Member Since: February 13, 2007 Last Signed In: September 27, 2007 Profile Views: 4232 Blog Views: 82586 Brothers' attorneys face contempt hearing Judge: Brothers deserves to die Jury recommends Brothers should receive the death penalty VERDICT IN DEATH PENALTY No Verdict This Week Jury begins deliberations in Brothers penalty phase Defense attorney finishes closing argument Defense continues closing argument Defense attorney begins his closing argument Prosecutor finishes closing argument February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
First of continuing blog on Vincent Brothers trial
Brothers, a former vice principal, is accused of killing his wife, Joanie Harper; their three children, Marques, Lyndsey and Marshall; and Joanie Harper’s mother, Earnestine. His family was found dead on July 8, 2003, and he was arrested in April 2004 on suspicion of committing the murders. He has pleaded not guilty. The blog will link to the latest stories and videos. The story on Feb. 14 describes how questioning began for 85 new potential jurors, the the excusing of 30 jurors who have previously been questioned. Jurors are slated to return to court Feb. 21 for the final selection process. The trial is estimated to last three months. 28 comments from 17 users
1
posted by
anonymous
on Mar 14, 2007 at 06:15 PM
I think that as part of the continuing coverage of the Vincent Brothers trial, why doesn't the Californian keep track of the number of times the clowns Gardina and Bryan request a mistrial? We can start a pool, and whoever guesses closest to the number when it is all over, wins a toaster!
posted by
anonymous
on Mar 6, 2007 at 09:59 AM
I'll make this brief. I have strong doubts about a man that has been notified that his entire family has been murdered and he finds it difficult to come home. Any normal person without guilt would have gotten on the first mode of transportation headed west to find out first hand what was going on. Instead Mr. Brothers plays cat and mouse games with BPD Detectives about whether he's coming back to Kern County. Ultimately he comes back after days of being unsure led by attorney Curtis Floyd. If that is not the actions of a guilty man then I don't know what is!!!! posted by
anonymous
on Mar 4, 2007 at 07:11 PM
Having served as a juror at least 75 times in my lifetime, I can see where this case is going.
I have read about this case for....whatever time it has been in the media, and my question is much the same as in the OJ Simpson case; why has there been little or none "search" for the "real killers" if Mr. Brothers is not involved somehow? Throughout the OJ Simpson case, he declared he would find the "real killers." Has anyone else seen "anything about other suspects in this case" outside of the "girlfriend of the deceased" described and reported in the media? I too would not want to be on this jury, it would be interesting to hear all the evidence, but there is so much "gobblety-goop" in any court trial these days, which lends to distract from the real facts of the case; and my gosh--three months--at $15 per day.....forgeddaboutit!!!!!! posted by
jfrancais
on Mar 2, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Your right anonymous. I think KC has been pretty consistent when it comes to misconduct in trials by the prosecution. No particualr ethnic group is singled out. I was refering to the lack of diversity on the jury pool, however, thus the reference to "Black" which was the defense's argument during jury selection. I grew up in KC and have since moved away. The only case I was familiar with prior to this was Offord Rollins case in the 90's and that hit me pretty hard. Since then I have read about Bruce Sons and watched a movie on the "Witch Hunts" of the 80's in KC. I am somewhat biased on the case since I know Mr. Brothers fairly well but I hope justice runs its course. posted by
anonymous
on Feb 27, 2007 at 07:19 AM
jfrancis- You are right BLACK people are following this case. I am following this case just to see how low Kern County really is. Kern County will lie, beg, borrow , and steal to convict an innocent person. Notice I didn't say Black person. KC doesn't discriminate, if they want you they will do what it takes to get you. Brothers is innocent until Lisa Green proves him guilty. If KC doesn't follow the law the ruling will be overturned, just watch and see. posted by
jfrancais
on Feb 23, 2007 at 05:03 AM
I think a lot of Black people are following the case for the simple fact that Mr. Brother was well known as a Basketball coach and Educator in the Black community. The crime also took place in a Black neighborhood. I think that is part of the reason the defense is complaining of lack of diversity in the jury pool. I can see a lot of people knowing little about the case, however, with Bakersfield having such a large population of people coming from other parts of the country.
posted by
novelboy
on Feb 22, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I wonder if any independent Change of Venue polls were done to provide statistics on what people in general knew of the case... In a city as large as Bakersfield, I can see how even a lot of people haven't heard of the case. Look at the small amount of people commenting on here. A lot of people don't watch the news or read papers/online news...
posted by
jfrancais
on Feb 22, 2007 at 06:42 AM
I'm just curious what all of you will say should he be found innocent. The tone of most of the message posted have an air of conviction about them and sound as if minds are already made up. I was a student of MR. Brothers so I am a bit biased but in trying to keep an open mind about the case, I would like to know what "unravels in the courtroom" before deciding that he may be "depraved" or whether he should get the death penalty. In all fairness to the defendant, the case should have been moved. Kern County has history of prosecutorial misconduct in huge cases such as this one (Bruce Sons, Offord Rollins, etc.) and Mr. Brothers was a highly visible person in the community given his occupation which depletes possible jurors candidates..
posted by
NancyII
on Feb 20, 2007 at 08:01 PM
I'm sorta kinda trying to stay impartial here but I will say that man would NOT want me on his jury. IF he's guilty, the depravity goes even deeper since it was his own family. I'm with Audrey..if you can find a jury who hasn't formed at least half an opinion then they've been living under a rock somewhere.
posted by
AudreyB
on Feb 20, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Steve I'm not sure I would want 12 jurors sitting on this case who have NOT read or heard something about it. My first impression is that they're either too stupid or uncaring if they haven't read about it in the newspaper or heard about it on the news. Do these people live in a bubble? Who needs em? posted by
AudreyB
on Feb 20, 2007 at 07:14 PM
How can you get more depraved than someone who can kill five people in cold blood? He's looking more devious all the time.
posted by
bubbaa
on Feb 20, 2007 at 06:25 PM
Is it just me, or... Do his pictures show a man looking more and more depraved as time goes on? posted by
bubbaa
on Feb 20, 2007 at 05:58 PM
Because we aren't on the jury, we are allowed to view the evidence we have seen with a more critcal eye--and we are allowed to use common sense. Juries have to play all of the legal games of what can and cannot be viewed. We do not.
posted by
anonymous
on Feb 15, 2007 at 07:42 PM
I have to side with Steve. The fact that Brothers couldn't keep his d..k in his pants has nothing to do with why he killed his family. And Steve is telling the truth that there are so many facts of this case that has not been released to the media, yet. Like I said in a previous blog, it will be quite the circus... Anon56 posted by
anonymous
on Feb 15, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Steve-
I have to disagree with you on the infidelity not being important. In this case it is. Brothers had a pattern of lying. He lied to women about his marital situation. This was not just one or two women it was many women. If he could lie so easily to them then he could lie about his so called trip to Ohio. posted by
randomfactor
on Feb 15, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Y'know, I'm really not worried about finding an impartial jury. I'm more worried about prosecutorial misconduct.
posted by
antiextremism
on Feb 15, 2007 at 10:04 AM
I hope we can find 12 jurors here who weigh the facts as opposed to making assumptions based on media reports. But I would not be surprised if ,as Random suggests, we have more than one trial. I'm only basing this on the D.A.s propensity to use unnecessary tactics to get a conviction. It's not like cases haven't been overturned here in the Golden Empire before. posted by
steveeswenson
on Feb 15, 2007 at 08:48 AM
Hearing about a case and knowing enough about it to render a judgement based on all the facts are too different things. I'd grant you that Brothers isn't up for saint of the year. But people, myself included and I know a lot more than has been printed, have plenty to reserve judgment about.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Feb 15, 2007 at 08:38 AM
Steve, don't you think most of the people in Bakersfield have heard of Mr Brothers and the murder of the Harpers? I'm going to side with Random on this one (what a surprise). It should have been moved. You don't have to remember intimate details of a crime to have a pre-conceived notion about the guilt or innocence of a suspected murderer.
posted by
randomfactor
on Feb 15, 2007 at 08:36 AM
Steve, the people of this country are currently preoccupied with the sexual history of a deceased, pneumatically-enhanced stripper while a war goes on during a time of incredible economic uncertainty and political chicanery. You give folks way too much credit for knowing what issues to focus on. :)
posted by
steveeswenson
on Feb 15, 2007 at 08:27 AM
Random, You and I are going to disagree on this point. People have way to much going on in their lives to remember the intimate details of any criminal case. And this case hasn't yet been laid out. So, it is no stretch that a fair and impartial jury can be found here. That's the criteria for whether to move the trial to another county. This is different than Bruce Sons in which the trial details was extensively reported. And Anon, We'll give you all the relevant testimony. Not to worry. But infidelity and murder are two different things. They don't necessarily mix, or we'd have a whole lot more dead people than we do now. posted by
randomfactor
on Feb 15, 2007 at 08:19 AM
The DA should have saved the taxpayers a *LOT* of money and moved the case out of Kern County for the *FIRST* trial, not the third. . It's all about image, though. posted by
anonymous
on Feb 15, 2007 at 08:06 AM
We do know that he is guilty of infidelity on numerous occasions. The line up of women to testify will be interesting. I hope the Californian lets us know who they were.
posted by
steveeswenson
on Feb 15, 2007 at 07:38 AM
Anon,You would not qualify as a juror. You seem to have your mind made up. Here's the deal on this and other trials. People have no idea what the evidence will be until it all unravels in the courtroom. There will be thousands of facts upon which a jury will be asked to consider whether a defendant is guilty or not. This case in particular is full of yet to be released details. District Attorney Ed Jagels said at the outset that this will be a circumstantial case, the hardest kind to prove. So maybe we should wait a little while before we decide whether Brothers is guilty. We're going to try to report those details in this blog and in the newspaper. We should have a much better idea three months from now. posted by
anonymous
on Feb 14, 2007 at 09:23 PM
Burn Brothers Burn!
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY posted by
montfred
on Feb 14, 2007 at 05:58 PM
The trial hasn't began yet. But, you knew that.posted by
anonymous
on Feb 14, 2007 at 05:40 PM
The photos in this slideshow are from our archives and are not the photos in dispute in the Brothers case. Further, jurors are not allowed to read newspaper articles about this case during the trial.
- Jessica Logan posted by
montfred
on Feb 14, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Are the photos in the video, attached with this post, the same ones that the Californian published a story about today?Your story says that the trial Judge, has taken under consideration, the DA's request to show those images to the jury. Just don't seem right, that you would create this blog, and post this particular video on the very same day.
1
Our readers recommend: |