AURORA | Well into the third week of reliving one of the most grisly crimes in Colorado, the Aurora theater shooting trial jury is sending out a powerful message: Cut to the chase.
If you haven’t taken the time or had the stomach to tune into the live streaming broadcast of the trial, see it at least once.
That’s about all it takes to get a feel for what this is going to be like for the next four of five months. The prosecution’s plan is to envelope the jury in the sheer scope and horror of what James Holmes did. While they may very well believe that Holmes was inarguably legally sane as he prepared for and carried out the harrowing murders, their case will deal relatively little with that, compared to everything else prosecutors are covering. They’re gambling that by immersing the jury in the terror of that slaughter, for months, any lingering doubt about his sanity will be overwhelmed. And it may turn out that Holmes was indeed the sober, calculating savage prosecutors make him out to be.
But despite what you might think when you watch the trial, the case isn’t about whether or how Holmes murdered 12 people and wounded dozens more when he opened fire inside that Aurora theater on July 20, 2012. The defense has stipulated all of it. Everything.
And clearly, the jury gets how excruciating and bottomless the pain and horror is from what Holmes did. And they’re ready to get to the real argument that the prosecution wants to either avoid or condition the jury for. You can tell all that from the jury questions.
Colorado is a rare state that allows juries to ask questions of witnesses during criminal trials. While it’s relatively new, a little more than 10 years old, it’s been around long enough that it’s not novel for court watchers. What is unusual is the number of questions this jury keeps asking, and that they keep pressing for information that will directly answer the reason this trial is happening: Was Holmes insane?
In most states, trials are pretty much like shows. The defense and the prosecution roll out a two-act performance, preening for the jury and having witnesses act out as much as the judge allows. And at the end, the jury gets to decide which spectacle they liked best.
But in Colorado, jurors get to be much more a part of the gig. When the prosecution drills in on gory details, the jury gets to follow up with questions about whether Holmes walked around the theater, whether he said anything, whether he made eye contact with someone. Other witnesses have been queried about whether Holmes seemed disconnected. Jurors get that this was a sick, malevolent crime. They want to know if Holmes was crazy. The prosecution wants to create an ocean of certainty of that, one drop at a time. “How could anyone be insane and pull off a crime this sophisticated, horrific and deadly?” they will ask until the judge says the prosecution is done.
The jury is already moving past wheeling out theater chairs with bullet holes and having tortured victims recreate their nightmare.
The hard part is going to be not deciding whether Holmes was insane when he opened fire after weeks, maybe months, of planning, but what insanity is and what it’s not. The rest of all this is cruel court theatrics, forcing the victims and rescuers to not just relive that night, but to do it in a courtroom on the stand.
This jury is smart, engaged and ready to do their real job: Decide whether Holmes meets the criteria for being excused in part or completely for the crime he has already admitted to committing.
It’s time to get to that now. The jury needs to dive into the world of criminal psychology and psychopathy to give relevant testimony context. If the prosecution is convinced of Holmes’ sanity, they need to be confident the truth will out via the facts and not a marathon indoctrination. Otherwise, this show could reveal a surprise ending most victims and the prosecution will revile just as much as they did Holmes’ abhorrent crime.
Follow @EditorDavePerry on Twitter and Facebook. Reach him at 303-750-7555 or dperry@aurorasentinel.com
Sorry you’re so bored Dave.
If anybody is capable of showing the defendant could distinguish between right and wrong at the time he committed his horrendous crime, it will be George Brauchler.
Each victim that takes that stand to testify about the shooters movements that night and their personal encounter with him, is valuable. They will each add something in their testimony which should convince those jurors, the killer knew exactly what he was doing. If it irritates you to hear them speak of their injuries, one after another, that’s just too bad.
Did you ask the victims and rescuer’s if they thought it was cruel to take the stand and testify? Or, is that something you’ve injected into this story because it’s your personal feeling that it might be and you think you “get it” when you actually don’t.
It’s possible confronting the shooter in a court of law, is healing and gives them back the power over their own life, he took from them that night.
You think it’s time to cut to the chase? I’ll do it right now. The shooter asked on two adult dating websites, “Would you visit me in prison”? He posted this weeks prior to carrying out his act of violence and while in the final planning stages. This shows that he knew what he was planning to do, was wrong. Therefore, the insanity plea is his way of avoiding the death penalty. Not that 20 years from now, it will be applied.
Actually the Defense has not actually “stipulated” (a legal term) to anything, particularly any facts, and by pleading not guilty, they require the DA to put on all of the evidence. Check the record for the word “stipulate.”
Dave is a sociopathic liberal. Just needs something to complain about. He’ll be fine. He’s the expert in all things human, don’t you know.