805 users online (132 members and 673 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 71 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1058
  1. #61
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Bali View Post
    As for his statements, I don't believe there is a legal way to do so.
    It's completely inadmissible, correct. 6th Amendment protection for a defendant keeps his words from being usable as evidence.

    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... be confronted with the witnesses against him ...."
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    151
    ^^^^^
    I agree......and also didn't think there is any way to get any statements made by SA into the trials now.
    But I took a quick look around anyhow and uncovered this :

    Hearsay Exceptions When the Declarant Is Unavailable to Testify

    1.Former Testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing in the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition, is admissible when the declarant is unavailable, provided the party against whom the testimony is now being offered had the opportunity to question or cross-examine the witness (Fed. R. Evid. 804(1)).

    2.A Statement Made Under the Belief of Impending Death. A statement made by a declarant who, when making the statement, believed death to be imminent, is admissible to show the cause or circumstances of the death. For example, the statement "Horace shot me," made moments before the declarant died, is admissible for the purpose of proving that Horace committed murder (Fed. R. Evid. 804(2)).

    3.A Statement Against the Declarant's Interest. A statement that, at the time of its making, was contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or that subjected the declarant to civil or criminal liability, is admissible if the declarant is unavailable to testify. For example, the statement "I never declare all my income on my tax returns" could subject the declarant to criminal tax fraud liability, and is thus an admissible statement against interest (Fed. R. Evid. 804(3)).

    4.A Statement of Personal or Family History. A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, or similar fact of personal family history is admissible hearsay when the declarant is unavailable to testify (Fed. R. Evid. 804(4)).

    #3 ......surprised me.It appears that it may be possible that some of what SA said in an interrogation could get admitted.
    For example if he admitted he helped dispose of the body......that statement may be allowed in by this certain exemption.

    Granted I have no clue what SA may have said and used the above as just an example.

    Does the immunity agreement at the time change the basis of this exemption?????
    I would fully expect the defense to put up a good fight to try and keep anything damning declared inadmissible.But depending on what SA had told investigators it might make for some interesting pre-trial motions.

    But I was surprised by #3 and will post the link to the full page......if you are a bit of a legal buff such as myself it was an informative and interesting read.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ble+to+Testify

  3. #63
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,089
    Exception 3 would not be applicable, as SA did not make a statement that to his knowledge "subjected the declarant to civil or criminal liability." #3 is usable for statements that, when made, are being made despite putting a proverbial noose around one's own neck, with the assumption that you wouldn't tell a lie to create your own peril. SA did not do that. WHEN HE SPOKE, nothing he said was (to his knowledge) to his own peril at all.

    The only exception that I would think would have even a remote possibility of being considered would be if there was proof that SA was murdered (by one of the defendants, or an accomplice) to keep him from testifying. However, that's an extreme long shot, starting with the fact that he was said to have died by suicide. If you get past that hurdle, there's the fact that the immunity offer had been pulled (so he wasn't expected to testify), his testimony had been declared untruthful, and no one knew the content of his testimony to have a compelling reason to silence him.

    Frankly, given the fact that LE publicly declared him a liar and his testimony a lie, they've effectively rendered what he said to be of no value in a courtroom anyhow.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    865
    My heart breaks into pieces every time I see Holly's name come up in a thread.

    Godspeed. Ugh, I just want to scream.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Chainsaw385 View Post
    ^^^^^

    #3 ......surprised me.It appears that it may be possible that some of what SA said in an interrogation could get admitted.
    For example if he admitted he helped dispose of the body......that statement may be allowed in by this certain exemption.

    Granted I have no clue what SA may have said and used the above as just an example.

    Does the immunity agreement at the time change the basis of this exemption?????
    I would fully expect the defense to put up a good fight to try and keep anything damning declared inadmissible.But depending on what SA had told investigators it might make for some interesting pre-trial motions.

    But I was surprised by #3 and will post the link to the full page......if you are a bit of a legal buff such as myself it was an informative and interesting read.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ble+to+Testify
    #3 refers to statements made by SA that could be used against himself. It would not apply in the trial of a third party.

    In any case, the DA was trying to revoke the immunity agreement, and the only reasonable grounds for doing that would be that they had evidence that he lied to them. That evidence would have to be turned over as discovery. So, I think it is safe to say that whatever SA told LE is unusable now, even if he was still alive.

  6. #66
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
    #3 refers to statements made by SA that could be used against himself. It would not apply in the trial of a third party.
    The first part is true, but the last is not. It must be a statement against his own interest (and meeting further criteria), but such hearsay of a deceased might be ruled admissible in a criminal trial.

    And of course the only criminal trial in which the testimony of a deceased can even be considered to be used for any reason is a trial of someone else. Because he could never be the defendant.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    Exception 3 would not be applicable, as SA did not make a statement that to his knowledge "subjected the declarant to civil or criminal liability." #3 is usable for statements that, when made, are being made despite putting a proverbial noose around one's own neck, with the assumption that you wouldn't tell a lie to create your own peril. SA did not do that. WHEN HE SPOKE, nothing he said was (to his knowledge) to his own peril at all.
    This would be because SA had an immunity deal at the time of these statements ...........correct?
    Since part of the deal was he was immune to anything he may admit to (other then the actual murder) therefor not putting himself at risk?

    In my defense I wondered if the immunity deal would alter the scope of this exemption in my original post and after looking a it more after your post I believe it does.

    As I stated way back in this thread the Sandusky case had a verbal statement from a janitor that was dead by the time of the trial told to the jury by another janitor that was still alive ....it was ruled an "excited utterance".So there are ways to get dead witness testimony into a criminal trial.

    ****** I am sure Tugela will be along soon to say this Sandusky thing is wrong and could only be used in the trial of the janitor that was dead but still on trial anyhow and not against Sandusky but it happened and so far has stood up to at least one appeal.

  8. #68
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,089
    Chainsaw, yes that is the correct analysis (that the presence of the immunity deal made SA's offered testimony IN his best interest, rather than against it - and therefore it would not be usable after his death). And yes there are other theoretical exceptions to the hearsay rule, which would not be applicable in this situation but might make it admissible in a different case.

    You clearly have been on the right track all along. No question. I was just trying make it clearer for you.

    It needs to be noted that the exceptions flow from case law rulings, that first emerged by being asserted at trial, then upheld, and were ultimately codified. The point being, the broad strokes are defined, but the limits can be fuzzy and evolve a bit over time.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    WOW ... checkout this video from NC5 on Shayne Austin !

    Legal Analyst: Suspectís Death Could Hurt Prosecution In Bobo Case

    A prime suspect and key witness in the Holly Bobo case is dead. NewsChannel 5 has learned more about Shayne Austin and his link to the high-profile murder, and why the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation had such an interest in him.


    Link: http://newschannel5.video.jrn.com/Le...-Case-28643382


    And watch it as soon as you can because sometimes articles/videos go "poof" !
    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,658
    Watched the clip, what worries me the most is that if SA was key to the prosecution, do they not have conclusive evidence that stands by itself to convict ZA/JA/DA?
    'Every life has a measure of sorrow, and sometimes this is what awakens us.' - Steven Tyler


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Some snippets from the News Channel 5 video on Shayne Austin :


    - A relative of Austin is questioning whether or not SA's death was a suicide.

    Note: Does not reveal WHO this relative is.


    - Nick Beres of News Channel 5 has obtained some documents why the TBI was very interested in SA.

    - TBI suspected SA enough to be involved with Holly's kidnapping/murder, and asked the Judge for a TAP on Austin's phone in March 2014.
    - SA was interviewed several times by TBI.
    - SA admits he was with Zack Adams the entire day Holly went missing.
    - Phone records show that Austin was in contact with Adams several times on the day of the abduction.
    - SA confessed to at least 1 person that he was involved in the crime.
    - SA publicly denied any involvement in Holly's kidnapping/murder, but told the TBI and others a different story when it came to cutting an "immunity deal."

    - The District Attorney granted SA an immunity deal hoping it would lead to Holly's body.

    - Agents then searched ZA's property, but did they come up empty -- since the District Attorney revoked Austin's immunity deal ?

    - Austin had never been charged with the kidnapping/murder of Holly.

    - Legal Analyst for NC5 says this is a blow to the prosecution's case.


    Link: http://newschannel5.video.jrn.com/Le...-Case-28643382
    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogface View Post
    Watched the clip, what worries me the most is that

    if SA was key to the prosecution, do they not have conclusive evidence that stands by itself to convict ZA/JA/DA?


    BBM: Good question ... and I really hate to say this, but apparently they do not.

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  13. #73
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,089
    A few items to note, re that video:
    1 That report is not recent. It was aired the week of SA's death.
    2 That changes the perception as to the info that a relative of SA's has some doubts about the suicide being a suicide. In the first days afterward, such thoughts are to be expected.
    3 The info about the phone tap warrant, and info about the basis, was news.
    4 But it also seemed to me that the reporter was trying to infer more "inside insight" than he may have really had.
    5 There is a clear contradiction in the claims being made about SA in the report. In one place, it says "he was with Zack Adams the entire day Holly went missing." Yet, it says, phone records show they conversed by phone several times that day. So they are standing next to each other, and call each other on the phone? I wouldn't think so.
    6 The report asserts "SA confessed to at least 1 person that he was involved in the crime." Maybe that's a clever deception by the news person. "Involved" offers up the innuendo that he helped in the abduction and murder - but did he? Are they using his admitted involvement after the fact, in the disposal of the body, but making it sound like it was more by referring to "the crime"?
    7 LE made him an immunity deal that was predicated on his LACK OF involvement, other than after the fact stuff, and they had to sign a contract saying they BELIEVED that to be true. So there's that.
    8 Does the idea that LE had a tap on SA's phone pertain to a time period BEFORE the immunity deal fell apart? It was asked for in Mar 2014. When was the deal signed? And when did it unravel? And when was the phone tap in place?
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    A few items to note, re that video:

    1 That report is not recent. It was aired the week of SA's death.

    2 That changes the perception as to the info that a relative of SA's has some doubts about the suicide being a suicide. In the first days afterward, such thoughts are to be expected.

    3 The info about the phone tap warrant, and info about the basis, was news.

    4 But it also seemed to me that the reporter was trying to infer more "inside insight" than he may have really had.

    5 There is a clear contradiction in the claims being made about SA in the report. In one place, it says "he was with Zack Adams the entire day Holly went missing." Yet, it says, phone records show they conversed by phone several times that day. So they are standing next to each other, and call each other on the phone? I wouldn't think so.

    6 The report asserts "SA confessed to at least 1 person that he was involved in the crime." Maybe that's a clever deception by the news person. "Involved" offers up the innuendo that he helped in the abduction and murder - but did he? Are they using his admitted involvement after the fact, in the disposal of the body, but making it sound like it was more by referring to "the crime"?

    7 LE made him an immunity deal that was predicated on his LACK OF involvement, other than after the fact stuff, and they had to sign a contract saying they BELIEVED that to be true. So there's that.

    8 Does the idea that LE had a tap on SA's phone pertain to a time period BEFORE the immunity deal fell apart? It was asked for in Mar 2014. When was the deal signed? And when did it unravel? And when was the phone tap in place?

    Hi Steve, some good points !

    1st BBM: Correct ... the report was aired in late February 2015, but for some reason I missed it when it was originally aired.

    I found the video a few days ago when I was reading over at lala land JMO but some interesting comments over there at lala land ... lol !

    They were discussing it and what caught my attention was the "new" news about the wire tap on SA's phone.

    2nd BBM: Yes, this video was done 1 week after SA's "death" which was in mid February ... and yes, it is understandable that family may have some doubt ... but I wonder IF this relative still thinks this ?

    3rd BBM: Agree ... "sensational journalism."

    4th BBM: Yes, but possibilities such as were they "together" but in different vehicles or different locations before and after Holly was kidnapped -- or -- did they move her and they were in different locations, like one being on the lookout ? KWIM ?

    5th BBM: The "immunity deal" -- wish we knew the FACTS but I do not think we ever will !

    6th BBM: That's what I think: after he was given immunity, they got the wiretap -- and they were listening in and maybe heard something that did not add up to what SA told TBI, so it was revoked ?

    I don't remember the dates the immunity deal was offered and then revoked, so have to go back and verify those dates when I get time.

    What I would like to know is WHO talked first: SA or DA ? DA was in jail on federal gun charges, so did he talk in hopes of getting a reduction from the feds having info on one of the State's most high profile murder cases ?

    And did anyone else talk ?

    This case is mind boggling !
    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    -Metro NYC
    Posts
    4,902
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    Nope.

    But it wouldn't matter. Don't forget, LE publicly declared him a liar, so they can't turn around and try to sell his words as truth to prosecute someone.

    Just one more example of the DAs office being incompetent. It's not smart to throw potential witnesses under the bus (Stowe trashed the TBI, so how can they testify in this case and be counted as reliable?)
    So bazaar - everyone throwing one another on the proverbial bus - comical were it not for the fact that Holly doesn't get justice, and her family has to suffer thru this..
    Seems like it's a way to avoid going to trial...

Page 5 of 71 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 566
    Last Post: 09-09-2017, 09:15 AM
  2. Replies: 1058
    Last Post: 04-15-2015, 08:38 AM
  3. Replies: 1501
    Last Post: 10-15-2014, 12:13 AM
  4. Replies: 970
    Last Post: 06-30-2014, 05:01 PM

Tags for this Thread