Skip to comments.Cunningham convicted [of shooting man who raped her daughter]
Posted on 10/28/2005 10:09:54 AM PDT by SmithL
MARYVILLE Kimberly Cunningham, the 33-year-old South Knoxville woman who shot to death a man she believes raped her daughter twice when the child was 10, was convicted today of voluntary manslaughter in the man's death.
The verdict was returned about 10 a.m. by the seven-woman, five-man jury after five hours of deliberation Thursday and one hour today.
Cunningham had been on trial on a charge of second-degree murder, but the jury acquitted her of that and found her guilty of the lesser charge. She had already been tried once in the death of Coy Hundley.
In that trial last April, she was acquitted of first-degree murder, and the jury deadlocked on all lesser charges.
Cunningham will be sentenced on Dec. 19 by Judge D. Kelly Thomas in Blount County Circuit Court.
Children are unable to give consent.
>>>>She is entitled to know, in no uncertain terms, "THE NATURE AND THE CAUSE" of whatever sharge she is presented with.
>>>>In that trial last April, she was acquitted of first-degree murder. One crime, one death. The jury didn't say "I don't know".
She was aquitted of one of the charges, not all of them. They said I don't know for the others. Its likely that all that they decided is that she didn't have premeditation.
>>>The charges keep changing for the same crime.
Not from what I see, they recharged with the same charges as last time except the one they lost on.
The girl was 14 years old at the time that the accusation was made, not 9. According to every report that's mentioned details of the accusation itself, the accusation was made after the girl had been acting "strangely" for months...moody, depressed, rebellious (aka, an average 14 year old girl in many houses). The mother tried to intervene to find out what was going on with her daughter when the girl made the accusation.
So basically we have a teenaged girl who WAS troubled who made a molestation accusation against a relative. Is it possible that he did it? Yes. Is it possible that the girl was just being rebellious and tried to start some trouble? Yes again. Sadly, the mother murdered the guy in cold blood so we'll NEVER know what really happened.
patent said>>>>Double jeopardy only applies if there is an actual decision in the first trial.
hopes said>>>There was, an acquital on first degree murder charges for the offense of killing him. Now they convicted her of voluntary manslaughter for the offense of killing him.
It appears they charged her in volunatry manslaughter the first time too. It was just deadlocked.
>>>Different charges, same offense. Shouldn't last 30 minutes in an appeals court.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>If they had convicted her on a charge regarding another offense, it would have been ok. As it is, this is as clear a case of double jeopardy as you will ever see.
No. It isn't. Double jeopardy is a legal doctrine with a specific meaning. It means that she can't be tried twice on the same charge. So she can't be tried twice on the first degree murder charges she was aquitted of. She can, however, be tried on the charges were there was a deadlock.
Otherwise criminal defendants would frequently get off on technicalities like the ones you propose. Frankly, that result would be anything but justice in most cases. Just because you don't like it here, don't think that there are caess that run the other way.
On crime, one cause, not multiple causes.
If the prosecutor went forum shopping and got a conviction, he'd be slapped silly by the appeals court, there is no difference if he goes statute shopping.
It's pretty obvious which side you're on, and the turning and twisting of the words is demeaning and debasing of the law.
An eighth grader could read it and come to the same conclusions most of the freepers on this thread did.
The girls said that the rapes had happened to her at 9 and 10.
Any child that is sexually abused, will act out.
I did a Google search with the names and cannot find the story you are telling. Not that I don't believe you, just that I can't find it. Could you direct me?
>>>>It's pretty obvious which side you're on, and the turning and twisting of the words is demeaning and debasing of the law.
Oh? Which side am I on? If there is actual evidence this guy raped her daughter, which side would I vote on if I were on the jury? That I refuse to abandon basic legal principles to get a result I want hardly tells you which side I'm on.
>>>An eighth grader could read it and come to the same conclusions most of the freepers on this thread did.
The courts throughout the years have disagreed with you. 8th graders are hardly qualified to run the Supreme Court. If that's the level you place yourself at, that's your call.
Kimberly Cunningham of Karns says she knew Coy Hundley (39) for 18 years and thought she knew him well until her daughter told her Hundley (her uncle) and his son (her cousin) molested her. "I wanted to know why he betrayed us," said Cunningham on the stand. Cunningham's 16-year old daughter testified her uncle and cousin started molesting her when she was 9-years old. In open court, she recounted the first time Coy Hundley touched her.
Afraid to tell anyone what happened, the teen kept it to herself until her mother pressed her as to why she seemed upset all the time. On October 7, 2003, Cunningham went to where Hundley worked to tell her what her daughter told her. Her attorney Bruce Poston says Hundley's reaction led to his death. "I told him, 'You raped my daughter,' and he laughed and stepped back and said, 'What are you going to do about it,'" said Cunningham. Cunningham shot him 8 times. : by WBIR TV
The testified under oath that she was molested.
I have to believe that she was.
Of course she was troubled. Any child would be.
So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a trial by the country, [*9] but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own --- by their own judgments of their rightful liberties --- but by a standard dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the peoples liberties.
Spooner. Trial by Jury
I'm done arguing with you.
>>>>So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a trial by the country, [*9] but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own --- by their own judgments of their rightful liberties --- but by a standard dictated to them by the government.
Where have you been? This is our system. The legislature passes the law. The legislature is the one that "dictates" the standards, what is and is not a crime. The Juries then apply that law to the facts, and come up with a decision.
Its been that way for a long time now. Even an 8th grader knows this, as you say.
>>>> And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the peoples liberties.
Subject to the constitution, yes.
>>>>Spooner. Trial by Jury
Yes, some people argue that the Jury can vote to nullify the law. That has nothing to do with what happened, as here the jury did no such thing. Could the jury have said we will find her innocent because she was tried once before? It could have tried, certianly, and then Spooner would be relevant. It didn't. I see why you are quitting the argument, you have nothing left.
The girls testimony is factually worthless.
First off, it's impossible to say what actually made her upset all the time. Depression and rebelliousness is common in 14-16 year old girls, and there have been MANY cases of molestation accusations being made by troubled girls who were simply looking for attention. This is especially common when there isn't a father in the home.
Once the mother snapped and killed the guy, the girls testimony became heavily biased. If she admitted that she lied, her mother would have been sent to prison for life for murdering an innocent man. No matter what the truth was, she was going to say that he did it. That makes her testimony worthless when evaluating the facts of the case.
There's only one living person who really knows what happened, and who could answer the question with minimal bias...and that's the cousin. The cousin knows the truth, so I'm curious why we haven't heard his side of the story yet.
That was my first thought when I saw the title of the thread. The rest of the jury would have died of old age in the jury room before I would have voted guilty. Parents wouldn't have to shoot child rapists to get them off the streets if the courts would do their job.
Men who rape children 12 years old or younger should be drawn and quartered on the courthouse lawn immediately following conviction on irrefutable evidence. Instead, most of the time they're back on the street in 2 or 3 years, and a few months later another little girl (or boy) is raped and murdered. Further proof that the world has gone mad.
The part about the uncle was not in the article at the top. By reading the article can you say the alleged perp was not a 16 yr old bagger at a supermarket.
Wish I could have been on that jury.
Being troubled and acting out is one of the symptoms of being molested.
If she was happy and carefree, THEN I'd doubt her story.
Your words not mine!
Pay attention. If I thought=(good reason to beleive) someone had raped my daughter, I would literally kill him.
I like what Cunningham did, she got confirmation from the rapist and then fired away.
Have you read the articles? There were other accusations and testimonies. I suspect that you are projecting your motives on the girl: the behavior you are displaying is what you are ascribing to the daughter.
The first jury found her not guilty of first degree but deadlocked on the lesser includeds. According to this law school lecture, she can't be retried:
The term "double jeopardy" refers to the "danger" of a second punishment whenever an individual is brought to trial again for the same crime (or a greater or lesser included crime). This means that there cannot be a second prosecution for the same criminal act (both in fact and in law) upon which a first prosecution was based. The accused must be released and the case dismissed. The challenge is determining what constitutes the "same" crime for double jeopardy purposes. Some of the simpler examples include:
an acquittal or conviction for murder will bar any prosecution for manslaughter if based on the same facts (lesser included example)
an acquittal or conviction for larceny-theft will bar any prosecution for robbery if based on the same facts (greater included example)
an acquittal or conviction for burglary will bar any prosecution for robbery (even if the burglar woke up the sleeping couple and robbed them) unless there are distinct elements in one crime that are not included in the other (multiple criminal transaction example)
an acquittal or conviction for R.I.C.O. will bar any prosecution for conspiracy or attempted R.I.C.O. (continuing crime example)
an acquittal or conviction for battery will not bar any later prosecution for murder if the victims later dies as a result of injuries (separate and distinct new crime example)
>>>>an acquittal or conviction for murder will bar any prosecution for manslaughter if based on the same facts (lesser included example)
That would be true if she had only been tried for murder the first time, and had been aquitted of all charges. What you guys fail to understand is that the first trial is technically not a full aquittal, due to the other charges that had a hung jury.