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."

Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...case-indictment-judge-parents-_n_4117676.html

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."

Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...case-indictment-judge-parents-_n_4117676.html

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 :loveyou::loveyou::loveyou:

This even calls for a few dancing bananas
:Banane04::Banana4::Banane17::banane58:

Mind if I squeeze in here to just sit here Stunned & Speechless after all these years even though I NEVER Lost Faith?!?!

lease:lease:lease:lease:lease:lease:

RiverRat
2013
That's a Lot of RR!!!

Tricia said:

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

Click to expand...

It is promising.
I think that that Brennan and the legal team fighting this particular battle are on good footing, and will probably succeed. It’s a good bet that there will be appeals that will extend the outcome, though.
While I’m optimistic about the outcome, I personally don’t think that there is all that much detail in the indictment. I’ve 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 I’ve 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]

I’m 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.''
http://onlineathens.com/stories/090100/new_0901000008.shtml

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_1766

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 :banghead:

cynic said:

It is promising.
I think that that Brennan and the legal team fighting this particular battle are on good footing, and will probably succeed. It’s a good bet that there will be appeals that will extend the outcome, though.
While I’m optimistic about the outcome, I personally don’t think that there is all that much detail in the indictment. I’ve 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 I’ve 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:
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Colorado Reporters Sue Boulder DA Over Ramsey Case

I’m 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.''
http://onlineathens.com/stories/090100/new_0901000008.shtml

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_1766

Click to expand...

We are SO setting out Wedding Date Now, My Friend!!!! Thank You for the Sweetest Treat Anyone could have Ever Surprised me with!!!!!! :loveyou:

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/10/...or-jonbenet-ramseys-parents-should-be-public/

“I 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,” said CBS4 Legal Analyst and former prosecutor Karen Steinhauser.

:drumroll:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/judge-jonbenet-indictment-should-be-public

Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach ruled Thursday that releasing the indictment wouldn't violate grand-jury secrecy rules.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/bou...-orders-boulder-da-show-why-ramsey-indictment

"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."

cynic said:

It is promising.
I think that that Brennan and the legal team fighting this particular battle are on good footing, and will probably succeed. It’s a good bet that there will be appeals that will extend the outcome, though.
While I’m optimistic about the outcome, I personally don’t think that there is all that much detail in the indictment. I’ve 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 I’ve 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:
Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Colorado Reporters Sue Boulder DA Over Ramsey Case

I’m 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.''
http://onlineathens.com/stories/090100/new_0901000008.shtml

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_1766

Click to expand...

cynic,
Someone should prepare civil litigation against AH for abuse of his public office in misrepresenting the status of the indictment!


.

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)???

UKGuy said:

cynic,
Someone should prepare civil litigation against AH for abuse of his public office in misrepresenting the status of the indictment!


.

Click to expand...

Did I read on this forum some weeks back that the indictment issued should have, by law, been signed off by AH, then he could have presented a "no charges or prosecution" argument to a judge as the next step in not pursuing the action of the indictment?

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
. § 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? :dunno:

midwest mama said:

Did I read on this forum some weeks back that the indictment issued should have, by law, been signed off by AH, then he could have presented a "no charges or prosecution" argument to a judge as the next step in not pursuing the action of the indictment?

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
. § 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? :dunno:

Click to expand...

midwest mama,
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.


.

hm.had no clue

http://crimejusticeandamerica.com/sthomas1

BILL BICKEL
Isn’t the fact that Alex Hunter owns property with the Ramseys’ lawyers a conflict of interest?
STEVE THOMAS
Great question — 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

And this from Madeleine's posted link:

BILL BICKEL
Are there any aspects of the case that you find yourself constantly puzzling over?
STEVE THOMAS
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?

from the same link

BILL BICKEL
Did the Ramseys call anybody BEFORE they called 911?
STEVE THOMAS
great question, and one that I had — toll records, phone records, are so simple and Police 101. But for some reason i
couldn’t make that any clearer to Hutner/Demuth/Hpofstrom in order to obtain those elementary warrants. And since
the “small foreign faction” were going to sue a telephone to make the contact, the warrant would have been easy to
obtain, through the nexus. But once again, when I left the investigation, records still had not been obtained

----------------

BILL BICKEL
Are there any cell phone or long distance records for the Ramseys for December
1996? And if so, do they offer any useful clues?
STEVE THOMAS
In the book I talk about my frustrations in the obstruction in our efforts to obtain such
records. In the Touch Tone investigation (peripherally related case) we found many,
many useful records that may/may not have helped the Ramsey investigation. But we
were prohibited from exploring them.
STEVE THOMAS
So as to Dec 1996 records – in hindsight, a heck of a lot more I wish we would have
explored. When I left in 1998, people called in Dec 1996 long distance, had never
been contacted . .
BILL BICKEL
Prohibited using what excuse?
STEVE THOMAS
The excuse was pathetic. Demtuh, for example, as well as hofstrom, suggested asking
the Ramseys permission. It was like the way servants treat the Queen of England, and
it bothered me terribly. The right way to have done it was through the legal process of
search warrants. heaven knows why it took so long, as they had not been procured,
part of my frustration, before i resigned.

--------------------

BILL BICKEL
Did John or Patsy leave the house the night of the 25/6?
STEVE THOMAS
million dollar question. or, as the detectives would say, the $118,000 question.


ITA

Tricia said:

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,"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...case-indictment-judge-parents-_n_4117676.html

The Judge ruled,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...case-indictment-judge-parents-_n_4117676.html

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 :loveyou::loveyou::loveyou:

This even calls for a few dancing bananas
:Banane04::Banana4::Banane17::banane58:

Click to expand...

I haven't discussed this case from the beginning as many of you have so I'm curious, is it the assumption the Grand Jury evidence and testimony contains previously unknown information? Even after all of the books by insiders in the investigation, is it the belief of most of the posters here that there is more to be learned from the release of the Grand Jury proceedings and conclusions?

Not trying to start something....genuinely curious.

2 percent said:

I haven't discussed this case from the beginning as many of you have so I'm curious, is it the assumption the Grand Jury evidence and testimony contains previously unknown information? Even after all of the books by insiders in the investigation, is it the belief of most of the posters here that there is more to be learned from the release of the Grand Jury proceedings and conclusions?

Not trying to start something....genuinely curious.

Click to expand...

I've wondered this same thing, especially where Steve Thomas is concerned. When Kolar came out with his book, he mentioned the feces smeared chocolates. I wonder if Thomas knew about this and decided to keep it quiet, maybe for legal reasons? because how could he not know about the chocolates? So, it looks like some evidence has been kept under wraps for some reasons, but I don't know how much or why. I find it hard to believe that there is a lot of secret evidence that hasn't been leaked, but maybe some. Probably where the surprises will be are in testimony and maybe in the 'drafted' indictments that were mentioned. The biggest surprise is that the grand jury voted to indict both of the Rs. That news came out less than a year ago. For almost 15 years the public was led to believe the grand jury voted not to indict.

midwest mama;9915079 And this from Madeleine's posted link:

BILL BICKEL
Are there any aspects of the case that you find yourself constantly puzzling over?
STEVE THOMAS
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?

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

I have never doubted that AH knew that one of the Ramsey's commtted this crime. He was just too big a wimp to prosecute because he knew he couldn't win. Too much reasonable doubt as to which Ramsey. Even if he charged both adults, which is all he would have been able to charge by law, the parents would have just thrown Burke under the bus.

AH knew.

I wonder how the fact was kept under wraps that the Grand Jury had indeed handed down an indictment but that Hunter had refused to file charges.

I weaned myself away from the JonBenet case years ago when I lost hope it would ever be solved, and now here I am, feeling hopeful again.

I hope something good comes from this latest development!