Indictments and Charges - Page 2

stmarysmead · #26 04-27-2010, 07:57 PM

Precisely BECAUSE this case is atypical, IMO the Grand Jury would need to be substantially satisfied with the "evidence" presented...in order for the D.A. to GET the indictments.

That alone suggests to me there's a LOT of real solid evidence to come.

jjenny · #27 04-27-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmarysmead

Precisely BECAUSE this case is atypical, IMO the Grand Jury would need to be substantially satisfied with the "evidence" presented...in order for the D.A. to GET the indictments.

That alone suggests to me there's a LOT of real solid evidence to come.

I fail to see why that would be so.

OrdinaryLife · #28 04-27-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjenny

I fail to see why that would be so.

The Grand Jury deciding to proceed given what was given to them as evidence says much. The DA has enough to continue on with charges against those named. We are not privy to all that has been presented and will not know until this case resumes in the future.

It doesn't matter if you fail to see so, but the Grand Jury has. In their opinion...

imvho

jjenny · #29 04-27-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryLife

The Grand Jury deciding to proceed given what was given to them as evidence says much. The DA has enough to continue on with charges against those named. We are not privy to all that has been presented and will not know until this case resumes in the future.

It doesn't matter if you fail to see so, but the Grand Jury has. In their opinion...

imvho

I presume that what I think matters just about as much as what anybody else on this board thinks, unless they have a direct connection to this case. Regarding the grand jury system, a lot of jurisdictions substituted that with preliminary hearings, which to me seems a more fair system, since preliminary hearings allow defense to present its side as well. Also, preliminary hearings don't go on in secret. With grand jury, public has no idea what evidence was presented.

OrdinaryLife · #30 04-27-2010, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjenny

I presume that what I think matters just about as much as what anybody else on this board thinks, unless they have a direct connection to this case. Regarding the grand jury system, a lot of jurisdictions substituted that with preliminary hearings, which to me seems a more fair system, since preliminary hearings allow defense to present its side as well. Also, preliminary hearings don't go on in secret. With grand jury, public has no idea what evidence was presented.

Apparently, you misunderstood my response. I was disagreeing with your point, not (nor ever stated or implied) that your opinion doesn't matter. I quoted your post and gave my opinion.

Topic was Grand Jury and I responded to that. It had nothing to do with the preliminary hearings. Which, in fact, would not be occuring without the Grand Jury's agreement that the DA had enough cause to pursue.

imvho

jjenny · #31 04-27-2010, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryLife

Apparently, you misunderstood my response. I was disagreeing with your point, not (nor ever stated or implied) that your opinion doesn't matter. I quoted your post and gave my opinion.

Topic was Grand Jury and I responded to that. It had nothing to do with the preliminary hearings. Which, in fact, would not be occuring without the Grand Jury's agreement that the DA had enough cause to pursue.

imvho

Preliminary hearing is an alternative method to obtain an indictment instead of grand jury. In some jurisdictions DA can obtain an indictment by either a grand jury or by preliminary hearing.

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)
Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

OrdinaryLife · #32 04-27-2010, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjenny

Preliminary hearing is an alternative method to obtain an indictment that can be used instead of grand jury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_hearing

DA chose the Grand Jury. Her perogative and for reasons, I think, will come out in the future.

imvho

Paladine · #33 04-28-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauerkraut2

No. And I get no answer when I ask for a release date. There's a reason it's not public record or subject to public release; I suspect it has to do with the sex-by-minor and privacy issues.

But Kayla didn't rape...why would hers not be released?

WaddupYo · #34 04-28-2010, 11:55 AM

I do want to see Kayla's report

Paladine · #35 04-28-2010, 01:02 PM

I just find it very strange the 2 'sports stars' charges have not been released.

WaddupYo · #36 04-28-2010, 02:00 PM

Yes it is a little odd that the 3 still have not been released. I really wonder why. I want to read Kayla's.

MaureenN · #37 04-28-2010, 07:17 PM

The legal documents that we've seen so far aren't the indictments or actual charges. They are motions for joinder of the deliquency charges with the youthful offender charges. They don't include the whole of the charges, just the information from the charges that supports joinder (i.e. trying both sets of charges at the same time)

Definition of 'Legal Motion': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28legal%29 - basically, it means 'bringing an issue before the courts'.

Definition of 'Joinder' in criminal cases:

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)
Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

- "Joinder in criminal law is a legal term which refers to the inclusion of additional counts or additional defendants on an indictment."

So, I don't think we're waiting to see 3 criminal indictments in this case. I think we're waiting to see all six.

Paladine · #38 04-29-2010, 06:10 PM

Thanks, Maureen. After reading your post, I recall you had explained that earlier on, thread #1 or #2, maybe...I had forgotten.

So, is this a normal procedure, in your opinion, Maureen? Or do we usually see more by now...this feels like the sahara compared to the ocean of discovery in the KC case...

MaureenN · #39 04-29-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladine

Thanks, Maureen. After reading your post, I recall you had explained that earlier on, thread #1 or #2, maybe...I had forgotten.

So, is this a normal procedure, in your opinion, Maureen? Or do we usually see more by now...this feels like the sahara compared to the ocean of discovery in the KC case...

I have no idea if this is normal or not. I don't usually follow criminal cases this closely. This one just intrigued me - maybe because of the ages of my children (and nieces & nephews) & my involvement in our school district here in town, maybe because of my own past, long ago in school...

It is maddening that this tidbit of info was released, but not the rest of it. I have no idea what is normally released to the public, though (or when). Especially maddening, I think, because people in discussions seem to be making all kinds of assumptions about the charges based on these documents, when really this could just be a sliver of info used to support the motion - not the entirety of the charges (or evidence) at all.

Paladine · #40 04-29-2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaureenN

I have no idea if this is normal or not. I don't usually follow criminal cases this closely. This one just intrigued me - maybe because of the ages of my children (and nieces & nephews) & my involvement in our school district here in town, maybe because of my own past, long ago in school...

It is maddening that this tidbit of info was released, but not the rest of it. I have no idea what is normally released to the public, though (or when). Especially maddening, I think, because people in discussions seem to be making all kinds of assumptions about the charges based on these documents, when really this could just be a sliver of info used to support the motion - not the entirety of the charges (or evidence) at all.

Agreed. I will pop over to another WS forum later...maybe tomorrow...and see if anyone from MA is around...and if they may know what the normal procedure is...just curious, is all...