Ross Harris Trial

The jurors in Brunswick, Georgia have listened to four weeks of arguments regarding young Cooper Harris’s death. His father allegedly left the 22-month-old to suffer the stifling heat of his closed car in June of 2014. Ross Harris now must face the jury to offer his side of the story.

Mr. Harris’s lawyer, noted criminal defense attorney Max Kilgore, attempted to take apart claims from Cobb County Det. Phil Stoddard. He managed to find some holes and forced the detective to admit that some of the statements made by other officers or the detective himself were untrue. The state managed to get the detective back on track with their questioning before the jurors.

Another member of the Cobb County Police Dept, Det. David Raissi, recalled the conversation he had with the defendant upon learning that he was being charged with murder. Mr. Harris allegedly told the detective that “there was no malicious intent,” which the detective found suspicious. Defense counsel explained that Mr. Harris was familiar with the legal term because he worked as a dispatcher with an Alabama police department for several years. Det. Raissi pointed out to Mr. Kilgore that Alabama doesn’t have a malice murder charge.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the jury will also have the opportunity to evaluate the car in which Cooper Harris was left for hours. State prosecutor Chuck Boring felt that the jurors should see “the murder weapon.”

A tired jury must still decide if Mr. Kilgore is successfully undermining the state’s case against Ross Harris, but viewing the car should prove compelling.

The Murder Weapon in the Ross Harris Case

Jurors were permitted to view the Hyundai Tucson in which Justin Ross Harris’s son Cooper died. According the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, members were invited to examine the car without touching it or stepping into it. A deputy opened the door so that jurors could have a better view, and then they were allowed to study the vehicle from any angle they so desired.

Several jurors approached the vehicle in an attempt to mimic Mr. Harris’s actions that day. He returned to the car with his Home Depot purchase after lunch, and suspicion arose regarding his ability to see his son when he opened the door. Defense counsel explained that, because of his height, none of the jury members could gain the proper perspective. Mr. Harris is 6’2” while all of the jurors are shorter. This prompted defense attorney Max Kilgore to file a motion for a mistrial, contending that the jury may have incorrectly assumed that the defendant would have been able to see his son.

Judge Mary Staley Clark denied the motion, claiming that “the jury has a right to look at every piece of evidence.” She further explained that the jurors were limited in examining the car because they were barred from touching it and sitting in it.

Prosecution for the Ross Harris Trial Rests

The state rests in the Justin Ross Harris case, and now Mr. Harris’s defense counsel will be afforded the opportunity to dismantle the prosecution’s claims, most of which eyewitnesses or indisputable video have not corroborated. The state’s case depends predominantly on circumstantial evidence, according to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution. The potential lynch pin is a video of Mr. Harris’s return to his car on his lunch break with a Home Depot purchase.

The state contends that Mr. Harris would have been able to spot his son, but the scene on the video doesn’t clearly show that Mr. Harris would have been able to do so. In an effort to prove that he could, the state provided to the jury a rendering of Mr. Harris’s car complete with a life-size figure representing Cooper Harris, the defendant’s young son. Mr. Harris is six feet two inches tall and has claimed that he did not see Cooper because his height prevented him that perspective. His defense counsel contends that the prosecution’s rendering lacked accuracy.

As for the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution used statements uttered on social media applications and Mr. Harris’s extramarital sex life. Because of his questionable behavior, the state hoped that jury members would believe him capable of murdering his son, an act made more plausible when prosecutors aired footage of his police interview upon being arrested. Mr. Harris’s defense counsel slightly undermined the interviewer, Detective Phil Stoddard, when he highlighted some inconsistencies made in his statements. He also claimed that multiple search warrants contained falsehoods.

Jury Deliberates on Ross Harris’s Innocence

The jury viewed footage of a surveillance tape, featuring Ross Harris’s police interview shortly after his son’s death, which was allegedly perpetrated by him. While he speaks with Cobb County investigators, the defendant appears calm, but when he’s paired with his then-wife Leanna Taylor, he cries and mentions time in jail.

Some more unsettling footage showed Mr. Harris’s interview with a detective as he recounts his day. He mentions lunching with his co-workers, pauses, says “um” twice, and then skips the return to his car. He finished his statement by telling the detective that his co-workers dropped him off at his office.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that several jury members took notes during the videotape airings. The jury will make a decision on Mr. Harris’s outcome
with the options of finding him guilty of malice murder, felony murder, or finding him innocent. Some remaining charges against the defendant revolve around his sex crimes.

Sentencing Remains for Ross Harris

Ross Harris’s case drew to a close and now the sentencing remains on his eight convictions, the most notable being malice murder. He could potentially be facing life imprisonment without parole, according the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Cobb’s District Attorney opted not to seek the death penalty, sparking a wave of criticism. Mr. Harris is awaiting the sentencing behind bars in a Cobb County jail.

Mr. Harris’s defense attorney believed that numerous breakdowns occurred during the pre-trial and trial phase and intends to appeal the court’s decision.

As provided by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, his convictions are as follows:

• Malice murder with a sentence of life imprisonment
• Felony murder, count one, with a sentence of life imprisonment
• Felony murder, count two, with a sentence of life imprisonment
• First-degree cruelty to children with a sentence of five to 20 years
• Second-degree cruelty to children with a sentence of one to ten years
• Sexual exploitation of children with a sentence of one to ten years
• Dissemination of harmful material to minors, count one, with a sentence of up to one year
• Dissemination of harmful material to minors, count two, with a sentence of a up to one year