Laura Jean Ackerson -- Deceased 7/13/11 -- Grant and Amanda Hayes Charged With Murder

Kismet wrote:Thanks for the welcome Nan.  I've been following Grant, now Amanda's trials from the beginning & haven't been able to find any forum discussing them . . . until I found my way here.  

BTW, thanks so much for the amazing timeline of events you put together.  It must have taken you forever - I know since I tried to make one  myself but after 2 days I gave up.  You answered so many questions I had.  Thanks again.

Ann - Tx wrote:
http://www.wral.com/news/video/13331969/
WRAL - Raleigh, NC  -- Amanda Hayes trial -- "live" stream


http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/livenow?id=9408820
WTVD - Raleigh, NC  --   Amanda Hayes trial -- "live" stream

Ann - Tx wrote:
Per WRAL "closings", Wake County courts closed tomorrow, 2/13/14.

Wake County Courts Closed
Expires Thursday at 4:00pm

http://www.wral.com/weather/closings/?category=all&filter=w
WRAL - Raleigh, NC --- as of 2/12/14 -- Closings: W

One Wonders wrote:Jury asks for clarification on acting in concert. "Is it enough if the person is in the house art the time of murder?"  @ about 5:00

Nan11 wrote:Well, at least we know they have a foreman; and they are dismissed for the day.

Jury deliberations will begin at 9:30 am tomorrow morning.

IDK, concerning that last question, I took from the judge's response that:

two persons acting together with a common purpose; and each person must be active or constructively present at the time of the murder -- for "in concert" murder.

Come on, Jury!  The state has proved their case.

One Wonders wrote:Yes he did. However, he also said even if one of them was a look out they are working in concert. So her taking the children to the bedroom if true puts her in that category.

So now, I'm really worried about how the deliberations are going because if their considering that then she is going to get less then 1st or 2nd. Is that right?

I so agree Nan that the State proved there case in spades.

One Wonders wrote:Jury asks for clarification on acting in concert. "Is it enough if the person is in the house at the time of murder?"  @ about 5:00
Judge will answer orally.
Answer:
Basically, he or she is activity or constructively assisting with the crime.

Soooo, if she hide's the children away knowing what is going to happen is that in concert? Not that I believe that was the extent of her role.  

Jury is retiring for the day.

One Wonders wrote:Yes he did. However, he also said even if one of them was a look out they are working in concert. So her taking the children to the bedroom if true puts her in that category.

So now, I'm really worried about how the deliberations are going because if their considering that then she is going to get less then 1st or 2nd. Is that right?

I so agree Nan that the State proved there case in spades.

Nan11 wrote:

One Wonders wrote:Yes he did. However, he also said even if one of them was a look out they are working in concert. So her taking the children to the bedroom if true puts her in that category.

So now, I'm really worried about how the deliberations are going because if their considering that then she is going to get less then 1st or 2nd. Is that right?

I so agree Nan that the State proved there case in spades.

Here is that question, the first time the judge read it:

At about 5:53 minutes in:
Judge Stevens:  What is the definition of the phrase “each is present?”  In the theory of acting in concert, do both persons have to be present or witness the murder; or is it enough for the defendant to be in the same apartment.
https://youtu.be/bT3VpBypcjI

I'm afraid they might have believed her story that Laura tried to grab Lily, and she [Amanda], ran for the bedroom and thus didn't see or take part in the actual murder of Laura.

The pharse "each is present" was contained in the wording of the original jury instructions.

At about 6:30 minutes:
Judge Stevens:  As to this charge, the state relies upon the legal theory of acting in concert, which is recognized and accepted as part of the law of North Carolina.

Under that law, for a person to be guilty of a crime, it is not necessary that she herself, personally, do all the acts necessary to constitute that crime.

If two persons act together with a common purpose to commit the crime of first degree murder— and each is present at the time that first degree murder is committed—then each of them is held responsible for the acts committed by the other, done in the commission of that crime.
https://youtu.be/2qNgrF-1MCI

It's so early to try to say, though; they were just settling in and one person might have just wanted clarification of that particular phase as it stuck in their minds.

I noted the judge was really careful how he answered.  

Here is his answer in this video; and you know I love this judge, but here I find his answer rambling:

At about 13:45 minutes in:
Judge Stevens:  Let me say this to you—that as I have instructed you under the legal theory of acting in concert; under that legal theory for a person to be guilty of the crime, it is not necessary she herself, personally, do all the acts necessary to constitute the crime.

If two persons act together; acting in concert requires that two persons act together, with a common purpose to commit the crime—in this case the crime of 1st degree murder; or failing that, 2nd degree murder; and each is present at the time the crime is committed, then each of them is held responsible for the acts committed by the other done in the commission of that crime.

You asked me what it means to be “each is present.”  By the law in this state, to be guilty by acting in concert all perpetrators must be actually, or constructively, present.  A person is constructively present when he or she is close enough to the scene to render assistance to the other perpetrator to carry out the crime.

I remind you that each of them must be actively assisting the other to cause the crime to occur.

So, a constructive presence is sufficient under the law so long as one is close enough to where a murder is occurring to render assistance to the other perpetrator, as each of them actively participate in causing the crime to occur.
https://youtu.be/wicOZ8kDN6E

I agree that the judge said earlier that if Amanda was acting as the lookout, they were acting in concert--but that was well after the actual murder and was during the disposal of the body.  That makes me a little bit uneasy because it can be seen to fit with the "accessory after the fact charge."

I also agree that her taking the kids to the bedroom puts her in the "in concert" category; but only if the jury believes that Amanda knew what Grant was doing.  If the jury believes Amanda had no idea what was going on at that point, we may be in trouble if we are hoping for a murder conviction.  (As I am.)

I personally disbelieve that whole part of Amanda's story about Laura wanting to hold Lily and blah, blah, blah.  I think she lured Laura to that apartment--remember the state believes Laura spoke to Amanda that afternoon; and that implies to me that Amanda had a plan in place at that point to murder Laura.

I don't believe it went down anyways near to what Amanda said on the stand.   = Amanda

Now, if only the jury is with me.

Nan11 wrote:Below is a rough, very unofficial, transcript of a conversation between Laura and Amanda, which took place during a custody exchange in October of 2010.  The prosecutor played it in court this afternoon.  There are many parts that I could not make out, unfortunately.

It's very interesting, though--how Amanda attempts to lead the conversation and not even address Laura's issue.  I wish I could have caught more.
-----

https://youtu.be/EVT2Ba5K7LQ

At about 14:10 minutes
Laura:  It is seven minutes before 5 o’clock.  It is October 29, 2010.  It is Friday.  [Tape pauses]  It’s 4:54 pm. I’m headed to Sheetz.  I’m about a minute away.

Over this—I think it was—this week.  I wrote Amanda an email after she showed a large amount of disdain for me in front of the children.  I’m going to find out if she received that email, and we’ll see what happens.  If she hasn’t, I’m going to address the situation with her verbally; and, hopefully, she’ll be compliant.  The situation is that she is having little emotional outbursts in front of the kids, and I think it is inappropriate.  But, we’ll see.

I’m going to pause this until I get to Sheetz.  Here we go.

I’m waiting in the [unintelligible] room at Sheetz, and it’s still just a few minutes before five.

Prosecutor fast forwards.

At about 16:57 minutes:
Grant:  [Unintelligible.]

Grant:  Alright [unintelligible] man, be good.

Amanda:  I love you.  [blows kiss]

Grant:  [unintelligible] donut.

Laura:  [unintelligible] donuts.

[Unintelligible]

Laura:  Mmmm.  I love you.

[Unintelligible]

Amanda:  It’s alright, we’ll see you Sunday.  Go see mummy.

[Unintelligible]

Amanda:  It’s okay.  Ohhh, nooo.  It’s okay.  We love you.  [blows kiss]

[Unintelligible]

Grant:  Hmmm?

Laura: Hey, Amanda, can I talk to you for a couple of quick seconds without the kids?

[Unintelligible]

Amanda:  No problem.  You just made us late last weekend [unintelligible]; so, [cross talking] can you just let us know—like—in advance, if you are going to be late, that would be awesome.

Laura:  [Unintelligible] you guys have been late before.  I don’t react like ...

Amanda:  What?  We have never been late, more than 5 minutes, ever.  Because I am very, very, very, [unintelligible] about being late.

Laura:  [Unintelligible]

Amanda:  So, I can guarantee you that we have not been late.  And the day that we were late—on the rainy day—we were six minutes late, [unintelligible] on the dot.

Laura:  I’m not even talking about being late.

[Unintelligible]

Laura:  [Unintelligible] your having, showing disdain for me.  From what I understand that is not a good [unintelligible] to have, but if we can please just remain cheerful [unintelligible.]

Amanda:  I would just prefer we didn’t even speak.  How about that?

Laura:  [Unintelligible]

Amanda:  [Unintelligible] I don’t see anything [unintelligible]

Laura:  *sigh*  I agree.

Amanda:  Okay.  So, I mean, you agree with me.

Nan11 wrote:Bumping for review:  

Nan11 wrote:Below is a rough, very unofficial, transcript of a conversation between Laura and Amanda, which took place during a custody exchange in October of 2010.  The prosecutor played it in court this afternoon.  There are many parts that I could not make out, unfortunately.

It's very interesting, though--how Amanda attempts to lead the conversation and not even address Laura's issue.  I wish I could have caught more.
-----

https://youtu.be/EVT2Ba5K7LQ

At about 14:10 minutes
Laura:  It is seven minutes before 5 o’clock.  It is October 29, 2010.  It is Friday.  [Tape pauses]  It’s 4:54 pm. I’m headed to Sheetz.  I’m about a minute away.

Over this—I think it was—this week.  I wrote Amanda an email after she showed a large amount of disdain for me in front of the children.  I’m going to find out if she received that email, and we’ll see what happens.  If she hasn’t, I’m going to address the situation with her verbally; and, hopefully, she’ll be compliant.  The situation is that she is having little emotional outbursts in front of the kids, and I think it is inappropriate.  But, we’ll see.

I’m going to pause this until I get to Sheetz.  Here we go.

I’m waiting in the [unintelligible] room at Sheetz, and it’s still just a few minutes before five.

Prosecutor fast forwards.

At about 16:57 minutes:
Grant:  [Unintelligible.]

Grant:  Alright [unintelligible] man, be good.

Amanda:  I love you.  [blows kiss]

Grant:  [unintelligible] donut.

Laura:  [unintelligible] donuts.

[Unintelligible]

Laura:  Mmmm.  I love you.

[Unintelligible]

Amanda:  It’s alright, we’ll see you Sunday.  Go see mummy.

[Unintelligible]

Amanda:  It’s okay.  Ohhh, nooo.  It’s okay.  We love you.  [blows kiss]

[Unintelligible]

Grant:  Hmmm?

Laura: Hey, Amanda, can I talk to you for a couple of quick seconds without the kids?

[Unintelligible]

Amanda:  No problem.  You just made us late last weekend [unintelligible]; so, [cross talking] can you just let us know—like—in advance, if you are going to be late, that would be awesome.

Laura:  [Unintelligible] you guys have been late before.  I don’t react like ...

Amanda:  What?  We have never been late, more than 5 minutes, ever.  Because I am very, very, very, [unintelligible] about being late.

Laura:  [Unintelligible]

Amanda:  So, I can guarantee you that we have not been late.  And the day that we were late—on the rainy day—we were six minutes late, [unintelligible] on the dot.

Laura:  I’m not even talking about being late.

[Unintelligible]

Laura:  [Unintelligible] your having, showing disdain for me.  From what I understand that is not a good [unintelligible] to have, but if we can please just remain cheerful [unintelligible.]

Amanda:  I would just prefer we didn’t even speak.  How about that?

Laura:  [Unintelligible]

Amanda:  [Unintelligible] I don’t see anything [unintelligible]

Laura:  *sigh*  I agree.

Amanda:  Okay.  So, I mean, you agree with me.