Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Prospective jurors questioned in Midyette child abuse trial

John Aguilar/ Boulder Camera

Published January 12, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.
Updated January 12, 2009 at 5:36 p.m.

Text size  
Alex Midyette walks to the courtroom with his attorney Paul McCormick at the Denver County Court House in Denver, Colorado Monday January 12, 2009. Midyette is on trial for fatal child abuse in the 2006 death of his son Jason Midyette.

Photo by Mark Leffingwell, pool © The Camera

Alex Midyette walks to the courtroom with his attorney Paul McCormick at the Denver County Court House in Denver, Colorado Monday January 12, 2009. Midyette is on trial for fatal child abuse in the 2006 death of his son Jason Midyette.

More Local News

More stories »

Potential jurors filed into Courtroom 4 in the Denver City and County Building throughout the day Monday, as lawyers in the long-awaited Alex Midyette child-abuse trial began the process of selecting a jury.

About 150 Denver residents called up for jury duty in the highly publicized case began meeting with the defendant, his attorneys, prosecutors and the judge in closed-door interviews inside the stately marble-walled building in downtown Denver.

The individual one-on-one meetings with prospective jurors are expected to last through Tuesday, with the final stage of jury selection moving into the open courtroom Wednesday.

It's not clear if the attorneys will get to opening statements by Wednesday.

Midyette, 29, of Erie, is charged with inflicting the injuries that led to the death of his infant son in 2006.

For more of this story from the Daily Camera, click here.

Comments

  • January 12, 2009

    12:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    WhadUsay writes:

    About time. May justice prevail.

  • January 12, 2009

    1:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    CDee writes:

    Took long enough.

  • January 12, 2009

    2:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    EP writes:

    Wasn't there a similar story recently where the guy offed himself and his wife because anonymous people like you (I'm looking at you, WhadUsay and CDee) threw the book at him even though the infant truly did have a rare medical problem that was likened to abuse? Get over yourself and let the evidence speak for itself.

  • January 12, 2009

    3:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Triumph writes:

    EP
    sounds like they don't like helpless babies either. Anyone with common sense can see from his violent outbursts in the courtroom during his wifes trial that this guy has some serious problems. Now she and people who know him are ratting him out also for the beast he really is. The guy is a coward. I hope the inmates that have infants back home fracture 20 his bones and skull when they get their hands on him.

  • January 12, 2009

    3:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    camd writes:

    EP I agree. Most of these people are giving their opinion based on misinformation and plain lack of knowledge. The fact is the child had microscopic fractures. If abuse or rage the fractures would have been seen with the naked eye. There would have been bruising and the pediatrician would have seen evidence of abuse being the child was there several times a week since birth. It is fact that there was no bruising and the pediatrician testified she saw no abuse.
    It is an emotional case. Emotions tend to allow us to rush to judgment and quickly place blame. Let Mr. Midyette have his day to show his innocence. Let the evidence speak. I know my ears are open to hear but most important to listen.

  • January 12, 2009

    3:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    buffsblg writes:

    The medical evidence here may be interesting. Mom's counsel did not even try that defense, so we really have not seen what the prosecution or defense have to say about it. These disorders are very very rare but they do exist. They can also be very hard to diagnose, especially after death. Certainly if the jury is allowed to think about Mr. Midyette's character, he has a problem. I will be very interested to see if he testifies.

  • January 12, 2009

    4:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Triumph writes:

    camd
    I think you are the one who is "misinformed" or not informed. A friend of the family was qouted as saying on 9News that Midyette had kicked his pregant wife in the stomach before this child was born. Tell 9News they are the ones that are misinformed.
    Lying defense lawyers love people like you on the jury. That's how OJ got away with murder!

  • January 12, 2009

    4:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    camd writes:

    It has been just recently that I became interested in this case. I have reviewed much of the documents, autopsy reports and much of the papers filed. As far as Mr. Midyette's character, it is suddenly being based on friends of Ms. Midyette. Remeber Ms. Midyette will do or say anything to get out of her prison term. I believe friends would do the same for her. These friends of Ms. Midyette, have previoulsy testified in two proceedings that Mr. Midyette was a loving husband and father. Now all of a sudden the testimony has changed. I just read that on Jan 9, Mr. Midyette's counsel has just requested that these individuals: SARA VERNET, DANCER VERNET and CARLY DAWSON be aedvised of their 5th amendment right because of admitted cocaine and marijuana use and cocaine and marijuana purchases and that should their previous sworn testimony be inconsistent they could face charges of perjury and drug related offenses. Based on the source of the Mr. Midyette's bad character, these individuals have no credibility. In addidtion, I say indict SARA VERNET, DANCER VERNET and CARLY DAWSON as they are not above the law. I wonder if these girls are METH users as well and what other drugs they are using.
    As a side note, Ms. Midyette played this abuse card at the appeal level for a new trial Hence, the courts denied her.

  • January 12, 2009

    4:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ThingFish writes:

    Don't know where you're getting your info camd but you are wrong. The fractures were not microscopic and you can see them in the x-rays.
    http://www.dailycamera.com/photos/200...

    You must be one of Alex's drug buddies. Good luck, you'll both need it.

  • January 12, 2009

    4:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    CDee writes:

    For those of you so quick to decide what it was I was saying, could it possibly be that I was simply saying what I did in fact say? That it has taken way to long to get this trial to the court house? Where did I say that he was guilty? And I am the one that is "misinformed" ?!?!?!
    Sounds like you could use a course in reading comprehension EP

  • January 12, 2009

    4:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    camd writes:

    Super charger Unfortunately you are misinformed. Read the January 5 transcript. It's in black and white. It was Ms. Midyette's allegations not a family member. See what I mean about relying on the media. The transcript starting page 75 line 15 thru page 79 line 9. It only talks of Molly Midyette and her changing her testimony. If the allegation of the kick in the stomach finds itself before the jury, it will have to come through Molly Midyette. If you are so informed of the matter, reading the actual documents and not relying on media you would know why she suddenly is attempting to change her testimony.

  • January 12, 2009

    4:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    opinionatedcolo writes:

    And Prosecutors love people like you supercharger, who are convinced of someone's guilt without a single witness having testified. That is how we end up with hundreds of innocent men in prison. Was your last jury duty on the Tim Masters case?

  • January 12, 2009

    5:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    camd writes:

    Fishthing: you are a perfect example of not a clue. Yes, it was on an xray but it was not seen with the naked eye. Have you read the autopsy report. Where did you get your info from The Enquirer?

  • January 12, 2009

    5:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    camd writes:

    Fishthing: Not The Enquirer but the Daily Camera Even better, a paper that is a pure example of half truths, conjecture and innuendo. That paper's prime focus it to inflame.

  • January 12, 2009

    6:49 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    Ok camd, we realize that as his mom, you have to defend him. Who else would read the autopsy report other than his mom or someone who needs to get a life. BTW, I can wait for and accept the juries verdict whatever it may be.

  • January 12, 2009

    7:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    camd writes:

    Darwin not his Mom. When I make statements I make sure I have the knowledge to do so. I do my research. Like I said, I have just become interested in the matter. The autopsy report was published by the denver news channel 4. Glad the big mouths out there made opinions without facts. I am pleased however that you are waiting for trial.