Comments on: Chainsaw Murderer Daphne Wright Appeals to Supreme Court

By: Jennifer Taylor

Jennifer Taylor — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:43:29 +0000

Daphine Wright should be in death penalty. We are human being doing things physically. She did physically killed her. We have brains to do it. She is not disabled. No matter who we are. Its tough.

By: MizClark

MizClark — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:37:06 +0000

Why the interpreter and CART? Had to be distracting watching a trial in two different languages not to mention the possibility of DEATH ROW! Are you kidding me?

If the psychologist recommended consecutive interpreting we can assume there were some issues during evaluation! HELLO!!

I’m sick of people hanging on to the phrase “reasonable accommodation” in providing ‘half assed’ services in the court room or otherwise.

Someone DIED and another is expected to spend the rest of hers in prison! Doesn’t anyone care about the truth?

By: Ben Vess

Ben Vess — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:36:54 +0000

i think the verdict should be overturned and a retrial should happen.

Perhaps this time around she will get death.

By: Steve Baier

Steve Baier — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:02:03 +0000

Daphine Wright is taking a very serious and risky move. But I think in this case, when the court looks at the real time captioning, the certified interpreters and other issues, they are prolly going to rule that she was accommatdated in this.

But, as far as a deaf jury goes? Her lawyers could have done jury nullification in that sense to get the deaf jury that they wanted in the first place.

Sadly to say, daphine wright ought to be thankful she’s alive but not being put to death. But life in prison forever is a death sentence in itself.

I’m glad I wasn’t choosen to sit on her jury as far as my recent jury experience went. But the evidence was clearly against her and she was rightly convicted. (IMHO).

By: Stepharp

Stepharp — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:29:17 +0000

Hi Mishka!

Good to see you here and I am unbelivable about this and I’m not that surprising about it.

Where did you get the information from, I didn’t know about it.

Evidence is very strong against Daphne. Let’s talk on Email. I’d like to hear more.

By: kbjensen

kbjensen — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:57:37 +0000

Hi,

Well MZ… We could publish our comments to the newspaper and say We told you so SD Court!!!

She will not prevail if she gets another trail. Risky move on her part. Yet she still has rights to understand or to be understood.

By: deaflaw

deaflaw — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:47:05 +0000

fanicating case! thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I’m just a law student, but I can see two major issues re: interpreting

1. whether Wright was truly advised of her rights/understood the certified interps at the police station and whether the certified sign language interpreters translated her statements correctly

2. if Wright testified during the trial and a CDI was not present to translate her statements accurately, that could pose a big issue, especially in mitigation (when you reduce one’s sentence)

i saw this interesting article the other day…it’s somewhat relevant
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/2727ff773207b4c285257031005995f2?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,LaVigne

By: Dave in Maryland

Dave in Maryland — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:16:11 +0000

I agree Wright should have had a CDI interp, and a retrial might be useful in securing that right for future deaf defendents. Hard to imagine she really believes she’d be found not guilty by a second jury but she has nothing to lose by trying, and it’s unlikely she’d receive a worse sentence the second time around.

By: Mishka Zena

Mishka Zena — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:06:02 +0000

RLM, she wants a new trial, saying the first trial wasn’t properly done. I think double jeopardy clause is exempted here because she is choosing to have her first trial thrown out, but I am not a lawyer.

It seems she still claims she is not guilty.

By: Amy Cohen Efron

Amy Cohen Efron — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:05:37 +0000

MZ,

My thoughts – in ASL….

Play Video Comment