Sandra Cantu #3 4/15/09 -4/27/09

[Blink34]

I have a real problem with what's been reported re Melissa and those fires in the SoCal home she lived in before.  In one of the fires there was $85,000 damage!!  I wouldn't call that a minor oopsy.  It's been said that LE will not press charges on Melissa because of her current charges for this case.  I do understand the importance of this case over the SoCal fires, however for Melissa to slide on those charges doesn't seem right either.  And also, the problem I have with the dropping of those charges, will the jury will get to hear about any of that? 

Excellent Question Wyks.

Imo, charges WILL be filed against Huckaby for the Jan incident at a minimum. I dont see how they could not. If they do, it could go to "prior bad acts" which if similar enough and the judge lets it on, could be heard by a jury. The fire was 2 years ago, I am doubtful they COULD charge her with  it if they wanted to, if they could charge her they would have, it was 2 years ago,

B

[Wyks]

I am not understanding quite a few things here.
I have no confidence in the Tracy LE. I didn't really right from the get go.
When that Sgt. spoke on the TV from the get go, it seemed as if he was holding stuff back. Or perhaps he was uncomfortable being on tv.
.. Is it usual for a gag order to be issued right from the get go ?
I understand that there is some very sensitive information in regards to Sandra and that should be held back out of respect and really the public doesn't need to know some of those details about what the findings of the ME were, but the rest of this is just a load of crap.
LE's job is to serve and protect and they failed.
 

I agree, KatGram.  At the start, when the Sgt. would seem hesitant like he was holding back, I wondered if that was because there are things that LE cannot discuss.  Yet even recently he has given answers that seem to be misleading or so vague as to not really having given an answer at all.  And of course, I cannot think of even one example right off hand.  I just remember thinking why doesn't he just say something like, 'I can't comment on that right now', instead of being hesitant or giving an answer so vague that it could be misinterpreted and/or misleading. 

Am thinking the gag order came in so quickly because of the new judge in the case, who seems to be a 'no nonsense' type, which is good. 

[Tracygirl]

I am not understanding quite a few things here.
I have no confidence in the Tracy LE. I didn't really right from the get go.
When that Sgt. spoke on the TV from the get go, it seemed as if he was holding stuff back. Or perhaps he was uncomfortable being on tv.
.. Is it usual for a gag order to be issued right from the get go ?
I understand that there is some very sensitive information in regards to Sandra and that should be held back out of respect and really the public doesn't need to know some of those details about what the findings of the ME were, but the rest of this is just a load of crap.
LE's job is to serve and protect and they failed.
 

I agree, KatGram.  At the start, when the Sgt. would seem hesitant like he was holding back, I wondered if that was because there are things that LE cannot discuss.  Yet even recently he has given answers that seem to be misleading or so vague as to not really having given an answer at all.  And of course, I cannot think of even one example right off hand.  I just remember thinking why doesn't he just say something like, 'I can't comment on that right now', instead of being hesitant or giving an answer so vague that it could be misinterpreted and/or misleading. 

Am thinking the gag order came in so quickly because of the new judge in the case, who seems to be a 'no nonsense' type, which is good. 

Watching dr phil...Not  one mention of octo mom, btw flossy, lol. Had the good sgt on tv, boy was he watching what he had to say about the Jan little girl. He claims a full investigation occured, yea right!  Had the mother and aunt on, so sad...It is actually a pretty good show so far.

[Wyks]

I have a real problem with what's been reported re Melissa and those fires in the SoCal home she lived in before.  In one of the fires there was $85,000 damage!!  I wouldn't call that a minor oopsy.  It's been said that LE will not press charges on Melissa because of her current charges for this case.  I do understand the importance of this case over the SoCal fires, however for Melissa to slide on those charges doesn't seem right either.  And also, the problem I have with the dropping of those charges, will the jury will get to hear about any of that? 

Excellent Question Wyks.

Imo, charges WILL be filed against Huckaby for the Jan incident at a minimum. I dont see how they could not. If they do, it could go to "prior bad acts" which if similar enough and the judge lets it on, could be heard by a jury. The fire was 2 years ago, I am doubtful they COULD charge her with  it if they wanted to, if they could charge her they would have, it was 2 years ago,

B

Thanks Blink!  Seems that LE would be running the Jan. incident seperate from this with Sandra, and yet .. wouldn't both run together at some point?  LE certainly didn't seem to be comfy talking about the Jan. incident, and when the gag order came along, they seem almost relieved at being able to say they cannot talk about it because of the gag order.  That's what makes me wonder if the two would run together at some point, cuz they aren't commenting on one because of the other.  Hope that made sense. 
 

[Wyks]

I think JVM has overworked the Octomom situation as badly as NG has overworked the Anthony case.  Bleh.  Would love to see both of them giving those topics up and giving that airtime to Sandra, Haleigh, and Adji's cases, etc.  Actually would like NG to give it up completely and give her entire hour over to say, Mike Brooks.   
 

[JessStar]

I have a real problem with what's been reported re Melissa and those fires in the SoCal home she lived in before.  In one of the fires there was $85,000 damage!!  I wouldn't call that a minor oopsy.  It's been said that LE will not press charges on Melissa because of her current charges for this case.  I do understand the importance of this case over the SoCal fires, however for Melissa to slide on those charges doesn't seem right either.  And also, the problem I have with the dropping of those charges, will the jury will get to hear about any of that? 

Excellent Question Wyks.

Imo, charges WILL be filed against Huckaby for the Jan incident at a minimum. I dont see how they could not. If they do, it could go to "prior bad acts" which if similar enough and the judge lets it on, could be heard by a jury. The fire was 2 years ago, I am doubtful they COULD charge her with  it if they wanted to, if they could charge her they would have, it was 2 years ago,

B

Tough call on the prior bad acts.  Typically "prior bad acts" are NOT admissible to prove that the defendant acted "in conformity therewith."  In other words, you typically can't introduce evidence of the January drugging to prove that MH drugged Sandra.  The law believes that the "probative value" of that type of evidence is outweighed by the potential prejudice of admitting it.  There are complex exceptions, but that's the general rule.  They'll need something pretty strong to tie MH to the January incident before the jury will hear about it, assuming she's NOT charged with it.  But Blink, you hit the nail on the head as to the way to get it in--charge her--and I agree, they will. Too much of coincidence to be just a coincidence.  They'll get the little girl's medical records, the police files, the statement from the mom, etc., and link it all together with Sandra's case.  They will parallel with everything except the ending. Then you don't have to worry about whether it constituted a PRIOR bad act because it now constitutes a PRESENT bad act.

IMO, this is all just the tip of the iceberg.  If your confidence in the Tracy LE has been shaken, do not fret--the feds are on it.  Wait and see--federal charges against MH are in the midst. . .  I hope I'm wrong about that because that will mean MH is just a freak that acted alone to fulfill her own dark desires.  But as much as I hate to admit it, I doubt that's the case.  I think there's something more sinister.

[Kat_Gram]

No sniffer dogs ? Not even in that Friday night ?
Am I mistaken ?
The Sandra wanted to run away, who the heck told that one ?
She had no money. She took no belongings. ???
Did the Tracy PD give Melissa because :
a.)  Her Granny vouched for her
b.) They are church people
c.) The PD are dummies
d.) Melissa is a woman and women don't do these things ?
e. ) They knocked on the door and asked Melissa the questions. She lied and they believed her ?
f.) all of the above

[flossy]

I think JVM has overworked the Octomom situation as badly as NG has overworked the Anthony case.  Bleh.  Would love to see both of them giving those topics up and giving that airtime to Sandra, Haleigh, and Adji's cases, etc.  Actually would like NG to give it up completely and give her entire hour over to say, Mike Brooks.   
 

I'd be THRILLED if he could bump her right out of her chair!  He is so much easier to watch - he's always on the mark with his comments and opinions and isn't an insulting smartass to his guests. 

He also knows what the word BOMBSHELL means and doesn't try to hype everything up. 

Tracygirl, good to hear that Dr. Phil didn't mention Octo-Mom.  He must know that JVM has that one covered, lol!!

[Wyks]

I think JVM has overworked the Octomom situation as badly as NG has overworked the Anthony case.  Bleh.  Would love to see both of them giving those topics up and giving that airtime to Sandra, Haleigh, and Adji's cases, etc.  Actually would like NG to give it up completely and give her entire hour over to say, Mike Brooks.   
 

I'd be THRILLED if he could bump her right out of her chair!  He is so much easier to watch - he's always on the mark with his comments and opinions and isn't an insulting smartass to his guests. 

He also knows what the word BOMBSHELL means and doesn't try to hype everything up. 

Tracygirl, good to hear that Dr. Phil didn't mention Octo-Mom.  He must know that JVM has that one covered, lol!!

I agree, Flossy! 

[Wyks]

I have a real problem with what's been reported re Melissa and those fires in the SoCal home she lived in before.  In one of the fires there was $85,000 damage!!  I wouldn't call that a minor oopsy.  It's been said that LE will not press charges on Melissa because of her current charges for this case.  I do understand the importance of this case over the SoCal fires, however for Melissa to slide on those charges doesn't seem right either.  And also, the problem I have with the dropping of those charges, will the jury will get to hear about any of that? 

Excellent Question Wyks.

Imo, charges WILL be filed against Huckaby for the Jan incident at a minimum. I dont see how they could not. If they do, it could go to "prior bad acts" which if similar enough and the judge lets it on, could be heard by a jury. The fire was 2 years ago, I am doubtful they COULD charge her with  it if they wanted to, if they could charge her they would have, it was 2 years ago,

B

Tough call on the prior bad acts.  Typically "prior bad acts" are NOT admissible to prove that the defendant acted "in conformity therewith."  In other words, you typically can't introduce evidence of the January drugging to prove that MH drugged Sandra.  The law believes that the "probative value" of that type of evidence is outweighed by the potential prejudice of admitting it.  There are complex exceptions, but that's the general rule.  They'll need something pretty strong to tie MH to the January incident before the jury will hear about it, assuming she's NOT charged with it.  But Blink, you hit the nail on the head as to the way to get it in--charge her--and I agree, they will. Too much of coincidence to be just a coincidence.  They'll get the little girl's medical records, the police files, the statement from the mom, etc., and link it all together with Sandra's case.  They will parallel with everything except the ending. Then you don't have to worry about whether it constituted a PRIOR bad act because it now constitutes a PRESENT bad act.

IMO, this is all just the tip of the iceberg.  If your confidence in the Tracy LE has been shaken, do not fret--the feds are on it.  Wait and see--federal charges against MH are in the midst. . .  I hope I'm wrong about that because that will mean MH is just a freak that acted alone to fulfill her own dark desires.  But as much as I hate to admit it, I doubt that's the case.  I think there's something more sinister.

JessStar, thanks for explaining that! 

[mizjay]

I think JVM has overworked the Octomom situation as badly as NG has overworked the Anthony case.  Bleh.  Would love to see both of them giving those topics up and giving that airtime to Sandra, Haleigh, and Adji's cases, etc.  Actually would like NG to give it up completely and give her entire hour over to say, Mike Brooks.   
 

I'd be THRILLED if he could bump her right out of her chair!  He is so much easier to watch - he's always on the mark with his comments and opinions and isn't an insulting smartass to his guests. 

He also knows what the word BOMBSHELL means and doesn't try to hype everything up. 

Tracygirl, good to hear that Dr. Phil didn't mention Octo-Mom.  He must know that JVM has that one covered, lol!!

I agree, Flossy! 

 

   I agree with the both of yous!!!!!!   NG is the most irritating and redundant host on tv. In the same show, the same videos over and over   and what a crabcake, she's got a little schitzo in her,  nice one minute, a wild banshee the next


and Wyks  earlier you asked why the little girls mother walked home,  I'm thinking the hospital staff or PD told her that because she was intoxicated she would be arrested if she drove. No cab fare???

[Wyks]

I think JVM has overworked the Octomom situation as badly as NG has overworked the Anthony case.  Bleh.  Would love to see both of them giving those topics up and giving that airtime to Sandra, Haleigh, and Adji's cases, etc.  Actually would like NG to give it up completely and give her entire hour over to say, Mike Brooks.   
 

I'd be THRILLED if he could bump her right out of her chair!  He is so much easier to watch - he's always on the mark with his comments and opinions and isn't an insulting smartass to his guests. 

He also knows what the word BOMBSHELL means and doesn't try to hype everything up. 

Tracygirl, good to hear that Dr. Phil didn't mention Octo-Mom.  He must know that JVM has that one covered, lol!!

I agree, Flossy! 

 

   I agree with the both of yous!!!!!!   NG is the most irritating and redundant host on tv. In the same show, the same videos over and over   and what a crabcake, she's got a little schitzo in her,  nice one minute, a wild banshee the next


and Wyks  earlier you asked why the little girls mother walked home,  I'm thinking the hospital staff or PD told her that because she was intoxicated she would be arrested if she drove. No cab fare???

Hmm.. didn't think about that, MizJay!  If that's the case, then the mom must have been more intoxicated than was indicated at first then.  And no matter how many drinks she had that early evening, she had been at the hospital for at least what, 4-5 hours + ??  I'm not a drinker, so I dunno, wouldn't that have been enough time lapse for her to be able to safely drive home?   

[Tracygirl]

I have to admit, I do not like NG, she bothers the heck out of me. I think she comes off as sort of acting and phony, but a lot of people bother me lately, lol, so my dear husband says.

I dont understand why she walked home, it would be quite a walk from sutter to the MHP, a good 2 or so miles I'de say. Not the best area to walk either that time of night. I would hate to think the Police would make a woman at night walk by herself. Did she say she drove or was someone else with her? All she said was she left with her daughter to get fast food. Idon't know, maybe her car wouldn't start?

 

[JazzTune]

Thank you Wyks, for your very kind and thoughtful reply.  You brought up excellent points and explained them very well.  I was not aware of course, of any discussions in another forum.  So, I hear and understand what you're saying, and I DO agree.  Your post will be the last word on this (unless Melissa's defense DOES try to use it.  Yep, that would be interesting.)  Thanks again for making me (still) feel welcome.  I really appreciate it. 

This forum is a remarkable resource of references and deductive reasoning.  Wonder if the LE department in Tracy have thought of using it for tips and strategies?  They sure could benefit from it!   Better logic here than anything they've used over the last few months, for sure.

Like everyone else, I'm upset to hear how they botched up the other case with MH and that little seven year old girl.  I'm perplexed too at the fact that the little girl's mother walked home from the hospital.  That disturbs me.

I could see that possibly the police might not have allowed her to drive if she was intoxicated.  (Depending on her blood alcohol level it can take many hours, (more than you'd think) for the level to drop to a safe level.)  But still, it really bothers me that no one made sure she got home okay.  Even if it wasn't a LEGAL obligation on the part of the staff, (since she was not the patient,) there was still a moral obligation, imo. 

I worked ER for ten years and I can't imagine allowing someone to walk home, especially at night.  We always found a way to make sure intoxicated patients or visitors got home safely, even if it meant taking up a collection for cab fare from the staff.  And we ALL felt that way.  We weren't being do-gooders either; it was just the thing to do.     

We don't know the whole story though.  Maybe she, (and everyone else) thought she DID have a ride.  Perhaps she waited outside the hospital doors, and the person never showed.   Still, I'm having a hard time with it.

If the LE had just done their jobs that night, maybe the worst would not have happened.  But they didn't, and Sandra was murdered.  A little girl, just eight.  I keep seeing her skipping and swinging her arms in that video.  I want to STOP the video right there.  Tell her, "Sandra, run home right now!  Lock your door!!"  My mind will not go past that point in the video.  It shuts down, cuts off.   

I remember my own daughter at eight.  So many memories.  I can see her sitting in the backseat with her best friend, bursting into gales of laughter over anything.  Imitating voices on the radio, telling goofy jokes.  I remember the Christmas she was eight.  She got a karoake machine and serenaded us all day.   

She also loved to do "magic" tricks.  We were her captive audience while she studiously tried to figure out the next step.  We always clapped at the end.   

She jumped rope.  She skipped along... just like Sandra.  That's what eight year old girls do.  Eight becomes nine.  And they grow up, just like my daughter.  Something Sandra will never get to do.  I pray she went quickly.  That she didn't suffer a long time.   

God, help us all.  May there be justice for Sandra.

[theboyzmom]

I have a real problem with what's been reported re Melissa and those fires in the SoCal home she lived in before.  In one of the fires there was $85,000 damage!!  I wouldn't call that a minor oopsy.  It's been said that LE will not press charges on Melissa because of her current charges for this case.  I do understand the importance of this case over the SoCal fires, however for Melissa to slide on those charges doesn't seem right either.  And also, the problem I have with the dropping of those charges, will the jury will get to hear about any of that? 

Excellent Question Wyks.

Imo, charges WILL be filed against Huckaby for the Jan incident at a minimum. I dont see how they could not. If they do, it could go to "prior bad acts" which if similar enough and the judge lets it on, could be heard by a jury. The fire was 2 years ago, I am doubtful they COULD charge her with  it if they wanted to, if they could charge her they would have, it was 2 years ago,

B

Tough call on the prior bad acts.  Typically "prior bad acts" are NOT admissible to prove that the defendant acted "in conformity therewith."  In other words, you typically can't introduce evidence of the January drugging to prove that MH drugged Sandra.  The law believes that the "probative value" of that type of evidence is outweighed by the potential prejudice of admitting it.  There are complex exceptions, but that's the general rule.  They'll need something pretty strong to tie MH to the January incident before the jury will hear about it, assuming she's NOT charged with it.  But Blink, you hit the nail on the head as to the way to get it in--charge her--and I agree, they will. Too much of coincidence to be just a coincidence.  They'll get the little girl's medical records, the police files, the statement from the mom, etc., and link it all together with Sandra's case.  They will parallel with everything except the ending. Then you don't have to worry about whether it constituted a PRIOR bad act because it now constitutes a PRESENT bad act.

IMO, this is all just the tip of the iceberg.  If your confidence in the Tracy LE has been shaken, do not fret--the feds are on it.  Wait and see--federal charges against MH are in the midst. . .  I hope I'm wrong about that because that will mean MH is just a freak that acted alone to fulfill her own dark desires.  But as much as I hate to admit it, I doubt that's the case.  I think there's something more sinister.

Jessstar - I have to disagree  - there was a recent case that said in part:, Evidence - other crimes, wrongs or acts - uncharged collateral crime, although consisting of prior bad acts, was admissible to prove motive and intent, where the evidence depicted the turbulent and sometimes violent relationship between def and victim - similarities between events of collateral crime and circumstances of the homicide are insufficient to warrant the introduction of collateral crimes bad acts for purposes of identity. Nicholson, 34 FLW 637, 4th DCA

So my thought is that the prior act MAY be admitted. Especially if the autopsy shows that Sandra was drugged. It would be sufficiently similar to overcome the prejudicial v probative test.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules since MH has not been CONVICTED of the prior act.

[JessStar]

I have a real problem with what's been reported re Melissa and those fires in the SoCal home she lived in before.  In one of the fires there was $85,000 damage!!  I wouldn't call that a minor oopsy.  It's been said that LE will not press charges on Melissa because of her current charges for this case.  I do understand the importance of this case over the SoCal fires, however for Melissa to slide on those charges doesn't seem right either.  And also, the problem I have with the dropping of those charges, will the jury will get to hear about any of that? 

Excellent Question Wyks.

Imo, charges WILL be filed against Huckaby for the Jan incident at a minimum. I dont see how they could not. If they do, it could go to "prior bad acts" which if similar enough and the judge lets it on, could be heard by a jury. The fire was 2 years ago, I am doubtful they COULD charge her with  it if they wanted to, if they could charge her they would have, it was 2 years ago,

B

Tough call on the prior bad acts.  Typically "prior bad acts" are NOT admissible to prove that the defendant acted "in conformity therewith."  In other words, you typically can't introduce evidence of the January drugging to prove that MH drugged Sandra.  The law believes that the "probative value" of that type of evidence is outweighed by the potential prejudice of admitting it.  There are complex exceptions, but that's the general rule.  They'll need something pretty strong to tie MH to the January incident before the jury will hear about it, assuming she's NOT charged with it.  But Blink, you hit the nail on the head as to the way to get it in--charge her--and I agree, they will. Too much of coincidence to be just a coincidence.  They'll get the little girl's medical records, the police files, the statement from the mom, etc., and link it all together with Sandra's case.  They will parallel with everything except the ending. Then you don't have to worry about whether it constituted a PRIOR bad act because it now constitutes a PRESENT bad act.

IMO, this is all just the tip of the iceberg.  If your confidence in the Tracy LE has been shaken, do not fret--the feds are on it.  Wait and see--federal charges against MH are in the midst. . .  I hope I'm wrong about that because that will mean MH is just a freak that acted alone to fulfill her own dark desires.  But as much as I hate to admit it, I doubt that's the case.  I think there's something more sinister.

Jessstar - I have to disagree  - there was a recent case that said in part:, Evidence - other crimes, wrongs or acts - uncharged collateral crime, although consisting of prior bad acts, was admissible to prove motive and intent, where the evidence depicted the turbulent and sometimes violent relationship between def and victim - similarities between events of collateral crime and circumstances of the homicide are insufficient to warrant the introduction of collateral crimes bad acts for purposes of identity. Nicholson, 34 FLW 637, 4th DCA

So my thought is that the prior act MAY be admitted. Especially if the autopsy shows that Sandra was drugged. It would be sufficiently similar to overcome the prejudicial v probative test.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules since MH has not been CONVICTED of the prior act.

Good eye!  That's one of those very complex exceptions that I mentioned in my post.  Evidence of prior bad acts can be admissible to prove "MOTIVE AND INTENT," but may not be used to prove that the defendant committed THIS crime.  So it can actually come in for that limited purpose.  I haven't read the case you are talking about--I'll look it up and take a read.  Thanks for the nugget!

[theboyzmom]

I have a real problem with what's been reported re Melissa and those fires in the SoCal home she lived in before.  In one of the fires there was $85,000 damage!!  I wouldn't call that a minor oopsy.  It's been said that LE will not press charges on Melissa because of her current charges for this case.  I do understand the importance of this case over the SoCal fires, however for Melissa to slide on those charges doesn't seem right either.  And also, the problem I have with the dropping of those charges, will the jury will get to hear about any of that? 

Excellent Question Wyks.

Imo, charges WILL be filed against Huckaby for the Jan incident at a minimum. I dont see how they could not. If they do, it could go to "prior bad acts" which if similar enough and the judge lets it on, could be heard by a jury. The fire was 2 years ago, I am doubtful they COULD charge her with  it if they wanted to, if they could charge her they would have, it was 2 years ago,

B

Tough call on the prior bad acts.  Typically "prior bad acts" are NOT admissible to prove that the defendant acted "in conformity therewith."  In other words, you typically can't introduce evidence of the January drugging to prove that MH drugged Sandra.  The law believes that the "probative value" of that type of evidence is outweighed by the potential prejudice of admitting it.  There are complex exceptions, but that's the general rule.  They'll need something pretty strong to tie MH to the January incident before the jury will hear about it, assuming she's NOT charged with it.  But Blink, you hit the nail on the head as to the way to get it in--charge her--and I agree, they will. Too much of coincidence to be just a coincidence.  They'll get the little girl's medical records, the police files, the statement from the mom, etc., and link it all together with Sandra's case.  They will parallel with everything except the ending. Then you don't have to worry about whether it constituted a PRIOR bad act because it now constitutes a PRESENT bad act.

IMO, this is all just the tip of the iceberg.  If your confidence in the Tracy LE has been shaken, do not fret--the feds are on it.  Wait and see--federal charges against MH are in the midst. . .  I hope I'm wrong about that because that will mean MH is just a freak that acted alone to fulfill her own dark desires.  But as much as I hate to admit it, I doubt that's the case.  I think there's something more sinister.

Jessstar - I have to disagree  - there was a recent case that said in part:, Evidence - other crimes, wrongs or acts - uncharged collateral crime, although consisting of prior bad acts, was admissible to prove motive and intent, where the evidence depicted the turbulent and sometimes violent relationship between def and victim - similarities between events of collateral crime and circumstances of the homicide are insufficient to warrant the introduction of collateral crimes bad acts for purposes of identity. Nicholson, 34 FLW 637, 4th DCA

So my thought is that the prior act MAY be admitted. Especially if the autopsy shows that Sandra was drugged. It would be sufficiently similar to overcome the prejudicial v probative test.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules since MH has not been CONVICTED of the prior act.

Good eye!  That's one of those very complex exceptions that I mentioned in my post.  Evidence of prior bad acts can be admissible to prove "MOTIVE AND INTENT," but may not be used to prove that the defendant committed THIS crime.  So it can actually come in for that limited purpose.  I haven't read the case you are talking about--I'll look it up and take a read.  Thanks for the nugget!

I know that when I worked civil cases we could get the prior acts of the plaintiff's in when it showed similarities. They could also get our clients prior malpractice history in if the cases were similar. I think the real test will still lay with Sandra having sedatives in her system at the time of death. No matter how Sandra died (i.e. ran over by car) if she had sedatives in her system the judge will let the first drugging in. BUT only if the prosecution can prove the MH did the first one.

[JessStar]

I have a real problem with what's been reported re Melissa and those fires in the SoCal home she lived in before.  In one of the fires there was $85,000 damage!!  I wouldn't call that a minor oopsy.  It's been said that LE will not press charges on Melissa because of her current charges for this case.  I do understand the importance of this case over the SoCal fires, however for Melissa to slide on those charges doesn't seem right either.  And also, the problem I have with the dropping of those charges, will the jury will get to hear about any of that? 

Excellent Question Wyks.

Imo, charges WILL be filed against Huckaby for the Jan incident at a minimum. I dont see how they could not. If they do, it could go to "prior bad acts" which if similar enough and the judge lets it on, could be heard by a jury. The fire was 2 years ago, I am doubtful they COULD charge her with  it if they wanted to, if they could charge her they would have, it was 2 years ago,

B

Tough call on the prior bad acts.  Typically "prior bad acts" are NOT admissible to prove that the defendant acted "in conformity therewith."  In other words, you typically can't introduce evidence of the January drugging to prove that MH drugged Sandra.  The law believes that the "probative value" of that type of evidence is outweighed by the potential prejudice of admitting it.  There are complex exceptions, but that's the general rule.  They'll need something pretty strong to tie MH to the January incident before the jury will hear about it, assuming she's NOT charged with it.  But Blink, you hit the nail on the head as to the way to get it in--charge her--and I agree, they will. Too much of coincidence to be just a coincidence.  They'll get the little girl's medical records, the police files, the statement from the mom, etc., and link it all together with Sandra's case.  They will parallel with everything except the ending. Then you don't have to worry about whether it constituted a PRIOR bad act because it now constitutes a PRESENT bad act.

IMO, this is all just the tip of the iceberg.  If your confidence in the Tracy LE has been shaken, do not fret--the feds are on it.  Wait and see--federal charges against MH are in the midst. . .  I hope I'm wrong about that because that will mean MH is just a freak that acted alone to fulfill her own dark desires.  But as much as I hate to admit it, I doubt that's the case.  I think there's something more sinister.

Jessstar - I have to disagree  - there was a recent case that said in part:, Evidence - other crimes, wrongs or acts - uncharged collateral crime, although consisting of prior bad acts, was admissible to prove motive and intent, where the evidence depicted the turbulent and sometimes violent relationship between def and victim - similarities between events of collateral crime and circumstances of the homicide are insufficient to warrant the introduction of collateral crimes bad acts for purposes of identity. Nicholson, 34 FLW 637, 4th DCA

So my thought is that the prior act MAY be admitted. Especially if the autopsy shows that Sandra was drugged. It would be sufficiently similar to overcome the prejudicial v probative test.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules since MH has not been CONVICTED of the prior act.

Good eye!  That's one of those very complex exceptions that I mentioned in my post.  Evidence of prior bad acts can be admissible to prove "MOTIVE AND INTENT," but may not be used to prove that the defendant committed THIS crime.  So it can actually come in for that limited purpose.  I haven't read the case you are talking about--I'll look it up and take a read.  Thanks for the nugget!

I know that when I worked civil cases we could get the prior acts of the plaintiff's in when it showed similarities. They could also get our clients prior malpractice history in if the cases were similar. I think the real test will still lay with Sandra having sedatives in her system at the time of death. No matter how Sandra died (i.e. ran over by car) if she had sedatives in her system the judge will let the first drugging in. BUT only if the prosecution can prove the MH did the first one.

Here's the law in California for admission of evidence of uncharged crimes:

The principles governing admission of uncharged crimes are well established. HN4"Evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts is inadmissible solely to prove an accused had the predisposition to commit the charged offense. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a); People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 631 [205 Cal.Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126]; People v. Willoughby (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1062 [210 Cal.Rptr. 880].) However, HN5the evidence may be admitted when it is relevant to prove another issue in the case such as opportunity, intent, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) HN6Because of its inflammatory impact, evidence relevant on one of these theories should be excluded when it is 'not relevant to an issue expressly in dispute [citation], . . . "merely cumulative . . ." [citations], or . . . more prejudicial than probative under all the circumstances.  [*18]  [Citations.]' ( People v. Alcala, supra, at pp. 631-632. Accord, People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 314-318 [165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883].) [***15]  " ( People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 82-83 [241 Cal.Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127].) CA(2)(2) In sum, HN7to be admissible, evidence of other crimes must be relevant to some material fact in issue, must have a tendency to prove that fact, and must not contravene other policies limiting admission, such as Evidence Code section 352. ( People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 109 [246 Cal.Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37]; People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 315-318 [165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883].)

IMHO, I think the prosecution has a strong argument to admit the evidence, provided they can tie MH to it.  I think they will be able to make the connection, but to do it, they will, unfortunately, have to involve the little girl, as she's the only one that can testify that MH gave her a drink from Wendy's that tasted like medicine. 

That's evaluating its admissibility in Sandra's case.  But there's another case!!!!!  It's the case involving the other little girl, which I'm sure is coming down the pike. In that case, the question will be whether evidence related to Sandra's case can be used against MH in the "Drugging" case.  And the answer there is a resounding YES!!! because it will show IDENTITY OF THE PERP and the OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE CRIME.  That's assuming, of course, that what we're assuming is true (that Sandra was drugged) turns out to be true.

[no rose colored glasses]

Good Morning, and thanks JessStar for the info, much appreciated. I'm curious if more people are going to come forward that their child spent time with Melissa, not only in No CA, but So CA as well. Something tells me there are other children. But the problem for some of these parents might be they don't want their child involved, to protect the child, or whatever reason they may have.

[JessStar]

Good Morning, and thanks JessStar for the info, much appreciated. I'm curious if more people are going to come forward that their child spent time with Melissa, not only in No CA, but So CA as well. Something tells me there are other children. But the problem for some of these parents might be they don't want their child involved, to protect the child, or whatever reason they may have.

I seem to recall reading a comment from Sheneman a few days ago that they were talking to at least 2 other parents.  I'll see if I can drum up the article.