exposing the dark side of adoption
Register Log in

Mother's fate in jury's hands Deliberation begins in case of woman charged with daughter's death

public

Deliberation begins in case of woman charged with daughter's death

Author: Jennifer Sami Staff Writer

After six days in court, a jury Monday afternoon began deliberating the case of a 41-year-old woman charged with felony murder and two counts of aggravated battery in the April 2004 death of her 21-month-old adopted daughter Mia.

Closing arguments in the state's case against Jill Ellen Depaillat of Cumming by both defense attorney B.J. Bernstein and Chief Assistant District Attorney Sandra Partridge were made Monday afternoon, following examination of the final witness, Janice Ophoven.

Ophoven, a medical expert, said she concluded in her opinion that the findings are "consistent with an accident." In her testimony, Ophoven said the No. 1 cause of death for children younger than one year are falls.

"Accidents kill children and falls kill children," she said.

Her comments directly conflict with the prosecution's opening argument that most stairway falls don't hurt or kill children.

"Despite all efforts to try to confuse this jury, the bottom line is children do not die falling down the stairs," said Partridge in her opening statement.

Partridge also asked the jury to feel sorry for the many victims in this case, including the defendant's husband Christophe and her three other children, but not to feel sorry for them while passing judgment on the evidence.

See FATE, Page 2A

FATE from 1A

"Sympathy has no place in a jury deliberation room," she said. "Only two people know exactly what happened in that house, and Mia is dead."

In what was dubbed a "battle of the experts" trial, Partridge submitted to jurors to ignore the testimony of Ophoven under the grounds of bias.

She asked that jurors consider the exact charges and to focus on the defendant's testimony unrelated to the incident, specifically when she testified that she was not under stress. With no health insurance, her husband just starting a new job and raising four children on her own, Partridge said she found it difficult to believe Depaillat was not under any stress, even for a moment, as testified.

"Everybody gets frustrated. Everybody is capable of that kind of a moment. Mrs. Depaillat is no different," said Partridge. "Good people do bad things."

Shortly after reviewing photographs of the bruises on Mia's body, Partridge referred jurors to previous testimony that Depaillat refused to allow a reenactment of the incident to be videotaped.

Partridge referred to testimony by Julie Gardner, a child abuse investigator for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, who said she was told she could not videotape the reenactment.

"The only person with an interest in this case and a reason to lie about that is the defendant. And if she lied to you about that, and she lied to you about other things, then she is lying about how this baby got hurt."

In her closing argument, Bernstein asked the jury to take the defendant's personality into account.

"You can consider the person and who they are," she said. "In terms of sympathy, it's a matter of being a human being [in contact with] another human being."

Similar to Partridge's comments, Bernstein asked the jury to be cautious with the autopsy report, as Dr. Laura Darrisaw, the GBI medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, had been practicing for less than two years.

Bernstein reiterated reasons why the fall could have killed Mia, while other babies would have survived. The lawyer called the defendant a loving, good compassionate person and again asked the jury to consider the witnesses including the defendant's mother and close friend, who testified about her character.

"Jill has told them what happened. This, obviously, they won't accept. They have no other direct evidence," she said. "They give you choice after choice after choice after choice of all very different choices and then say to you because of what these doctors are saying, therefore it had to be an intentional act."

With all the possibilities introduced by the prosecution, Bernstein called the jury's task difficult.

"To warrant a conviction of circumstantial evidence, the proven facts must not only be consistent with the fact that you are not guilty, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis of guilt," said Bernstein. "It is seemingly absurd to try to convict someone when you cannot say what it is that happened to them."

A recurring theme in closing arguments was that not all medical evidence and findings are 100 percent certain. The 1 or 2 percent of unusual cases could apply to the death of Mia in favor of either the defense or the prosecution.

Jurors were dismissed after receiving instructions from Superior Court Judge David Dickinson. As of press time Tuesday, the jurors were still deliberating.

E-mail Jennifer Sami at jennifersami@forsythnews.com.

2006 Jun 28