, Myers II, the man accused of killing Jill Behrman, today claimed that statements by the victim's parents may have violated a court order and asked for a mistrial.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

Counterproductiv e

Terre Haute, IN

#1 Oct 20, 2006
I of course believe everyone should have a fair trial, no matter how angry I feel about the crime. But honestly, if Myers doesn't get one, I'd credit that to his lawyer's tactics, which seem to border on antics. Patrick Baker is one man I would NOT want on my side.
anon

United States

#2 Oct 20, 2006
Finally a Judge standing up for some justice for parents of a murdered child!
RDC

Mountain Pine, AR

#3 Oct 20, 2006
Typical Lawyer.
Dreaming

Clarksville, IN

#4 Oct 20, 2006
O.J.
QUESTION

United States

#5 Oct 20, 2006
Can someone explain why it shouldn't be brought up that her alleged (married) boyfriend has a rifle of the same caliber as the murder weapon, that the police dogs went straight to his house after her disappearance and that she had several pregnancy books in her bedroom? Last I knew, the sex class at IU didn't require extra pregnancy books...only what was in the text book. Sorry it hurts her parents, but just because it hurts them doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up. Glad you're not attorneys and glad you're not on the jury. Sounds like you would be just as happy to lynch the defendant without a trial.
Spitting Mad

Wawaka, IN

#6 Oct 20, 2006
Without solid proof of these statements, Mr. Baker's claims are deplorable and reprehensible. He gives lawyers a bad name.
Tonda Leggins

Carmel, IN

#7 Oct 20, 2006
If it were my daughter I think I would be standing up for her also. especially since she's not here to save herself.When you give your all to your child that is your flesh and blood of course your going to fight toothre and nail to protect them.It is in our nature to to protect the peolpe we love.
Camille

Indianapolis, IN

#8 Oct 20, 2006
QUESTION wrote:
Can someone explain why it shouldn't be brought up that her alleged (married) boyfriend has a rifle of the same caliber as the murder weapon, that the police dogs went straight to his house after her disappearance and that she had several pregnancy books in her bedroom? Last I knew, the sex class at IU didn't require extra pregnancy books...only what was in the text book. Sorry it hurts her parents, but just because it hurts them doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up. Glad you're not attorneys and glad you're not on the jury. Sounds like you would be just as happy to lynch the defendant without a trial.
Dear Question: I didn't know the part about the boyfriend. If what you are saying was reported in the news, then his defense attorney is just doing his job. However, her parents are doing what any victim's parents would do.
anon

United States

#9 Oct 20, 2006
Dear Question,

I actually am an attorney and I have no problem with the defense lawyer asking questions of witnesses in court or making argument to the jury in closing arguments; however, when Mr. Baker starts personally vouching in press conferences during the trial, offering opinions about what he personally believes, that's where ethical issues arise. Any attorney is required to have a reasonable basis in fact for asking questions of a witness. If Baker is able to meet those burderns and elicit such testimony in trial, then that is exactly where the evidence should be presented. This prosecutor has been remarkable about trying his case to the jury instead of in the media and the defense should do the same. I don't think people want to lynch the defendant, but they also want to insure that there isn't a character assassination of the victim unless and until there's evidence to back up the assertions made.
Betty

United States

#10 Oct 21, 2006
grusome
QUESTION

United States

#11 Oct 23, 2006
Anon--I guess we'll find out what kind of evidence the defense has once the defense starts calling witnesses. I don't see the problem of starting to build the case with the prosecution's witnesses on the stand. He is to ask questions of the witnesses...and then he presents evidence once it is the defense's turn to call witnesses. He would be negligent if he didn't!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ellettsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pizza question from an out of towner (Apr '16) May 10 Rollies is better 16
News Prosecutor: Organist painted anti-gay graffiti ... May 8 Marco R s Secret ... 38
Sara Brooks is a SLUT! May 6 Lmao2Fny 7
I think Lauren Spierer was setup. (Jun '11) Apr 29 bcobainb 65
large reward stolen african grey parrot (Feb '12) Apr '17 Jules 10
News Good Friday Censored in Bloomington Apr '17 Farouk Yousef 2
News Tips To Meth Team Lead To ArrestsFriday, March ... Apr '17 LoosersDuh 9

Ellettsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Ellettsville Mortgages