FOX News -Smart Family Doesn't Want Sexual Assualt Charges Filed Against MItchells

FOX News ^ | March 18, 2003 | Shepard Smith

[ewing]

just the update

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I keep wondering about that. Would she protect him, because they are married? Would she protect him because they are both crazy, and she believed he was a prophet? Would she protect him because she knows she is just as guilty as he is?

I guess time will tell.

[Revelation 911]

if he got suspended, someone had to be deliberately provoking him.

are you saying others are responsible for the way he responded.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

"No ---that's not what I meant ---if he got suspended, someone had to be deliberately provoking him. I've seen the Mormon Church brought into this discussion which makes no sense because Mitchell isn't a Mormon." FITZ

This is FITZ's quote, not mine.

[Alberta's Child]

It's not only a question of whether she would "protect him." If they are married, she has no choice in the matter -- as far as I know, spousal immunity comes into play in his defense even if she wants to cooperate.

Which brings up an interesting point. If she has been "cooperative" with the police up to this point, and has helped them find any evidence that could be used against Brian Mitchell, then every piece of that evidence can legitimately be thrown out of court if his case goes to trial.

Something else to think about for those of you who have been questioning the competence of the SLC police in this case.

[Revelation 911]

I know - just wanted to include you - I saw the comment as a justification of his action

[ewing]

Thanks for your expertise.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

But, do both of them have to agree to call for spousal immunity? Does she have to state to the court that she won't testify, based on their marriage? Or, does the court disallow any testimony from her, based on the immunity?

[ewing]

I would deal to give Wanda life in solitary (w/o parole) to make sure they nail Mitchell. That guy is an abslote Dahmer-like monster.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I wouldn't justify his actions for him. I assume he is a big enough boy, and can handle it himself. And, I have no knowledge of why he was banned, and what transpired beforehand.

[FreeTally]

I would deal to give Wanda life in solitary (w/o parole) to make sure they nail Mitchell

Say what? That's no "deal".

[Yeti]

If they're still in that home, they need to move out quietly. Duck the press. Keep the cameras away.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think they should wait until after the trial before they move. Otherwise they will just have to move again shortly. And I think living in that house for now can help give her a sense of being "back home" and that could be a good thing.

I fear that you could be right about her counselling being primarily through the church. I think that faith-based counsellors are often good and sufficient, but in this case I think she could use some really expert help. Clergy counselling is generally going to be limited to "you're still pure in the eyes of God, the church and the community support you, your family loves you, God loves you, you're not to blame for what happened."

All of which is good and true and helpful, but I think she could us some guidance in dealing with some deeper-seated, more subtle and insidious issues, like developig a healthy way to think of herself that includes the realities of the feelings she had when she was with the guy, and a more intimate treatment of the physical changes associated with having been sexually active on a regular basis for 9 months.

Most of all, developing a strong sense of self and a sense of the continuity of that self -- despite having experienced that sense of self change diametrically in the past -- will be difficult. Any way she deals with it, she will have to work to build an idea of herself as having the potential for loyalty and personal strength beyond the influences immediately surrounding her, in a way that deals with any guilt or self-reproach she might feel about what happened. That will be difficult to do without falling back on a kind of blind denial about events. Forgiving herself for breaking, and all of that...

She has the potential to develop strength from what happened if it is dealt with properly, not just swept under the rug and forgotten or ignored.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Great post - thank you!

[Yeti]

Dealing with the memories and getting a sense of control back is the only way in which she will become whole again.

Agreed.

[Alberta's Child]

However if you charged someone with kidnapping and they were aquitted, you could still charge them with every crime that they committed after they kidnapped the person, including rape, assualt, battery, etc. Since those subsequent acts were not included in the elements of the offense of kidnapping, the prosecution can later charge them for those crimes without violating the double jeopardy clause.

Interesting points here. My question is this: if you charge someone with kidnapping and they are acquitted, can the acquittal on this charge be used in the suspect's defense if he is later charged with other crimes related to his actions?

Along these lines, I seem to remember reading somewhere that prosecutors don't like to seek search warrants unless they're pretty sure they're going to find what they are looking for. Because if they don't, then the fact that they looked for evidence but didn't find any will have a worse impact at trial than if they never looked in the first place.

[Utah Girl]

I thought spouses couldn't be compelled to testify against each other, but they can testify. I have to go read the law on the age of consent in Utah, I'll also read about spousal privilege. BRB.

[Utah Girl]

According to the news last night, the Smarts have gotten counseling for Elizabeth.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I think spousal immunity works when one spouse is cooperative:

1. Both spouses are charged with a crime.

2. Spouse A wants to go to trial, while Spouse B offers to cut a deal, plead guilty to reduced charges, and testify against Spouse A.

3. At trial, the lawyer for Spouse A would make a motion to prevent Spouse B from testifying in the case, on the grounds that he/she was married to the defendant at the time the crime was allegedly committed.

4. Judge informs the prosecutor that Spouse B cannot testify, regardless of whether Spouse B is "cooperative" or not.

Of course, it would never get to that point because the prosecution would not cut the deal with Spouse B once they found out that the two were married.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Not to be a stickler...
Let's say Mitchell testifies, when questioned by the "defense"... (you get the difficulty, he IS the defense attorney). And he mentions Barzee. Could then, acting as his own attorney, subpoena her, to testify, offering corroborating testimony? Tell me that this bizarre scenario is completely impossible!

And thanks for all of your checking of the law. You are diligent and resourceful.

[Yeti]

The State has to bring all charges eminating from one transaction or occurance at the same time and in one trial.

I am not sure that necessarily applies here. The burglary, the kidnapping and the rape all occurred as seperate incidents.

It's not like he killed two people with one bullet, so he stands trial only once for the shooting, or like he shot the same guy 5 times, and the state wants to try him seperately for each bullet.

It seems to me that breaking in was one crime, kidnapping Elizabeth was another, and raping her was another. But I could be wrong.

[Choose Ye This Day]

"Can you see how a man saying he was a prophet from God , and that god had personally told him to take her as one of his wives may ring a bell for an LDS child?"

Umm...actually, no. First of all, this long-haired, greasy, smelly waste of space Mitchell doesn't look anything like the LDS prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley; there would be no confusion there.

Secondly, prophets don't make a habit of sneaking into teenage girls' bedrooms in the dead of night, and forcibly kidnapping said girls at knifepoint, threatening the lives of the girls' familymembers if she resists.

Thirdly, the multiple wives line wouldn't really persuade any LDS girl, since the LDS church does not practice, permit, condone or even tolerate polygamy in this day and age.

You're drawing some sort of faulty conclusion here, and I'm not sure why. Your reasoning seems to be:
A.) Elizabeth Smart is Mormon.
B.) Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped and raped.
C.) Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped and raped because she is Mormon.