A version of that argument was part of the first trial and anyone that knows anything about those smalls rifles should immediately realize that argument is completely false.
In any case, Dateline NBC is broadcasting the findings of their investigative journalism tonight (5/13/2016) at 10pm Eastern/9pm Central. I have no idea what they have found or what they will say but I am going to watch it with interest. You can draw your own conclusions but I can promise you this is a very strange case.
I do not believe this is true. The defendant can opt for a judge trial.
I truly believe that this is one of the rare cases of a completely innocent person being railroaded by the justice system. They are not common but they do happen.
Tune in to Dateline NBC now to make up your own mind and feel free to share your own opinions.
I just started watching Dateline, and I thought…Huh. This story sounds familiar. Then it clicked. I was hoping previously.tv would have some more discussion about this, but this episode isn’t on there yet.
I’m not aware of any semi-auto .30-30 rifles at all (by the time affordable semi-auto rifles were available, there were also cartridges available which would function far more effectively in them) but I have seen lever-action .30-30 rifles with a grip safety; it’s usually a button or catch underneath the grip which is activated when the reloading lever is in its usual position for firing.
And for the non-firearm experts reading along, there are many different types of .30-30 rifle; nearly all lever-actions; and by far and aware the most common rifles in the calibre are the Winchester Model 94 and the Marlin 336.
For what it’s worth, I watched the episode, and my gut feeling was that he did it.
Having said that, though. . . If what they presented was the best evidence against him and unless there was much more convincing evidence that was left out of the broadcast, I wouldn’t have been able to give a ‘guilty’ vote beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fair enough. I truly don’t believe he did anything but your viewpoint is a reasonable one too and should have brought about the same end result but didn’t for some reason. They presented all the evidence there is on the broadcast - virtually none.
My opinion is that I have no idea if he did it it or not. But the prosecution didn’t prove he did without reasonable doubt. He deserves a new trial.
Actually they did, twice.
That would make three.
I guess I will repeat my request for an unbiased cite, if such exists. If none does, I guess the verdict will have to suffice.
Regards,
Shodan
So, you don’t think juries make mistakes? It’s been proven many times that they do.
You don’t think juries tend to believe the prosecution more than the defense? I think the default for many people is that the cops and prosecutors are telling the truth, and that the defense is stretching the truth or looking for loopholes. It seems to me that many jurors don’t really understand that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I understand your point that a guilty verdict is what really counts, but it doesn’t necessarily represent “the truth”.
Sure, that can happen. Two different juries, years apart, and the appellate courts? That’s quite a bit less likely.
Do you have any reason to believe that the juries in this case, both times the case was presented, did not extend to the accused the presumption of innocence? If so, what is it?
Regards,
Shodan
No, I don’t. I didn’t watch the Dateline program, nor have any other insight into this case. I was speaking more generally. But there does seem to be some sentiment above that the prosecution didn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both juries, when both sides of the case were presented, by witnesses under oath, and extending to the accused the presumption of innocence, thought otherwise.
I didn’t watch the Dateline program either, and I know no more about the case than a superficial Google search. But in the US, we delegate decisions about criminal guilt and innocence to a jury system. When a jury decides Guilty, the verdict is nearly always appealed. When the verdict is upheld, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the convicted.
You are right, there has been sentiment that the proof was insufficient. I don’t believe it, because two juries said it was. If you or anyone wants to convince me, simply repeating over and over “there was no evidence there was no evidence” is not convincing. Show me, specifically, how the evidence was wrong. Don’t just say “they said so on TV”.
Regards,
Shodan
Watch it some time if you can. You say that there have been two trials already and that is technically true in the real-world sense but not in the legal one. His first conviction was vacated by the state of Texas and does not exist in the process anymore. He had to live in county jail (not prison) as a presumed innocent person once that happened and he only has the current conviction to deal with when it comes to the justice system. Most people familiar with the case were certain that he would be found innocent during his latest trial but that didn’t happen. One probable reason for that is he lived in a rural area as an outsider where everyone is already familiar with the case and there are no unbiased jurors to be found. His lawyers should have moved the venue to Dallas or Austin but they didn’t for some reason.
There is zero evidence that he did anything other than take his kids to school leaving his stepson and wife fighting and came home to find them both dead. I am probably biased myself because I know him and his whole family quite well but that is only because all I have ever known of them, including him to be completely stable, trustworthy and admirable people. He is a docile and kind person that is one of the last people you would ever suspect to commit such a crime. I don’t think I ever saw him get into a fight or even yell at someone.
However, there is a strong motive for other people to want him in prison because of family dynamics and it is not pretty. His deceased wife’s side of the family lost their daughter and grandson but they get to keep the other kids as long as he is safely behind bars.
Entirely true - his first conviction doesn’t count legally. I mention because the jury in the vacated trial came to the same conclusion as the jury in his second trial.
This forms much of the basis for my requests for an unbiased cite.
The statement “there is zero evidence” is untrue. There is evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, according to two juries and after being subjected to appellate review. You lose credibility every time you say this.
How did his in-laws compel two juries to convict him?
Regards,
Shodan
Can you explain what ‘family dynamics’ conspire to want/see him in prison? If you could provide some motivation for someone doing him in, that’s worth hearing. But just hinting at it isn’t very convincing, I’m afraid.
Do these people have some sort of influence with the DA/prosecutor’s office? Are you claiming they framed him with planted evidence or something? I did not watch the Dateline show.
Shagnasty’s clearly sincere views, and his apparent lay understanding of legal issues, may have been unpersuasive to many, not because his primary thesis is wrong, but because it was overlaid with opinions that clearly were a consequence of his (perhaps justified) own views on issues.
Here is a copy of the intermediate Court of Appeal decision that affirmed the first conviction. I have yet to find the Supreme Court of Texas decision, but the decision I have attached explains the issues and the facts.
TLDR is that the court considered that the bare circumstantial evidence was not by itself sufficient to sustain a conviction (the rag, the holes, the insurance, etc) but that the expert evidence that indicated that the deceased son must have been moved after death (obviously impossible on Payne’s account) together with the circumstantial evidence, was.
The evidence of moving the body arose in two ways. First, there was stippling on the body of the son (from discharge residue) that suggested a narrow range of distance from the muzzle to the site of the stippling from which the weapon must have been discharged. There was then some conflicting evidence about whether it was possible to manipulate the weapon into the necessary position to achieve this. The best the defence could advance was an unlikely scenario involving using hs feet to prop the gun against the floor and his toes to operate both the safety and the trigger. I suggest this is unlikely (that is not a specific conclusion by the Court) because it is necessary to resort to this because of the stippling. The question arises, why would the son go to such awkward lengths to shoot himself when it would have been so much easier (and more common) for him to have pressed the muzzle against his head and discharged the weapon with his hands?
The second body of evidence about moving the corpse of the deceased was said to emerge from finding of the son’s own blood on the palm of his hand. The presentation of this was not consistent with mere post-mortem flow given the arrangement of the body. It indicated that the body had been moved.
I make the obvious point that where there is a clash of experts, there is no rule that the jury must follow the expert most favourable to the defence. Much depends on the content of the evidence itself, and it is typically for a jury to resolve who is right.
It would seem the case is perhaps stronger than shagnasty seems to think, with genuine respect to him as a long term member of the boards. That does not mean that it was a slam dunk for the state, but it does mean that there was more to this than small town juries and allegedly influential relatives.
I appreciate that there has been a subsequent ruling in the Texas Supreme Court, but again that court concluded that there was a basis to convict.
In the absence of the evidence at the most recent trial, I will withhold any final view about whether the evidence was sufficient, but I hope this advances the debate somewhat.
Andhere is the plurality decision of the Texas CCA (I erroneously thought it was the Texas Supreme Court).
A separate concurrence judgment is here.
And the (sole) dissent is here.
The dissent does not help Payne. Rather than suggest there was no case, the dissentient agrees with the lower appellate court that any error was harmless.
Thank you for your analysis and time Noel Prosequi. The Innocence Project claims that they have good responses to the points you bring up but his defense attorney didn’t present them in the second trial for some reason. When I have more time, I will try to find how they wanted to counter the claim that the stepson’s body had been moved in particular.