In honor of Sonny's upcoming trial, I have decided to do a series examining a variety of legal and evidentiary issues that may be raised. This is the first in the series, and it examines the potential evidence against Sonny.
If You Didn’t Do the Crime, You Shouldn’t Do the Time
If you have been fantasizing about Crimson’s next fashion show featuring Sonny Corinthos working the catwalk rocking a fitted, orange jumpsuit, forget it. Many fans are so angry, frustrated, and annoyed with Sonny they just want him to pay for something…anything, but the dimpled Don won’t be bunking with former father-in-law Anthony Zacharra at Club Fed anytime soon. Sonny’s upcoming trial is confined only to Claudia’s death, i.e. the one thing Sonny really did not do.
Obviously, GH takes “poetic license” with legal storylines. For example, a jury in a criminal trial is not chock full of the Defendant or Prosecutor’s friends and family. In the case of someone as high profile as Sonny, in all likelihood, the venue may have been changed and his trial conducted in another town, where a more objective jury pool might be available. Nevertheless, even with over-the-top daytime drama, there are some interesting facets to examine, and truthfully, GH has done a fascinating job of weaving the fabric of the
The People vs. Sonny Corinthos.
Following is a step-by-step legal guide for understanding the strategies of both the perky, stalkerish federal prosecutor, Claire Walsh and the dynamic legal duo of Diane and Alexis.
The Evidence:
1. Threats Sonny made during public fight with Claudia at the Metro-Court
Prosecution: will argue Sonny’s tirade and threats at Claudia’s Birthday Party form the basis of his motive to murder Claudia for the botched hit that left Michael comatose for a year. The Prosecution will argue Claudia was dead within hours of Sonny’s direct threats on her life.
Defense: will counter arguing this is not Sonny’s “first trip to the rodeo,” and if Sonny genuinely intended to murder Claudia, he would not have publicly threatened her thereby telegraphing his motive and intent publicly.
2. Maxie’s Testimony about seeing Sonny coming home wearing a shirt with a bloody handprint
Prosecution: will use Maxie’s testimony to lay the foundation for the Prosecution’s primary piece of circumstantial evidence, the ashes of a bloody, burned shirt Dante removed from Sonny’s fireplace. Maxie’s testimony could also be used to help establish a time-frame for Claudia’s death which presumably would be consistent with Claudia’s Autopsy Report.
Defense: will attack Maxie’s testimony from several standpoints - First, the Defense will point out Maxie’s problems with visibility in a blinding rainstorm, in the middle of the night, with bright car lights shining in her face. Next, the Defense will object to any characterization of the “stain” on Sonny’s shirt being blood. Obviously from Maxie’s vantage point, there is no way she could have identified one type of stain from another, and therefore, the Defense will be careful to object to any attempt on the part of the Prosecution to elicit testimony from Maxie suggesting the stain was blood. The Prosecution will attempt to infer the stained shirt Maxie saw is the same shirt later burned and from which ashes were analyzed and Claudia’s blood discovered. The best the Prosecution can realistically do is attempt to make this inference. It is doubtful even a fashionista, like Maxie, could positively identify the precise type of shirt Sonny was wearing from her brief glimpse.
3. Ashes of Bloody, Burned Shirt Alleged Taken from Sonny’s Fireplace
Prosecution: This is really the centerpiece of the Prosecution’s case against Sonny. The alleged ashes of Sonny’s bloody shirt helped form the “probable cause” upon which the warrant for Sonny was eventually issued. (It was this warrant Dante was attempting to serve when he was shot.) Dante collected this evidence, and the Prosecution will call him to the stand to testify about it.
Defense: The Defense strategy would be to attack the “chain of custody” of this evidence. This includes careful examination of all steps in the process from initial collection to admission of the evidence in court. Any departure from the appropriate protocol for handling evidence can lead to an attack on the integrity of the evidence. The Defense may also try to attack Dante’s credibility as a witness by making it seem as if he has an “ax to grind” or a bias against Sonny. The Defense may even attack Dante’s credibility on the basis of his firing from the NYPD.
4. Testimony of Jax and Olivia regarding the phone conversation they heard at Sonny’s on the night of Claudia’s death
Prosecution: will attempt to use Jax and Olivia’s testimony to suggest they witnessed Sonny receive a phone call believed to be providing Sonny information as to Claudia’s whereabouts. Prosecution would use their testimony to suggest following this phone call, Sonny quickly left his house. The inference would be as soon as Sonny received a call providing Claudia’s location, he left, presumably to kill Claudia.
Defense: would point out Jax and Olivia heard only Sonny’s side of the phone conversation. The Defense would object to nearly all of Jax and Olivia’s testimony regarding the conversation as Hearsay and therefore, excluded from evidence. For example, neither Jax, nor Olivia knows first- hand who was on the other end of the phone call to Sonny. Therefore, if either of them testifies it was Jason calling Sonny to tell him Claudia’s location, the Defense would object because Jax and Olivia only know who Sonny SAID was on the phone, and they have no idea WHAT was said on the other end of the phone conversation. The Defense will also attempt to impune Jax and Olivia’s credibility.
5. Testimony of Jason and Sam
Prosecution: may call Jason and/or Sam as hostile witnesses to see if either might testify to anything that may help prove Sonny’s whereabouts at the time of Claudia’s death
Defense: Jason and Sam both can simply and truthfully testify they didn’t see Claudia killed, and Sonny was not present when they located Carly and her newborn. In addition, the Defense will advise Jason to simply plead his 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination if issues arise regarding burning the cabin, destroying evidence, or disposing of Claudia’s body.
6. Carly’s Testimony
Prosecution: The Prosecution will probably not call Carly to testify, but if the Defense calls Carly to testify, the Prosecution will attempt to discredit her testimony and attack her credibility and believability.
Defense: Since Sonny insists on trying to sell the jury that he accidentally killed Claudia while trying to protect Carly and her baby, the Defense may call Carly to testify. If limited to these topics, Carly can truthfully testify Claudia kidnapped her at gunpoint, threatened her life, acted erratically, and tried to steal her newborn. That limited testimony could actually support and bolster Sonny’s story that he killed Claudia in defense of Carly and Josslyn. (Carly has the potential to be a loose cannon on cross-examination by the Prosecution. If I were counsel for the Defense, I would not call Carly as a witness unless it was absolutely a last resort.)
7. Michael’s Testimony
Prosecution: Based on the conversation Dante overheard between Sonny and Michael at the morgue after Claudia’s body was recovered, the Prosecution wants to question Michael because they believe he has information about Claudia’s death. Specifically, the Prosecution believes Michael may have been present when Claudia died (which of course he was). The Prosecution mistakenly believes Michael witnessed Sonny kill Claudia.
Defense: The Defense can also simply instruct Michael to answer ONLY the question asked. For example, if the Prosecution asks Michael whether he saw Sonny kill Claudia, he can truthfully answer “No,” and leave it at that. If Michael branches out and “confesses” to killing Claudia, the Defense will point out Michael is brain-damaged with uncontrollable anger-issues and a history of confessing to things he didn’t do. The Defense can also advise Michael to plead the 5th Amendment to protect him from answering any questions that might incriminate him in any way, including questions related to obstruction of justice.
8. Sonny’s Testimony
Prosecution: The 5th Amendment essentially leaves the option to testify or not in the hands of the Defendant and his/her counsel. Prosecution cannot call Sonny to testify; however, if the Defense permits Sonny to take the stand, the Prosecution can cross-examine him regarding anything brought up during his direct testimony.
Defense: Sonny may try to force Alexis and Diane to let him testify. In this situation, strategically Diane should avoid putting Sonny on the stand unless it is absolutely necessary. The Defense would not want to open Sonny to cross-examination by the Prosecution, and the only way to avoid that would be not to put him on the stand in the first place. The other problem for Diane is ethical. Since Diane knows Sonny did not kill Claudia, she would actually be suborning perjury if she permits Sonny to testify. Of course, Alexis does not know Sonny is lying about killing Claudia, and therefore, Alexis could theoretically call Sonny to the stand without suborning perjury. Technically, if it reaches the point where Sonny insists on testifying, and Diane knows or believes Sonny is going to lie on the stand, Diane should withdraw from the case citing a professional ethical conflict, and turn the rest of the Defense over to Alexis without explanation.
9. Direct Evidence Against Sonny: Hair found on Claudia matching Sonny’s DNA - Sonny’s alleged hair found after Claudia’s body was recovered, provided the Prosecution’s only piece of evidence directly linking Sonny to Claudia’s death. This hair was the lynchpin to secure a warrant for Sonny’s arrest; however, realistically from an evidentiary perspective, this particular piece of evidence is worthless to the Prosecution for a variety of reasons. First, Sonny was Claudia’s husband, and it would not be abnormal to find his hair on her clothing. Second, Claudia’s body was handled by so many people from the time she died to the time her body was recovered, the hair could have been planted by anyone, at any time. There is no “chain of custody” to assure the integrity of this evidence. Finally, the DNA-match was done on the hair before it came to light Dante was Sonny’s son. Depending on the percentage of the “DNA-match,” the hair may also match Dante’s DNA. Any or all of these reasons may be enough to have this piece of evidence thrown out or completely discredited in the eyes of the jury.
Burden and Standard of Proof: In order for Sonny to be found guilty and go to jail, it is the Prosecution’s responsibility to demonstrate using admissible, credible evidence to prove to the jury Sonny had the means, motive, and opportunity to intentionally kill Claudia. The Prosecution must “prove” this “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not beyond ANY doubt, just beyond a REASONABLE doubt. A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt to which you can attach a reason. If even one juror has a reason to doubt the evidence presented by the Prosecution, it is their responsibility to acquit Sonny.
The Defense does not have to “prove” Sonny is innocent. Sonny is PRESUMED INNOCENT until the Prosecution can demonstrate to 12 jurors there is no reason to doubt Sonny’s guilt. If the Prosecution’s case has enough flaws to leave a “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a single juror, then the jury is obliged to find Sonny not guilty.
With the evidence currently available, a jury realistically would not find Sonny guilty of Claudia’s murder…BUT…enter Sonny, the Pig Headed One.
Self-Defense Is A Legal Game-Changer:
Recall, how vociferously Diane argued with Sonny about his decision to “plead not guilty/self-defense.” No doubt, Diane knows Sonny is making a strategic mistake tremendously complicating his defense. If Sonny simply pled “not guilty,” and did not take the stand, considering the totality of the evidence and anticipated witness testimony, the Prosecution’s case is very weak. There is room for “reasonable doubt” in many areas. If Diane did a good job on cross-examination, exposing the weaknesses in the Prosecution’s case, there is a strong likelihood, the jury would find sufficient reasonable doubt to find Sonny “not guilty” in record time and without anyone perjuring themselves.
Sonny’s pig-headed insistence on putting forth his “self-defense” scenario complicates Diane’s job on at least two fronts. As alluded to above, if Sonny persists in taking the stand and perjuring himself claiming he killed Claudia in his “self-defense” scenario, it puts Diane in a legal ethics quandary because she could be disbarred for knowingly putting a Defendant on the stand that plans to perjure himself. However, the bigger problem with claiming self-defense is it legally “shifts the burden of proof” onto the Defendant.
As discussed above, the Prosecution’s burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is totally the Prosecution’s burden. The Defense has nothing to prove. However, in a situation where a Defendant claims “self-defense,” the burden of proof actually shifts or moves from the Prosecution to the Defense. With a self-defense claim, the Defense must produce evidence to prove the Defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances and with appropriate force to defend themselves or others, but no more force than necessary to thwart the attacker; in other words, the force used to defend must be “in proportion” to the imminent attack. It is only acceptable to use “deadly force” when fear is reasonable and imminent that deadly force is about to be used against you or the person(s) you are defending.
By pleading “self-defense,” Sonny is in essence admitting the Prosecution’s evidence is correct, so Sonny is effectively eliminating the easiest way for his Defense team to win the case outright because of flimsy, insufficient evidence that leaves reasonable doubt.
Let’s examine Sonny, and by extension Michael’s situation, in light of the standard of proof for a successful “self-defense” claim. Would either of them be justified in using “deadly force” against Claudia?
Michael’s Self Defense Argument: young man with known brain damage who saw his mother kidnapped at gunpoint by Claudia, whom Michael knew had a history of violence and involvement in crimes including murder and attempted murder. Michael saw Claudia behaving irrationally when she kidnapped his mother who was in labor. Michael knew Claudia had recently lost a baby. He had every reason to believe Claudia was armed and dangerous which is confirmed by the APB the PCPD put out on Claudia. Unarmed, Michael walked into a situation where his mother is screaming and crying, but unarmed and unable to defend herself having just given birth. Michael witnesses Claudia on her way out the door with a defenseless newborn infant in a basket. Michael picked up the first thing in his grasp, an ax handle, and he rushed in striking Claudia with the ax handle. Michael’s assessment of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances. He had a right to defend his mother and newborn sister. Michael did not intend to kill Claudia; he intended to stop Claudia without providing her time to use the gun he reasonably believed she possessed. Even if Michael had intended to use “deadly force,” it would have been “reasonable,” i.e. justified under the circumstances. Michael struck Claudia only once, not repeatedly, as someone out of control or acting in anger may have done. Michael may have even aimed high when hitting Claudia to avoid any chance of hitting the baby’s basket.
Sonny’s Self Defense argument would be analyzed in much the same way as Michael’s; however, Sonny’s self-defense argument is less compelling than Michael’s in a few areas. For example, Sonny would likely have arrived at the cabin with a gun that he could have used to neutralize Claudia, perhaps without even shooting. This is something the Prosecution would likely point out. In addition, Sonny has had more experience in violent, dangerous situations, and he would have been calmer and perhaps clearer in his assessment of the situation than Michael. Michael reacted on fear and adrenaline to rescue his mother and sister. Sonny may have had the presence of forethought to take command of the situation without necessitating any use of force. The other problem Sonny has with claiming “self-defense” is his public threats against Claudia earlier in the evening will be used by the Prosecution to under-cut the self-defense argument by claiming Sonny simply followed through on his prior threats.
Sonny thinks by taking responsibility and claiming self-defense, no one will ever have to know of Michael’s involvement. All Sonny really accomplishes by claiming self-defense is unnecessarily complicating his Defense team’s job and perjuring himself which could come back to bite him later when the truth inevitably comes out. By pleading “self-defense,” Sonny is admitting to killing Claudia, eliminating all of his Defense team’s arguments about the insufficiency of the Prosecution’s evidence, and eliminating the Prosecution’s burden of proving Sonny’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sonny’s “strategy” is unnecessarily high-risk and potentially legal suicide, but it does add an interesting twist to the story. If I were Sonny’s Defense attorney, I might take an ax handle to him myself.
by: Spin's Vixenella
Stay tuned for the next blog in this series: Will Franco Save Sonny?
Read more...
Nu-Morgan will be replaced by Aaron Sanders who apppeared in a different soap called Passion. We have heard that he will be playing the role of "Morgan" on April 14… "ABC Soaps in Depth" tweeted this news. Check his Bio
