In season 11, episode 10, the murder of Joel Shanbrom by Jennifer Shanbrom is shown. The show is
titled Fatal Ties and Discovery ID's Deadly Women describes as Women
who take the wedding vow "'til death do us part"
seriously..
Jennifer Shanbrom was convicted of
first-degree murder with the special circumstances of lying in wait
and financial gain, conspiracy to commit murder and insurance fraud,
and four counts of insurance fraud and sentenced to life
without parole. She is not eligible for release.
Her husband, Matthew Fletcher was also charged in this murder. His appeal (see link), includes:
The perception that most of these – I say 99 percent of witnesses that we interviewed – and I've interviewed over 100-plus, 150 witnesses in this case ․ the perception that most of the people have – not all of them – is that Matthew Fletcher was a con man and he would – he's a good salesman and he would bring them in, suck them into this business he was in, and then leave them hanging and not take care of their needs when they would call for help; or if they had a meeting to go to, he would not show up; moneys that were owed, he would not pay them and, as a result, they all felt he was a crook.
Assuming, without deciding, that we are not barred from reviewing this question by any procedural bar, see Lambrix v. Singletary 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997) (noting that a procedural bar issue need not always be resolved first), we reject Appellants' argument on the merits. “A habeas petition will be granted for prosecutorial misconduct only when the misconduct ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Sassounian v. Roe, 230 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986)). Here, Appellants' certified claim rests entirely on the prosecutor's questioning of a single witness, Detective McCartin. The challenged exchange arose only after Matthew, acting as his own counsel during cross-examination, opened the door for the government to solicit Detective McCartin's views as to the veracity of the individuals he interviewed during his investigation, including both witnesses to and targets of that investigation. See United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511, 522 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We have emphasized that [w]here the defendant opens the door to an argument, it is fair advocacy for the prosecution to enter.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The perception that most of these – I say 99 percent of witnesses that we interviewed – and I've interviewed over 100-plus, 150 witnesses in this case ․ the perception that most of the people have – not all of them – is that Matthew Fletcher was a con man and he would – he's a good salesman and he would bring them in, suck them into this business he was in, and then leave them hanging and not take care of their needs when they would call for help; or if they had a meeting to go to, he would not show up; moneys that were owed, he would not pay them and, as a result, they all felt he was a crook.
Assuming, without deciding, that we are not barred from reviewing this question by any procedural bar, see Lambrix v. Singletary 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997) (noting that a procedural bar issue need not always be resolved first), we reject Appellants' argument on the merits. “A habeas petition will be granted for prosecutorial misconduct only when the misconduct ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Sassounian v. Roe, 230 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986)). Here, Appellants' certified claim rests entirely on the prosecutor's questioning of a single witness, Detective McCartin. The challenged exchange arose only after Matthew, acting as his own counsel during cross-examination, opened the door for the government to solicit Detective McCartin's views as to the veracity of the individuals he interviewed during his investigation, including both witnesses to and targets of that investigation. See United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511, 522 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We have emphasized that [w]here the defendant opens the door to an argument, it is fair advocacy for the prosecution to enter.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
You can write to Jennifer Shanbrom at:
Jennifer Shanbrom X11483
Central California Women's Facility
23370 Rd 22
Central California Women's Facility
23370 Rd 22
Chowchilla, CA 93610
At the end of the day, if you do not
learn SOMETHING from this, you never will.
Comments
Post a Comment