Inside the jury that convicted the cheerleader killer
By adamg - Fri, 07/11/2008 - 3:56pm.
Turns out a Globe marketing person was among the 12 jurors who convicted Rodrick Taylor of killing Dominique Samuels, then burning her body in Franklin Park to try to cover his tracks. Jason Sylva explains what went on during the lengthy trial and deliberations, including why the jury decided Taylor was guilty of second-, rather than first, degree murder.
- Add new comment |
| 
| 
where was the motive?
I didn't see anything about motive. Looks like the case boiled down to "he had scratches, his blood was on the back of a TV, and his cell phone was in Boston"
Pretty damn shaky evidence, nowhere near "beyond a reasonable doubt", or that person did a really bad job of summarizing the case.
Where was your research?
Motive is not included in the burden of proof for any degree of murder in Mass.
That was far and away the most informative piece I saw on the case, and I imagine that it speaks to what the jury concluded.
As in any proceedings, the jurors' collective recollection rules.
.
She was strangled to death:
his blood was found on the rooming house floor near Samuels's blood
he was, by his own admission, one of the last people with Samuels on Friday morning;
the scratches on his hands and biceps; and
the cellphone records that put him in Boston when Samuels's body was burned and discarded.
motive?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive
"Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant's motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member."
Not motive, but premeditation
Nowhere in the article (that I can find) does Mr. Sylva state that he or any member of the jury considered motive when deciding between 1st and 2nd degree murder. He states that the distinction lies with whether the killing was premeditated, which is correct.