Man, it must be really difficult for that defence attorney to put so much passion and anger into defending a complete psychopath knowing full well he’s guiltier than sin.
Did they get smart and realize no one likes the female defense attorney?? Why would Wright bring Rodgers into it? If Wright confessed, he could've got a deal by just ratting out Sievers...Why bring Rodgers in it unless he was actually there??
Oh my gosh! I can't stand that female defense attorney!! She is incredibly unprofessional I believe. I wouldn't hire this defense team to get me out of parking ticket.
@@rayray8687 Yes! They did their job! My friend was killed and his killer confessed and his attorney still got him off. I am very sad about the acquittal, but hold much esteem for his public defender!
Vaughn Greenlee: I agree, this defence team was excellent, unlike the completely unqualified lawyer Mr Sievers chose to very possibly walk him straight to the chopping block. I guess we’ll see next week.
This lawyer is excellent, so much better than the Sievers lawyer. He’s really making me wonder if Wright actually did the murder himself. I think if Jimmy had disposed of the phone and the jumpsuit down in Florida he would have been found innocent.
The case is ridiculous? He may as well say dr Sievers is alive and well. What jerk of a defence lawyer. Love dr Sievers’ sister laughing when defence stated she may have given Wayne a second look.
This defence lawyer acting like criminals are so smart that they wouldn't do certain things, they are obviously not that smart because they get caught.
I agree, Debbie! I found myself yelling at my computer contradictions to the defense attorney or saying, "so?" when he made an irrelevant part of his argument! All 3 of them were idiots for murdering her in the *first* place!
If jimmy was simply driving for a friend , why bring the jumpsuits , duct tape , etc ? And why did jimmy destroy his own cell phone , throw away perfectly good shoes, and coveralls ? Taylor never asked for financial aid from law enforcement until months after she helped law enforcement. Jimmy also confessed to his gf Taylor. Taylor is a real hero, and should be paid any rewards. Nothing the Defense atty said clears jimmy ray rodgers from BRUTAL murder of an incredible lady.
Agreed. Also, defense atty says, ``it's a standard, 2-car garage, 20-by-20, how could he hide behind boxes?'' But we saw crime-scene technician testify it was a 3-car garage.
lol thank you! I rarely watch these, I mostly listen. I took a moment to check that and it was kinda funny. (I think we can be forgiven for laughing, when she was also laughing.)
Right about now, the unflappable His Honour Judge Kyle looks like he's done with this case! I hope the jury caught the inaccuracy of "The Closer" Defense Attorney that Curtis Wright hired Jimmy Ray Rodgers to kill Theresa but had nothing to do with her murder. In fact Wright testified that he hit her 3 times before Jimmy Rodgers finished the job in a frenzy of blood lust hitting her 14 more times with the hammer. Sitting at the Defense table, Jimmy Wright looks amazed as if he's hearing about this awful crime for the first time!
Marvin Knap: Yes I can but I admit it was a struggle, lol. “Farming” was a spell-checker ‘auto-correction’ of “Garmin”. The dumb-asses used a Garmin GPS during their trip to Florida and were stupid enough to connect it to Jimmy’s phone.
He keeps reminding that Jimmy doesn't have to testify or present evidence. If every thing is so cut and dry obvious he wasn't involved. Why not go on the stand and tell his story. If all he did was go to do the driving, tell that to the Jury. Could it be that he has a few skeletons they want to avoid coming out? I'm suspecting so. As the saying goes, 'Birds of a feather flock together'.
He should have done cross on Wright! Where was he all this time instead of that woman defense lawyer who didn't step up to the plate? Big mistake on their part.
This defense closing statement is painful.... all he is doing is name calling. And how childish could that female defense lawyer be?? Sitting there smirking and making faces!!!!
The defense seems to give excuses for why Teresa was killed. There is absolutely *no* excuse whatsoever to kill someone who's an innocent person; the only time it's acceptable is in self defense. Glad he got life.
The most puzzling part of the defense closing is that Curtis Wright "told you" but "he's a liar" and then goes on to quote Wright over and over and over again, as if it is "fact". He wants jury to believe part of what Wright testified to but to assume other parts were lies. I'm not sure, as a juror, I'd view that as helpful to his client. Yes, Curtis Wright is a felon, a terrible man. Jimmy Rodgers had many opportunities to remove himself from the situation. He could have taken a cab from the beach to a bus station, or better yet, to the POLICE station and say....Hey, this guy, who I thought just wanted my help driving, (he's got problems with falling asleep while driving) to FL for a family matter. I didn't find out what was really going on until I got here. He would have to gather up all of the stuff he took with him to FL, dispose of it, and beg the police for help. He could have prevented the murder, gone home, told his girlfriend (Taylor)...this guy Curtis Wright is crazy, and gone to work the next day. End of story. But, we all know he didn't do the right thing. He just didn't.
"Curtis Wright - World's most sensitive hammer-killer." I didn't like this lawyer at first, but now... I would hire him. He doesn't have a care in the world for anyone except his client, and that includes the victim's family sitting right behind him.
This male attorney is much better than the female attorney. He makes a good case but the evidence is overwhelming. No one said the criminals were smart regarding being thieves. Regarding the Garmin and the phone, I could easily understand people not thinking/linking the two items together. When the attorney explained it, I realized the common sense of the linkage, but I never thought about it before.
By most of the time actually defending innocent people. Also they have a duty to do their very best to defend their clients based on what their client tells them. They don't do that because they want to but because they HAVE to. If they get caught not acting in their client's best interest that's bye bye job. Everybody has the right to a defence and someone has to do that job. And lawers don't simply defend only people that are guilty. nobody is guilty until proven so and until then they have to work on the assumption that their client is telling them the truth. If their client tells them he did it, they cannot try to prove him innocent, that's against the law and would mean bye bye job also. No lawyer is going to risk that for one client. But as long as the client maintains his innocense, they have to do their very best to work in their interest. And a lot of times the client actually IS innocent. Would you want your lawer to not make a good job just because everybody on the internet thinks you're guilty if you're ever in trouble? Defense lawyers defend way more innocent people than guilty ones. if the opposite was true they'd lose most of their cases and would no longer get hired. And not every case is a murder case. Don't judge these people so hard. They didn't commit any crime. In fact they'd commit a crime if they DIDN'T work this hard for their client. I'm sure these laweres helped a ton of innocent people to get justice by working just as hard for them.
This guy is awful. Poor family to have to sit and listen to him spewing his BS. I love the lady in the back with her facial expressions though; that'd be me, too.
Their job is to uphold the constitutional rights that the government has to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their client is guilty. He's only doing his job. If you were accused of a crime, innocent or guilty, this is the type of guy you want. He will do his best to make the state produce good, true evidence to convict you if you are in fact guilty, as this man is and was found guilty. This is just a good attorney. It's not up to him to prove his client guilty. That's up to the state. He's making the state do their job. If you didn't have good defense lawyers, people would be arrested and tried and found guilty of crimes they didn't commit far too easily. People like this defense lawyer makes the justice system better, and as I said, he was found guilty. People like this make the prosecutors have to work HARDER to prove they are correct in accusing someone. If you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit, or did, wouldn't you want the evidence to be at least good and true that is presented against you? That's what he's forcing the government (DA) to do.
I was so convinced Jimmy Rogers was guilty. Then I hear this defense attorney speech. Not so sure now. If Jimmy Rogers didn't swing and hit her, then there was a conspiracy. I wish I was a fly on a wall in that very hot garage that night.
I'd say he's guilty. His girlfriend lying because of money from the police doesn't make any sense. How would she know where to find that coverall and the phone after all and why did he destroy that. However, the attorney made a good point in saying why should someone come there without a plan and beat her to death like a crazy person who never even knew her, while the guy that basically looks like her husband is going "hey ok ok, that's enough"... and it's also a pretty crazy story that he picked up that hammer just on a whim, yet Rogers had a hammer also and just happened to help beat her... so two guys that had no plan just happened to take a hammer at the same time to do this and they had those hammers from different places yet all wounds would be identified to come from the same hammer... that didn't sit right with me. I have little doubt that all three men were guilty... however I highly doubt it went down the way it was told. That indeed doesn't make any sense. There's too many holes in that story.
He's guilty of everything he was charged with but having said that I don't agree with the sentencing. Wright deserved life too. Whether he grassed or not he conspired with Jimmy and Mark to come to Florida and kill a defensive lady . Absolutely disgusting man.
@@tortoredOwl you literally can’t hold his silence against him, that would be tantamount to violating his constitutional rights. The jurors are reminded over and over again that they cannot hold his silence against him. This would be a serious injustice if it was even considered during jury deliberations.
Does jimmy have family. I wonder what they say about him? Probably some stories there. I saw jimmy take a deep breath when the attorney said Curtis was evil. Made me wonder if the word “evil” was what jimmy or others have said about him in the past.
Very difficult task to defend Jimmy. Ms Ross did her homework and presented her case brilliantly. This guy is not as prepared and is sort of winging it. Ms Ross was concise, clear and comprehensive.
Seems like the defense was never prepared. They were always all over the place. I appreciated how the state went in consecutive order with all the witnesses and all their questions to then we're very clear and understanding. That didn't help the defense either as far as how unorganized they looked!
The BIG WINNER of this trial is Wright. Instead of life in prison he only gets 25 years max. Although prosecution says he may never leave prison, he gets out for sure! Unbelievable!
He'll serve 2 out of 3 for good behavior and can get out early after 8 and under 15 yrs. While the nearly innocent co defendants get life and an execution for being guilty of association
Well he just had to make enough good ones to cause reasonable doubt. The jury didn't think he made enough ones. he doesn't have to prove innocense, the burden of proof is with the state. He just has to seed enough doubt.
Think he was right about shomaker, she is a grifter and looking to find others to pay her bills. Dont think it was appropriate to be paid and testifying. Seems like a conflict of interest. Strange about the hammers and cast off blood, too.
Plenty of doubt whether Wright's story was true And I have no doubt the jury shared those doubts. However he didn't cause enough doubt in Rodgers being involved in SOME way. And as was pointed out, if he was involved in some way... that's enough for the conviction. Maybe not for the burglary, that needs proof he was in the house. But for the murder, that's enough. And I think the jumpsuit, phone and the testimony by his girlfriend were enough to convince the jury he was involved. I'm not buying Wright's story at all. Just like the lawyer said, that story doesn't make any sense. But whatever happened, Rodgers was involved.
What is worst, a murdering defense attorney defending a muderere, or the act itself. Why defense a criminal who his co defendedend already confess that they were both in it...
Yes there was evidence that Jimmy was in that house..His girlfriend testified that he brought back the cooler and the back pack w that jump suit inside it..So Curtis Wright did tell the truth...n strange he has a nick name jimmy the hammer. .What a horrible death..God Bless her and her family..
I like this lawyer, will look up his name, later, because it’s not provided in this upload. However, imo, this Jimmy Rodgers is one despicable, spooky monster…God bless Theresa her children and her family. This is so incredibly unfair, it goes without saying..
If this was not a conspiracy, then why did Jimmy Rodgers take 2 pairs of coveralls from his place of work, to take to Florida with them and lie to his boss why he was going to Florida?
Gwen King exactly. Then have his gf throw it and the bag out the window. Plus put his cell under water then smash it up. His cell was pinging on towers right by the seivers house those two days. He’s on a store camera there. He even smiled at Wright in the second part of his testimony at 56:54 after he just testified against him. He’s sickening
Gwen King: It seems very possible that Jimmy Rodgers actually thought he was going on a big heist and he’d watched a few too many TV movies as to how to dress to keep evidence out of the scene. He might have known nothing about the murder until it actually happened.
JusticeAA: Of course my theory is useless, I wasn’t there and I wasn’t inside Jimmy Rogers’s brain. And that is exactly why it would not be admitted as evidence at trial....because it isn’t, it’s pure speculation. But the defense (I spelled it this way to “humour” you) attorney certainly convinced the jury that Jimmy Rodgers was not involved in the preplanning or pre-knowledge of this murder and got him a 2nd degree conviction. Now your theories, where you “know” this and you “know” that are equally useless as you don’t know anything more than the rest of us...unless of course you were there and somehow complicit in the crime. Is that what you’re telling us?
JusticeAA: Guess what...my “theory” as you call it is no longer a theory. The trials, convictions and sentencing are all done and a jury and judge agreed there was no believable evidence that Jimmy Rodgers was involved in the pre-knowledge, premeditation or planning of the murder - hence the 2nd degree conviction. Once a theory is proven it’s no longer a theory.
They got away with it until someone talked! If not for that it would have gone unsolved!! They had no evidence until they were told about them then did they investigate their trip!
What a ding dong this lawyer made a complete fool of himself! Since when is $400 a month some kind of price? ITS POVERTY LEVEL MONEY? Is this guy for real?
Actually it seems in the end the opposite happened. The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Rodgers was involved in preplanning or premeditation of the crime and the result was a 2nd degree conviction. I think the defense attorney did an excellent job forming that doubt and of keeping this guy from being executed; and, justice or not, that was her obligation under the constitution, to provide the best defense possible. By providing an excellent defense she also likely precluded 15 or 20 years of costly appeals, possible retrial, etc. I don’t know what else a defense attorney could have done in this case.
Leone Arendse: I’m most interested to see if a higher court will permit an appeal for ineffective assistance of council for Marc Sievers even though he waived that right during a case management hearing. Frankly I’ve never seen a trial defense done so badly as his. We’ll see.
why didnt Rodgers take a plea deal and testify against Seivers...he would have gotten 25 years but now he decided to go to trial and got life without parole instead.SMH
If everything the defence lawyer says is true, why did Jimmy get up and look at every photo from the medical examiner? If he didn’t do it wouldn’t he rather not look at horrible pictures of the victim? That was weird in itself. And they’re making a big deal about the star witness being a “5 time convicted felon”. Good grief they were drug charges. He’s moved up the ladder now but I believe him.
I don't believe him. I have no doubt Jimmy is guilty, but a kill for hire where no plan is made until the last second and then both men simultaneously, independent from eachother, decide to hit her like crazy with a hammer... I'm sorry I'm not buying that. They're both involved, so the conviction is valid, since they said, for him to be part of the murder and conspiracy, he doesn't have to be actively involved even, just be in-the-know. However, I do not believe for a second that it went down the way wright said. There's indeed way too many holes in that story. He's right when he says you don't start hitting someone with a hammer and then go "ok three times is enough". And someone who doesn't even know the victim doesn't go nuts on her out of the blue. Even if Jimmy is a complete psycho that always wanted to do something like this, the fact that Wright just happened to grab a hammer at the same time... that's just too big a coincidence for me. I think all the convictions were right. They are all guilty of murder by being involved in this somehow... but I don't buy that it went down like that.
@@LeutnantJoker But then it makes one wonder why Jimmy didn't testify to defend himself and contradict Wright's claims. Why stay completely silent throughout the trial?
Yep he must of thought he would be on trial in Missouri 😆😆 he was only charged with 2nd degree to begin with , then a few months later after his arrest his indictment came through and he was charged with 1ST DEGREE MURDER AND CONSPIRACY AND ARMED BURGLARY. THAT'S WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY FOR.
is it true she was murdered elswhere by means of poisen, and one of he the two used a hammer to ty make it look else? did they check the timeline as the crime scene findings dont fit?
Honestly they are not that bright just listen to them they are stupid. They thought they were going to get away with it, his lawyer told him to take a plea bargain we aren’t stupid either. Nasty Nasty people they shouldn’t have done it in the first place. How could anyone kill a innocent lovely Person with a hammer the pain and shock she must have felt. They are all guilty they should all be put to sleep.
That he's too smart to make the mistakes that were made before, during and after the murder. So since he wouldn't make mistakes therefore he didn't commit the murder.
Ikr? I think he's trying to say that Jimmy went down there with Curtis to do some work on Theresa's house. But when theresa came in Curtis started beating her in the head with the hammer and once he killed her he threatened Jimmy. So Jimmy was too scared to say anything. So basically Curtis was setting up jimmy for the murder. It's a ridiculous defense but I think it's all they had.
Why does the defense keep making a big deal about no one being paid. The money was supposed to be coming later from Theresa's Life Insurance Policies. The Insurance company isn't going to pay out while the case is under investigation.
The defence was trying to suggest that Curtis Wright murdered this woman completely of his own volition and that there was no conspiracy or involvement with Mr Rodgers or with Mr Sievers. It worked...they managed to keep Mr Rodgers off death row by convincing the jury he was not involved in the planning.
JusticeAA: I’m not so sure. Under Florida law I believe he will get a “something to life” sentence and whatever that “something” is - 15, 25, even 30 years - he’ll be eligible for parole. Maybe even sooner. Keep in mind too that he’s only 30ish so might get out in his 50s or 60s. Depends now on jury recommendation and judges acceptance of it. We’ll find out his sentence today I believe, but we won’t know if he survives it until it’s over, lol. Personally, right or wrong, justice served or not, I believe he will one day be released.
JusticeAA: Yes, but the appeals are yet to come, and at the public’s expense, lol. I didn’t know about the PRR status until it was brought up at sentencing because, of course, it would not have been permissible at trial. So, with PRR status, the judge was obligated to hand out the maximum sentence but he did cover his ass, so to speak, by putting on the record that he would have given the max sentence anyway - obviously he expects appeals. The defense, as you probably noticed, did make an attempt at disputing the date of Mr Rodgers last prison release arguing that is was unclear whether it was within the statutory 3 yr limitation although in my opinion (and obviously the judge’s) the objection was weak, but hey, they tried. Anyway, as the great philosopher (lol) Yogi Berra once said “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
JusticeAA: Jimmy Rodgers was a lucky man. Ms Fitzgeorge did an amazing job in presenting this case - except, of course, for the day she appeared to be absolutely drunk, lol - especially considering she had pretty much nothing to work with. She put a very reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that Curtis Wright was telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Let’s face it, Mr Wright had everything to lose, up to and including swinging from the old oak tree. Closing arguments were done well by her assistant council, again considering nothing to work with. The defense team did what they are obligated to do as public defenders under the constitution...they provided the best possible defense in an indefensible case. Mr Rodgers’s appeals will likely all fall flat as a result. Mr Sievers, on the other hand, has a no-brainer appeal for ineffective assistance of council even though he waived that right when he insisted on his doppelgänger as lead council. I believe a higher court will permit an appeal anyway, considering how completely useless his defense team was. It was, in my mind, embarrassing to watch.
JusticeAA: There’s also a third option...Mr Rodgers could still come out of jail in a wheel chair or on his death bed. Florida permits parole application for a person who is permanently and totally incapacitated, or whose death is imminent. This isn’t exactly a compassionate release, it’s simply because the prison system isn’t equipped to deal with it, or more likely has no reason or desire to.
Curtus wright is a scumbag just look at his facial expressions when he throws Jimmy under the bus.. Jimmy is guilty .He could have called the police for 20 hours to stop this from happening .just because he's simple is not an excuse
ok councilor piece by piece lets start with the piece where jimmy sitting over the corpse of the victim cracking jokes to curtis about which end of he hammer curtis used to deliver the decisive blowi coudnt quite get over that particular piece in jimmy's defence
