10-18-2013, 12:04 AM #1
Judge Orders Boulder DA to Show Cause As To Why GJ Testimony Should Not Be Released
This is really big news but first a bit of background.
Our wonderful Cynic uncovered a law a while back that says Grand Jury testimony must be released to the public if an indictment is handed down.
We found out recently that the Ramseys were indicted but D.A.Hunter refused to press charges.
We waited for somebody with the money, like a newspaper, to take this to court and demand the testimony be released.
It happened. From the Huffington Post just a moment ago,""The plaintiffs believe... that the indictment is a criminal justice record that reflects official action by the grand jury, and accordingly that it is subject to mandatory disclosure upon request," the complaint reads. Brennan and the RCFP also argue that the indictment should be made public in the interest of government transparency."
The Judge ruled,"Under this procedure, there is no breach of the secrecy and confidentiality expected in grand jury proceedings," Lowenbach continued. "It is ordered therefore that the defendant (Garnett) show cause why he should not be required to disclose the requested documents."
This is BIG. The Boulder D.A. (Stan Garnett) must provide the court with basically a Hail Mary type argument that convinces the judge the requested papers should not be released.
I hope Cynic is up. He can explain about the content of the requested documents better than I can because, well because, he is flat out smarter than me. heh.
It looks like we will be getting to read some of the testimony used to convince the Grand Jury panel to indict the Ramseys.
We're not there yet but this is as close as we have come and it's looking good
This even calls for a few dancing bananas
10-18-2013, 01:56 AM #2
Well, Well, Well....
Mind if I squeeze in here to just sit here Stunned & Speechless after all these years even though I NEVER Lost Faith?!?!
That's a Lot of RR!!!
10-18-2013, 03:44 AM #3Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
It is promising.
I think that that Brennan and the legal team fighting this particular battle are on good footing, and will probably succeed. Itís a good bet that there will be appeals that will extend the outcome, though.
While Iím optimistic about the outcome, I personally donít think that there is all that much detail in the indictment. Iíve mentioned before that Brennan is possibly looking at this as a validation or concluding chapter to his initial work with the jurors to break the story of the existence of an indictment. Sure, he and the majority of people here would welcome any new morsel of information that might be revealed but given what Iíve seen in the indictment handed down in the Midyette case, the information is very much an overview and not much by way of fine detail. It will likely be four or five pages long.
A link to my FFJ post with the full Midyette indictment:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=195223&postcount=27"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Colorado Reporters Sue Boulder DA Over Ramsey Case[/ame]
Iím hoping that this might be stage one of obtaining the ultimate prize, transcripts of the GJ proceedings because the legal issues are similar.
Hunter said that the only thing standing in the way of releasing grand jury transcripts was that there was no indictment, a lie for which he has yet to be held accountable.
Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter declined to comment Thursday on Patsy Ramsey's challenge to prosecutors. But he said in a prepared statement that grand jury transcripts in the case will not be released.
''Mike Kane and I agree that rule 6.2 of the Colorado rules of criminal procedure does not permit release of grand jury transcripts or any discussion of what a grand jury did or did not do,'' Hunter said. ''The rule clearly states that grand jury proceedings are secret and shall remain that way until either an indictment is returned or a report is issued. Neither of that occurred.''
In Colorado, the return of an indictment is a crucial line in the matter of grand jury secrecy.
From a case in 1984, a judge said the following:
The secrecy given to grand jury proceedings is not absolute. Release of the records is permitted after an indictment is returned, Crim.P. 6.2
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1984781701P2d80_1766ďIt saddens me that 20 years after my sister Nicoleís murder, we are still seeing the same crimes, just different names, over and over again.Ē
- Denise Brown (sister of Nicole Brown Simpson)
10-18-2013, 03:53 AM #4
I bet the R team will say,yeah yeah they voted against the Ramseys because they didn't know about the touch DNA back then
10-18-2013, 06:30 AM #5
10-18-2013, 06:33 AM #6
ďI think one of the things we can learn is what is all of the evidence that was there, what type of investigation was done, what did the witnesses have to say and is there any possibility that we are ever going to achieve justice for JonBenet,Ē said CBS4 Legal Analyst and former prosecutor Karen Steinhauser.
10-18-2013, 06:37 AM #7
Steinhauser said that in this case that information could become public, “We have this issue where the grand jury said there should be an indictment, there was an indictment and the DA didn’t sign off on it and that the public has an interest in finding out why not and what happened during those proceedings and what the evidence was.”
Attorneys arguing for the release agree and called the judge’s ruling on the indictment a reasoned decision based on good law and are calling for the release.
10-18-2013, 06:39 AM #8
10-18-2013, 06:41 AM #9
"The court concludes that the secrecy required in the grand jury process... is not compromised through a process that requires the presentment of the indictment in open court," Lowenbach wrote in the four-page ruling. "Under this procedure, there is no breach of the secrecy and confidentiality expected in grand jury proceedings.
"It is ordered therefore that the defendant (Garnett) show cause why he should not be required to disclose the requested documents."
In his ruling, Lowenbach wrote that the Colorado Supreme Court has declared that the reasons for grand jury secrecy are to prevent the escape of those who might be indicted, to encourage witnesses to come forward, to encourage uninhibited discussion of a case, and to prevent disclosure of derogatory information against someone who has not been indicted.
But Lowenbach wrote that Brennan's assertion, if true, meant the evidence presented to the grand jurors was enough to warrant an indictment and thus did not require secrecy.
"In this case, the only factor that may be implicated is the prevention of derogatory information being released against someone who has not been indicted," Lowenbach wrote. "In this case, assuming as asserted by the plaintiffs that the grand jury voted to indict Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, the evidence rose to a level in the minds of the grand jurors justifying an indictment."
10-18-2013, 08:12 AM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
10-18-2013, 08:21 AM #11
I always said that somehow I understand why AH was scared to prosecute >>>not enough evidence,he didn't know who did what,etc
BUT at the same time whose fault is it that the cops weren't allowed to gather the evidence that was needed (phone records,medical records,etc,etc)???
10-19-2013, 01:22 AM #12
If so, would this Colo statue have any implication for charges to be brought against AH for not completing the process of the indictment with his signature?:
COLO. REV. STAT. ANN
. ß 18-8-405 (West 2008).
Second degree official misconduct.
(1) A public servant commits second degree official misconduct if he knowingly, arbitrarily, and capriciously:
(a) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law; or
(b) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.
Or because AH is now retired and so many years have gone by, is he off the hook for not signing the true bill?We want the truth, but can we handle the truth?
10-19-2013, 06:54 AM #13Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
Thats exactly what I was thinking about. Over here its described as Misconduct In A Public Office.
Sometimes there is no statute of limitations on these kind of charges since they never really expect them to be filed.
There may also be other laws he has transgressed relating to his GJ duties, in this instance the GJ jurors might be able to raise civil litigation themselves say under freeedom of speech or loss of earnings?
Failed civil litigation wrt AH would create a public record of his behavor and stimulate media debate.
10-21-2013, 09:06 AM #14
hm.had no clue
Isnít the fact that Alex Hunter owns property with the Ramseysí lawyers a conflict of interest?
Great question ó as I say in the book, Alex Hunter should have undoubtedly recused himself from this case, not just
for having joint business interests Ramsey attorneys, but for a number of other things
10-21-2013, 11:01 AM #15
And this from Madeleine's posted link:
Are there any aspects of the case that you find yourself constantly puzzling over?
Hunter knows there is no smoking gun. As he is prone to do, he flip-flops constantly on issues, but even he is now
convinced this was not an Intruder.
So, Hunter was convinced JB's killer was NOT an Intruder? And according to the law Burke could not be charged. And the GJ returned an indictment for the arrest of J and P, to which he replied there was not enough evidence to proceed with filing charges??
But HE was convinced it was not an Intruder, which in my mind equals the fact he had to have been convinced either J or P or both killed JB....unless he was not convinced that there wasn't any other person in the house that night who would have been known to the Ramseys?
Did AH ever make any public statements about the plausibility of deeper investigation of a suspect he might have had on his radar as a perpetrator other than JR or PR?We want the truth, but can we handle the truth?
By Eidetic in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years oldReplies: 2Last Post: 04-22-2010, 04:13 PM
By ajc2804 in forum Up to the MinuteReplies: 10Last Post: 10-20-2006, 11:46 AM
By Casshew in forum Crimes-Spotlight on ChildrenReplies: 5Last Post: 07-27-2004, 12:05 PM