Pre-trial publicity an issue in trial of LaPorte County woman accused of killing newborn

by Leanne Tokars (ltokars@wsbt.com)

Tools

Kathy Phillips appeared in LaPorte County court, charged with death of newborn

Kathy Phillips appeared in court on Feb. 26, 2008. She is charged with murder and neglect of a dependent in the death of a newborn found two years ago near her LaPorte County home. (WSBT photo)

By Beth Boehne

LaPORTE CO. — The trial of a mother accused of killing her newborn baby may take a whole lot longer. Tuesday, a judge set special guidelines in the jury selection for Kathy Phillips.

Phillips' attorney wanted the judge to call in a jury from a different county. His concern is pre-trial publicity, specifically what has been written about this case in blogs online.

“I believe that this alleged offense occurred in the county of LaPorte in the state of Indiana, and I believe the residents of the count of LaPorte in the state of Indiana should in fact hear this case,” said LaPorte County Prosecutor Robert Beckman.

But Kathy Phillips' defense lawyer argues that that jury pool would be biased, based on what he calls inflammatory comments written online.

Phillips is charged with murder and neglect of a dependent in the death of Baby Jane Doe.

The newborn was found two years ago, wrapped in a plastic bag near Phillips’ LaPorte County home.

But can an online blog be considered publicity? And how many potential jurors actually saw it?

"People can say anything, it doesn't necessarily mean they believe it. It surely doesn't mean that other people who might hear it, or read it, believe it,” Beckman said. “The idea is, can we get a fair jury from this county? Not whether somebody may have heard something which they are perfectly capable of ignoring."

So the judge decided that instead of calling in a jury from out of the county, they’ll start with a larger jury pool in LaPorte County. They'll call 90 potential jurors instead of the usual 60. They'll have them answer a short questionnaire. And each side — both the defense and prosecution — will have more strikes, meaning they'll have the ability to excuse more jurors.

It's in the hope of weeding out those potential jurors who may have a bias due to the information that’s already been released about this case.

Kathy Phillips declined to make any comment Tuesday. Her trial is set to start next month.

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 11:00 AM am Michigan Resident wrote ...

Are you people nuts. The person who asked if a relative's dna closely matched Kathy's to make them think it was hers. Are you nuts? Or if a relative disposed of a baby by her home. Come on people, I know this family and know lots of things that have gone on that could put one or more of them in jail. Yeah, everybody wants to set these people up. Only if a major drug deal went bad. Brother what nuts you guys are.

Tuesday, Jul 15 at 4:50 PM John Q Public wrote ...

The end of the world is near. . . look at what is going on in the world. . it will not be too long now!

Tuesday, Jul 1 at 1:43 PM Anonymous wrote ...

She's not guilty. The DNA test was flawed.

Monday, Jun 30 at 2:17 PM Interested Party wrote ...

If she is so thin, she probably was starving herself and the baby to try and cover the pregnancy. Plus wearing clothes that would conceal it as well.

Wednesday, Feb 27 at 7:43 PM MOTHER OF ELKHART wrote ...

ARE SUSPECTED MURDERERS ENTITLED TO A BOND? I THOUGHT SUSPECTED OF MURDER OR CHARGED WITH MURDER DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO A BOND. PLEASE EXPLAIN I WOULD HOPE TO BELIEVE THAT IF SHE WAS CONVICTED IN ELKHART SHE WOULD NOT BE RUNNING FREE LIKE NOTHING EVER HAPPENED

Wednesday, Feb 27 at 5:39 PM Anonymous wrote ...

I really don't understand this mess. So people actually believe that the prosecutors would bring this to trial with DNA evidence that doesn't prove they are the parents? Because they want to look like buffoons? Or he prosecutors are doing this for spite? Or a vendetta? Or maybe they're trying to see who'll blink first for some crazy reason? Can't wait to see this trial. Get your popcorn ready. Just because you think you know someone, doesn't mean you know what they may be capable of....

Wednesday, Feb 27 at 3:46 PM Kathy wrote ...

I had read many of the comments that they are referring to. They were on LaPorte Herald Argus website. So many of these comments were very hateful. One of my biggest concerns is that LaPorte is a small town, and people talk. So many of the comments were bashing her husband, or bashing the family. As the rumour mill goes, we hear "did you hear??" "he/she did this while married" I just hope that they really are able to find an impartial jury in LaPorte Co.

Wednesday, Feb 27 at 11:54 AM Union Girl wrote ...

I've known this girl since she was little , I can't believe she could do something like this, but I really believe her husband had alot to do with this, why hasn't he been arrested for this if both the DNA matches. I quess we'll have to wait for the trial...

Wednesday, Feb 27 at 10:27 AM Sue wrote ...

This whole thing is very fishy. I'm not convinced she did it (or that it was her baby). I would LOVE to be on that jury!

Wednesday, Feb 27 at 8:33 AM Michiana Woman wrote ...

The DNA Specialists know their jobs. Don't you think they have already thought of all possiblities? And didn't they match the DNA to her husband as well? What would the chance be of both of them matching Baby Jane Doe and her not being theirs? And if she did help a relative deliver the baby, why was she dumped on the side of the road like yesterday's garbage? And about not showing her pregnancy, some woman don't. Just because there are no pictures of her pregnant doesn't mean she wasn't.

Wednesday, Feb 27 at 12:10 AM Amber wrote ...

I think they should leave this poor woman and her family alone. If they have pictures and videos of this woman when she was supposedly pregnant with this baby who was found dead, then it obviously means she wasn't pregnant. I'd like to see the photos from when she was supposedly pregnant so the public can have a look at them and see for our own eyes. Bless this family.

Tuesday, Feb 26 at 8:03 PM LaPorte Resident wrote ...

Could the DNA from a close relative match hers closely enough to make them think the baby was hers? What if she helped a relative deliver a baby? Or, what if a relative disposed of a baby near her home?

Add a comment

Name:

Comment: 500 Characters Left

WSBT and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the above comments or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, or remove user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any Public Forum. Items that may be considered inappropriate to post are those containing profanity, hatred, or insensitive, vulgar, unlawful or threatening comments.

WSBT Weather

icon
Current Temp 12
°
More Weather
More On Demand

Stock Quotes

YouNews

This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

Tonight On WSBTFull Schedule

7.00
Wheel of Fortune
7.30
Jeopardy!
8.00
Ghost Whisperer
9.00
Flashpoint
10.00
Numb3rs
11.00
WSBT News
11.35
Late Show with David Letterman

Question of The Day

How often do you check your smoke detectors?

E-mail your comments. We'll pick some to read during WSBT News at 5.