Nia Glassie verdict - two Guilyt of murder

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10543425

The two brothers Wiremu and Michael Curtis have been found guilty of murdering Nia Glassie.

The mother, Lisa Kuka, has been found guilty of manslaughter.

- I predict the murder convictions will be reversed on appeal.

R

Excellent.
Haven't been able to follow this closely (kills me to read about it basically) so certainly hope there's no overturn on appeal.

Im sure they wont be acquitted but perhaps found guilty of a lesser charge?

they deserved it

a reality-check perhaps

some of the closing defence statements were ridiculous

you don't kick a 3 year old in the head, fail to arrange medical care, without legal consequences

Agreed.

It's disgusting really, when you read through the things that the poor baby had to endure.

From what I read, it seems that the defence was mainly arguing "stupidity" and "ignorance" on the part of Wiremu. He was certainly trying to argue the lack of intent (mens rhea, is it?) - and hence his actions cannot legally be classed as murder.

That REALLY rarked me up. Stupidity is never an excuse for murder.

The way he argued it he might as well have said that the accused was devoid of any humanity or reason, which would make him no different from an animal.

how do we deal with animals that attack / kill humans again?

Roast dinner.

spot on with that analysis

i mean you could see what the lawyers were TRYING to do, but it was never going to work, especially with the second definition of murder under s 167 of the Crimes Act.

also, one of the lawyers said his 17 year old client was a bit behind for his age, more like a 13 year old. wtf? even a 13 yr old - hell even a 5 year old - knows you don't treat babies like that. eg dropping a toddler from the ceiling, kicking its head in, spinning it on a clothes-line. etc

The WORST one for me (I won't assume that this was physically worse, but it SOUNDED the worst), was putting the baby in a "tumble dryer and spun at high temperatures".


Those accused should be put themselves into the tumble dryer and get spun at high temperatures - then come out and tell me how they "thought it was a joke".

Why?

Surely this is a case where the defence lawyers had a higher duty than the defence of their client? They were defending evil.

I can see tactically (and perhaps inevitably) why the case ended up going to trial and not resolving earlier through plea-bargaining and guilty pleas: the number of accused, the number of charges, a question of what degree of culpability should attach to each party, the dynamics between them, the high stakes involved, the inevitable blame-shifting etc

however the trial was a wholly unfortunate unseemly affair, it did no favours at all for the accused in the eyes of the public, they were all clearly guilty as sin, some unfortunate questions and things were said in cross-examination, and in closing addresses to the jury, in my opinion

while lawyers have a duty to follow their client's instructions, ethical rules clearly state that these must be INFORMED instructions, so lawyers do have a duty to advise their clients in a sensible, robust and realistic fashion on the issue of plea

I think you have to be incredibly careful what you say in this sort of case to juries, where the death of a young child is involved as a result of torture at the hands of adults - you really are walking a very very narrow tight-rope in terms of the types of defences you can run and the things you can say, without alienating jury-members, angering them even. not to mention the general public.

this sort of thing can potentially tarnish lawyers and the profession. it should not perhaps THEORETICALLY do so, but in the eyes of ordinary people, practically-speaking, it will.

I can't even begin to imagine what sort of deprived & disturbed individual could commit such acts. It doesn't even bare thinking about.

They should be locked up forever and forgotten about like defective models of the human race.

Rob what are you smoking? Its murder, it wont be over turned.

Are they even bothering to appeal?

Scum.

murders do get overturned on appeal, but these ones won't be

There were no witnesses and none of the defendants gave any evidence in court in their defence or against any others...

If the crown couldn't secure any conviction whatsoever in the Kahui twins case then some of these convictions wont stand as they are if appealed.

1. there were witnesses

2. there were admissions (and other damning statements affecting credibility) contained in the police video interviews of the accused

3. there were Nia's injuries

4. there was circumstantial evidence

5. none of the accused took the stand when an explanation was called for

I should add that the above is more than enough evidence to prove the Crown case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the principal charges

With much of the info in a similar vein they couldn't convict anyone of anything in the Kahui case though?

As for: 'none of the accused took the stand when an explanation was called for' - I guess if they said they weren't there (in their original statements) then they're not really required to offer an explanation are they?..

hopefully they'll get more than this bitch

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10545080

while tempting, it's always dangerous to compare two apparently similar cases - the factual differences and nuances between two different cases are infinite.

no two cases are alike.

If their defence was that neither of them were there at the time when the final fatal injuries were inflicted, that doesn't matter, if other credible witnesses say they were there/ there were prior inconsistent police statements/ or if by a process of elimination the only credible inference from circumstantial evidence is that they were there - this comes down to the entire fabric of the case and the testimony of other witnesses etc

also, I know that the Curtis brothers were trying to shift blame on to each other - I would have to go back and review media coverage to know the extent of this though

also you have to look at the performance of the Curtis brothers in their video interviews - if there were holes and contradictions in what they were saying - and if they came across very poorly - and they don't take the stand at trial to fix it up - you're in trouble aren't you

of course, the reality is, it would have been more of a disaster to put them on the stand anyway - so they were fucked either way

according to media reports the two Curtis brothers ran different defences

one brother's defence was that Nia was never kicked in the head (not necessarily the same thing as "not present" at the scene of the crime at the relevant time)

the other brother's defence did not involve denying the kicking at all, simply that he lacked murderous intent

20-25 min I hope

from memory, the highest non-parole period imposed in NZ so far has been 27 years.

so it's possible.

what justhanging said.

who was 27 years non parole again?

I think it was Howse but I might be mistaken

will check

Howse was actually second longest with 25 years (reduced from 28 by Court of Appeal)

William Bell takes the dubious honour of having the longest minimum non-parole period in NZ history - 30 years (reduced from 33 by CA)

JH has already answered this question really, but I should just add that the jury not finding Chris Kahui guilty has absolutely nothing to do with what view the court of appeal might take on appeal in the Glassie case, should there be one. Not only are the two cases different and comparisons are difficult as JH pointed out, but more fundamentally the way the CA will assess this case on appeal and the way a jury determines guilt in a trial are two entirely different processes.

BG, your last point is a good one. it's probably a common misconception amongst most people that the CA sets itself up as a trier of the original facts, and comes to its own conclusion on guilt/innocence - not the way it is of course.

I thought the CA is only meant to consider the legal technicalities around the trial, like whether due process was followed, key evidence not considered etc... basically an appeal can only be taken up if appellant is claiming that there was an error in legal interpretation or process during the trial itself?

In the absence of this, the CA doesn't actually have any authority whatsover to undermine the decision of the jury in the original trial, and certainly does not presume to judge the 'entire case' but only the legal aspects of which may have had a substantial bearing on the final decision - as claimed by the appellant.

Meh.... don't know I'm rusty as hell.


I'd still happily be bookie for a sweepstake that says they won't have their convictions overturned though.

you're right of course

criminal appeals from jury trials are about fitting into various boxes eg

- trial counsel incompetence

- miscarriage of justice because of procedural flaws

- incorrect summing up to jury and errors of law

etc

of course the last ground was that relied upon by Antonie Dixon (incorrect jury instructions on the law of insanity among others), and that's why he got his second trial (after which he was found guilty again of course).

if the Judge here again misdirected the jury on the law seriously, there could be a retrial, which would be very unfortunate indeed.

The word 'technicalities' - as commonly understood - is really not an apt word to describe the grounds of appeal which can result in a conviction being overturned. Miscarriage of justice is not a legal 'technicality' nor are the examples you've suggested, due process not being followed or evidence not being put before the jury. I'm being pedantic, but it is important that we don't propagate the fallacy that people's convictions turn on legal 'technicalities' even if such is merely an incidence of poor choice of wording.

Ok...... Layman just got owned by a lawyer.

I feel dirty now.