808 users online (116 members and 692 guests)  

Websleuths News


Page 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 22 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 459
  1. #166
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
    Well, I may have found the answer to our questions:



    The grand jury may find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.
    ---
    When an indictment indorsed “not a true bill” has been filed with the clerk of the court, the effect thereof is to dismiss the charge; and the same cannot be again submitted to or inquired of by the grand jury unless the court so orders.

    -----

    So I'm guessing that the prosecutor only has one shot? What if he comes into new evidence after the grand jury refuses to indict, is it just too bad for him? Is this considered 'double jeopardy' to bring the same charges? I thought that referred to the actual trial (really getting confused).

    In this case, if the prosecutor is trying to indict Terri for Kyron's murder and the grand jury doesn't feel there's enough evidence and refuses to indict her, what happens if at some point in the future he receives evidence that points to her guilt? Does the above mean a judge would have to review the evidence and then order the grand jury to meet again?
    I'm glad you asked about this, Calliope. I was wondering the same thing. I am hoping that the "unless the court so orders" could be cleared up too. That sounds kind of open to interpretation doesn't it?
    I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it left.


  2. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
    Well, I may have found the answer to our questions:



    The grand jury may find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.
    ---
    When an indictment indorsed “not a true bill” has been filed with the clerk of the court, the effect thereof is to dismiss the charge; and the same cannot be again submitted to or inquired of by the grand jury unless the court so orders.

    -----

    So I'm guessing that the prosecutor only has one shot? What if he comes into new evidence after the grand jury refuses to indict, is it just too bad for him? Is this considered 'double jeopardy' to bring the same charges? I thought that referred to the actual trial (really getting confused).

    In this case, if the prosecutor is trying to indict Terri for Kyron's murder and the grand jury doesn't feel there's enough evidence and refuses to indict her, what happens if at some point in the future he receives evidence that points to her guilt? Does the above mean a judge would have to review the evidence and then order the grand jury to meet again?
    Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
    I asked about all this because I have a vague memory of Tom DeLay accusing the prosecutor of bringing charges up to a grand jury over and over again until he got his indictment. I can't remember all the details, and don't know if with each grand jury he presented new facts or just rehashed the old.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuffy View Post
    I'm glad you asked about this, Calliope. I was wondering the same thing. I am hoping that the "unless the court so orders" could be cleared up too. That sounds kind of open to interpretation doesn't it?
    There would be no "double jeopardy" problem with going back to a grand jury with the same evidence. But Oregon has put some protection in place by requiring a court order to resubmit a case to the GJ. My guess is that it would be tough to get such a court order without some new evidence, but certainly the statute quoted by Calliope seems to leave it up to the discretion of the judge.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,438
    I am puzzled as to why TH has not been arrested for the MFHP. I'm guessing they don't have any evidence other than the landscaper's testimony and perhaps he/she is not considered a very credible witness.

    However, I have a question. If someone gets really ticked at their spouse and you know, says something to the effect of "I wish he/she were dead. I'd give you a million bucks to blow his/her head off". You know that sort of "heated" statement. Would that be considered a MFHP? Even though it may never have been intended as something the person really wanted anyone to do? Or does there have to be more than a conversation involved? Hope I'm making myself clear on this one. Thanks.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,788
    On an American Bar Assoc site it states that double jeopardy does not apply to grand juries..."in practice, however, it is uncommon for a prosecutor, having failed once,to try again without good reason."

    So probably new evidence would be considered good reason?
    (I am not a lawyer...)
    Just my opinion, of course.

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    92
    I have a question about the manner in which a prosecutor presents his case to a Grand Jury. Lets assume that a prosecutor's case for indicting Jane Doe in based in large part on the testimony of witnesses. Would the key witnesses need to appear in person before the Grand Jury, or could a prosecutor instead tell the Grand Jury that that witnesses A, B, and C are cooperating with LE and the DA and are willing to testify that they saw Jane Doe do X, Y, and Z?

    Thank You.

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cahoots
    Posts
    6,534
    This post brought up a question :

    Quote Originally Posted by grandmaj View Post
    It sounds to me like they are investigating 2 people.

    snipped

    Investigators were also still working to pin down the exact movements of Terri Horman on the day her stepson disappeared, as well as on the exact movements of her friend, DeDe Spicer.

    Some of the testimony was expected to focus on people who saw and dealt with the women on the day Kyron vanished.

    http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Source...100052359.html
    If I read the statute correctly, the prosecutor brings evidence and witnesses before the grand jury of triable crime(s) he feels were committed.

    In a trial, each person answers to charges against them and each is entitled to his own defense (even if using the same attorney as the others) right?

    So a grand jury is simply deciding if a triable crime occurred and if the evidence could result in conviction, regardless of how many people may be involved? If that's true, does this mean the prosecutor doesn't need more than one grand jury case to get an indictment for people who may committed a crime related to what he's presenting? IOW, if by presenting this evidence to this one grand jury it's determined Terri killed Kyron, DeDe helped hide his body, Friend X lied to police to cover for her, etc., could this particular grand jury indict each for the part they played, or would he have to convene a separate one for each person involved?

  7. #172
    Hi AZlawyer

    If this Grand Jury doesn't return an indictment, will that be announced or publicized? Or will we have to hear it from Unnamed Sources?

    They return a document or finding, called a presentment? Something like that? If there's no indictment? Would that document state why they didn't indict, e.g., not enough evidence? Would that be released to the public?

    TIA!


  8. #173
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Billylee View Post
    I am puzzled as to why TH has not been arrested for the MFHP. I'm guessing they don't have any evidence other than the landscaper's testimony and perhaps he/she is not considered a very credible witness.

    However, I have a question. If someone gets really ticked at their spouse and you know, says something to the effect of "I wish he/she were dead. I'd give you a million bucks to blow his/her head off". You know that sort of "heated" statement. Would that be considered a MFHP? Even though it may never have been intended as something the person really wanted anyone to do? Or does there have to be more than a conversation involved? Hope I'm making myself clear on this one. Thanks.
    If the only evidence on the MFH plot is the landscaper's testimony, IMO TH will not be arrested for that.

    Intent is a slippery thing. There's no "bright line" where you cross over from joking to serious intent, but no prosecutor is going to mess with it if there's any real possibility that it was a joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by palladore View Post
    I have a question about the manner in which a prosecutor presents his case to a Grand Jury. Lets assume that a prosecutor's case for indicting Jane Doe in based in large part on the testimony of witnesses. Would the key witnesses need to appear in person before the Grand Jury, or could a prosecutor instead tell the Grand Jury that that witnesses A, B, and C are cooperating with LE and the DA and are willing to testify that they saw Jane Doe do X, Y, and Z?

    Thank You.
    I believe the Oregon procedures allow for the prosecutors to present written affidavits from witnesses in lieu of "live" testimony, but not for the prosecutors to just verbally describe the witnesses' testimony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
    This post brought up a question :

    If I read the statute correctly, the prosecutor brings evidence and witnesses before the grand jury of triable crime(s) he feels were committed.

    In a trial, each person answers to charges against them and each is entitled to his own defense (even if using the same attorney as the others) right?

    So a grand jury is simply deciding if a triable crime occurred and if the evidence could result in conviction, regardless of how many people may be involved? If that's true, does this mean the prosecutor doesn't need more than one grand jury case to get an indictment for people who may committed a crime related to what he's presenting? IOW, if by presenting this evidence to this one grand jury it's determined Terri killed Kyron, DeDe helped hide his body, Friend X lied to police to cover for her, etc., could this particular grand jury indict each for the part they played, or would he have to convene a separate one for each person involved?
    Yes, the grand jury could indict more than one person.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeanE View Post
    Hi AZlawyer

    If this Grand Jury doesn't return an indictment, will that be announced or publicized? Or will we have to hear it from Unnamed Sources?

    They return a document or finding, called a presentment? Something like that? If there's no indictment? Would that document state why they didn't indict, e.g., not enough evidence? Would that be released to the public?

    TIA!

    I don't think we will see anything at all if there is no indictment.

    A presentment is not a non-indictment; it is an indictment made by the grand jury on its own rather than at the prosecutor's request. E.g., if the prosecutor requests an indictment for first-degree murder, the grand jury could say no but offer a presentment for manslaughter.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cahoots
    Posts
    6,534
    What happens to a case if it's found that someone from within the grand jury proceedings is leaking information to the press (or even to others who then tell the press)? I'm not talking about witnesses called to testify, but the jurors, court reporters, and others present who are sworn to secrecy?

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a little west of southern hospitality.
    Posts
    2,193
    Could the landscaper that was "solicited" for the murder for hire plot be arrested on this charge and not TH (TM/the step mother)?

    I have my thinking cap on, but wanted to bring this forth for a professional.
    "Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open." - James Dewar


  11. #176
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by sherbetjello View Post
    Could the landscaper that was "solicited" for the murder for hire plot be arrested on this charge and not TH (TM/the step mother)?

    I have my thinking cap on, but wanted to bring this forth for a professional.
    Being solicited is not a crime. Since KH was obviously not murdered and we haven't heard of any attempt on his life, the most likely charge against the landscaper would be conspiracy to commit murder. This would require the prosecutor to prove that the landscaper had agreed to participate in or cause the performance of a murder.

    Given the news reports, it doesn't sound as if the lanscaper ever agreed to participate. Even if - hypothetically - he had originally agreed, renunciation of the conspiracy (e.g., by reporting it to police) is a complete defence to the charge. So it's highly unlikely that the lanscaper would be the target of the grand jury (if that's what you were thinking).

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    373
    If TH is not arrested/charged with the MFH but is charged for Kyron's disappearance, if the DA wanted can they still used the MFH as a pattern?

    If TH goes to trial can the DA reference the MFH plot if she isn't arrested/convicted/on trial for it, at any point during a trial over Kyron's disappearance?

    If TH is not arrested/charged/convicted with the MFH, and that is what was partly used in the restraining order can she contest the restraining order/make it void/counter claim it because of that?

    Thank you for all your help!
    Moo, moo, moo...I moo but don't call me a cow!

    Please don't take what I say personal...internet speak is hard to become fluent in! Please know that unless I state otherwise everything I say is because I want to further the discussion.

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
    What happens to a case if it's found that someone from within the grand jury proceedings is leaking information to the press (or even to others who then tell the press)? I'm not talking about witnesses called to testify, but the jurors, court reporters, and others present who are sworn to secrecy?
    Other than the witness, the only ones present would be the jurors, prosecutor and, possibly, a recorder. If any of those - including a juror - violated the secrecy of the proceedings, they could be charged with contempt and/or an abuse of public office charge (e.g., official misconduct or misuse of confidential information). Jurors are considered public officers.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cahoots
    Posts
    6,534
    Quote Originally Posted by desquire View Post
    Other than the witness, the only ones present would be the jurors, prosecutor and, possibly, a recorder. If any of those - including a juror - violated the secrecy of the proceedings, they could be charged with contempt and/or an abuse of public office charge (e.g., official misconduct or misuse of confidential information). Jurors are considered public officers.
    Yes, thanks. I was wondering if it would mean the DA has to start over with a new grand jury or if it could possibly be basis for an appeal down the road (or even if it could be used in trial somehow)?

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Calliope View Post
    Yes, thanks. I was wondering if it would mean the DA has to start over with a new grand jury or if it could possibly be basis for an appeal down the road (or even if it could be used in trial somehow)?
    Oh! Sorry for taking the easy out on that question. You always do your homework thoroughly, so I should have known there was more to it. I think the DA might be able to use such juror misconduct as a reason for getting the court to give him a second bite at the apple with a new grand jury if the "bad" jury returns a no-bill. If the "bad" jury returns an indictment, however, the DA would still be free to prosecute on it. Also the improper disclosure of grand jury testimony would not affect the DA's ability have that witness/testimony admitted at trial. Finally, maybe some of the other lawyers here feel differently, but it's hard for me to picture a realistic scenario under which the improper disclosure of grand jury testimony would form the basis of an appeal of the trial unless it ties with a subsequent error of the trial judge (e.g., the improperly disclosed testimony is so outrageous that it prejudices the local jury pool and the trial judge refuses to take any action to remedy that situation).

Page 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 22 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1697
    Last Post: 01-14-2011, 02:17 AM
  2. Questions and Answers ONLY - *NO DISCUSSIONS*
    By Kimster in forum Byrd and Melanie Billings
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 10-29-2010, 07:30 AM
  3. Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers on the board
    By Capri in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 04:36 PM
  4. Questions and Answers ONLY - *NO DISCUSSIONS*
    By daisy7 in forum Phoebe Prince
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 01:22 PM

Tags for this Thread