Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*

Hi, BeanE. The rules vary from state to state. I can't find anything in Oregon requiring the silence of a WITNESS (as opposed to a grand juror) on any subject. And I believe the US Supreme Court has explained that a grand jury witness has a First Amendment right to at least speak about the actual INFORMATION he or she knows, even if there is a state law preventing him or her from speaking about the specific testimony given to the grand jury.

Section 132.330 - Submission of indictment by district attorney

The district attorney may submit an indictment to the grand jury in any case when the district attorney has good reason to believe that a crime has been committed which is triable within the county. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §47]

Section 132.410 - Finding of indictment; filing; inspection

An indictment, when found and indorsed, as provided in ORS 132.400 and 132.580, shall be filed with the clerk of the court, in whose office it shall remain as a public record. Upon being designated by the district attorney as confidential and until after the arrest of a defendant who has not been held to answer the charge, the indictment or any order or process in relation thereto shall not be inspected by any person other than the judge, the clerk of the court, the district attorney or a peace officer in the discharge of a duty concerning the indictment, order or process. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §52; 1999 c.967 §2]

Section 132.420 - Disclosure relative to indictment not subject to inspection

No grand juror, reporter or other person except the district attorney or a peace officer in the exercise of duties in effecting an arrest shall disclose any fact concerning any indictment while it is not subject to public inspection. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §53]

Section 132.990 - Premature inspection or disclosure of contents of indictment.

Violation of ORS 132.420 or the prohibitions of ORS 132.410 is punishable as contempt.




Could that be interpreted to mean witnesses (no other person shall disclose any fact concerning the indictment, order or process) It doesn't specify that its referring only to those working for the state or grand jury. It simply states no other person and shall not by any person. And until it's subject to public inspection, "no other person" can disclose any fact regarding the indictment.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/index.html
 
Section 132.330 - Submission of indictment by district attorney

The district attorney may submit an indictment to the grand jury in any case when the district attorney has good reason to believe that a crime has been committed which is triable within the county. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §47]

Section 132.410 - Finding of indictment; filing; inspection

An indictment, when found and indorsed, as provided in ORS 132.400 and 132.580, shall be filed with the clerk of the court, in whose office it shall remain as a public record. Upon being designated by the district attorney as confidential and until after the arrest of a defendant who has not been held to answer the charge, the indictment or any order or process in relation thereto shall not be inspected by any person other than the judge, the clerk of the court, the district attorney or a peace officer in the discharge of a duty concerning the indictment, order or process. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §52; 1999 c.967 §2]

Section 132.420 - Disclosure relative to indictment not subject to inspection

No grand juror, reporter or other person except the district attorney or a peace officer in the exercise of duties in effecting an arrest shall disclose any fact concerning any indictment while it is not subject to public inspection. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §53]

Section 132.990 - Premature inspection or disclosure of contents of indictment.

Violation of ORS 132.420 or the prohibitions of ORS 132.410 is punishable as contempt.




Could that be interpreted to mean witnesses (no other person shall disclose any fact concerning the indictment, order or process) It doesn't specify that its referring only to those working for the state or grand jury. It simply states no other person and shall not by any person. And until it's subject to public inspection, "no other person" can disclose any fact regarding the indictment.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/index.html

No, the witnesses wouldn't know anything about the indictment, and "process" in this context means the kind of "process" that a "process server" handles, not the kind of "process" like "we sure had to go through a long process to get this indictment." :)
 
No, the witnesses wouldn't know anything about the indictment, and "process" in this context means the kind of "process" that a "process server" handles, not the kind of "process" like "we sure had to go through a long process to get this indictment." :)
Thanks. I couldn't get past the "no other person"; seems a bit vague at least to me who knows nothing lol.
 
Thanks. I couldn't get past the "no other person"; seems a bit vague at least to me who knows nothing lol.

"any other person" means exactly that. It's not vague, it's broad. No one, other than those specifically identified, can see "the indictment or any order or process in relation thereto" until the defendant has been arrested, when they are not already in custody.

eta: or disclose any facts relating to it...those provisions refer to an actual indictment. Not to disclosure of anything leading up to it in the GJ. Separate issue. Not sure if that's what you're wondering about.
 
"any other person" means exactly that. It's not vague, it's broad. No one, other than those specifically identified, can see "the indictment or any order or process in relation thereto" until the defendant has been arrested, when they are not already in custody.


No grand juror, reporter or other person except the district attorney or a peace officer in the exercise of duties in effecting an arrest shall disclose any fact concerning any indictment while it is not subject to public inspection.

That's what has me confuzzled. Testimony given wouldn't be considered a 'fact' concerning the indictment?

I trust you two and I'm not arguing the point; just trying desperately to wrap my mind around this legalese.
 
"any other person" means exactly that. It's not vague, it's broad. No one, other than those specifically identified, can see "the indictment or any order or process in relation thereto" until the defendant has been arrested, when they are not already in custody.

eta: or disclose any facts relating to it...those provisions refer to an actual indictment. Not to disclosure of anything leading up to it in the GJ. Separate issue. Not sure if that's what you're wondering about.

Ok, didn't see your edit when I posted; this is why I included this section:

Section 132.330 - Submission of indictment by district attorney

The district attorney may submit an indictment to the grand jury in any case when the district attorney has good reason to believe that a crime has been committed which is triable within the county.

To me, that means the DA submits the indictment and then the grand jury hears testimony and views evidence, then votes on whether to indorse it. Which in my feeble mind reads as though the indictment is part of the process from the very start, and therefore the above restrictions would apply to witnesses as well ("no other person").

That was the basis for my question and obvious confusion.

Did that make sense?
 
If Terri Horman were to be called to testify in front of ANY jury be it the Grand Jury or any other jury and she PLEADED THE 5TH, could she then be charged with 'not cooperating' and face jail time and fines?

Thank you so much in advance for answering this, I have read this question over and over on many different news sites.
 
My son tells me that the DA can present a request for indictment, but the GJ can also decide to go with a lesser charge, if they feel the evidence is not sufficient. For instance, the DA can present a charge of 1st degree homicide, and the GJ can indict on a lesser charge... 2nd degree or manslaughter.
Or they can 'no bill' the whole thing and then the DA can present the case to them at a later time if they find more evidence (and in the hopes there will be a different GJ.) He said some cases have been brought before a GJ several times before they secure an indictment.
 
No grand juror, reporter or other person except the district attorney or a peace officer in the exercise of duties in effecting an arrest shall disclose any fact concerning any indictment while it is not subject to public inspection.

That's what has me confuzzled. Testimony given wouldn't be considered a 'fact' concerning the indictment?

I trust you two and I'm not arguing the point; just trying desperately to wrap my mind around this legalese.

No, testimony given would not be a fact concerning the indictment.

If Terri Horman were to be called to testify in front of ANY jury be it the Grand Jury or any other jury and she PLEADED THE 5TH, could she then be charged with 'not cooperating' and face jail time and fines?

Thank you so much in advance for answering this, I have read this question over and over on many different news sites.

No way. That's the whole point of the 5th Amendment--you can't be punished criminally for refusing to talk.
 
So many legal questions - sorry.

Can the GJ request information that would enhance their understanding in a case? For instance: Can the GJ request that a subpoena be issued for Terri's bank statements? TIA :blowkiss:
 
This is a complicated question.

I'm going completely insane reading about Terri's right to own multiple cellphones to evade police.

What is the important thing here, legally? :waitasec:

I know she is involved in a divorce and custody battle. I know she has a right to talk to attorney/client privilege about whatever, but wouldn't one cell phone suffice?

And couldn't (or shouldn't) the attorney himself have bought that for her? What's normal?

And also, since her text messages and sexting with various people have led to the MFH plot, wouldn't a good defense attorney tell her to cut it out for a while instead of implicating her friends as accomplices who bought her new phones? (That's assuming that her attorney even knew about the phones - which may or may not be true.

So I guess my main question is how common is it for a defense attorney to say that his client needs to use multiple phones to stay one step ahead of a police subpoena?
 
So many legal questions - sorry.

Can the GJ request information that would enhance their understanding in a case? For instance: Can the GJ request that a subpoena be issued for Terri's bank statements? TIA :blowkiss:

It's the DA's job to make the case for an indictment and the Gj just decides whether the evidence submitted is sufficient, if true, to bring a charge. If the DA's case is falling just short due to the absenec of a particular fact that raises doubts among the GJ, there are ways of communicating that so the DA can obtain that evidence/testimony prior to the GJ rendering a decision. On the flip side, if an Oregon GJ believes there is obtainable evidence or testimony that will explain away the charges, it can order the DA to subpoena such evidence/testimony.
 
If Terri Horman were to be called to testify in front of ANY jury be it the Grand Jury or any other jury and she PLEADED THE 5TH, could she then be charged with 'not cooperating' and face jail time and fines?

Totally agree with AZLawyer on the 5th Amendment issue. To take it a step further, since the 5th Amend. only applies to self-incrimination, I'd clarify for you that it is not a crime for anyone to merely refuse to talk or cooperate with LE. Unless a person uses force, intimidation, or some other type of physical or economic interference with the specific intent of obstructing or hindering an investigation or prosecution, it's not a crime.
 
So I guess my main question is how common is it for a defense attorney to say that his client needs to use multiple phones to stay one step ahead of a police subpoena?

A competent defense attorney would never say that since the statement could be viewed as evidence of intent to hinder the prosecution by an act of concealment. A competent defense attorney would say that the client does not feel comfortable using the cell phone account held jointly with her estranged husband in the midst of an acrimonius divorce and, having no independent means, is merely relying on the generosity of her many friends that have stepped forward to offer her telecommunications services among other things in her time of need
 
Ok, didn't see your edit when I posted; this is why I included this section:

Section 132.330 - Submission of indictment by district attorney

The district attorney may submit an indictment to the grand jury in any case when the district attorney has good reason to believe that a crime has been committed which is triable within the county.

To me, that means the DA submits the indictment and then the grand jury hears testimony and views evidence, then votes on whether to indorse it. Which in my feeble mind reads as though the indictment is part of the process from the very start, and therefore the above restrictions would apply to witnesses as well ("no other person").

That was the basis for my question and obvious confusion.

Did that make sense?


I understand your question completely, and I have an answer, but OMG!!!!, I just realized that I was posting in the verified lawyers thread. Yikes. If you ask me in the regular thread, I'll give you my humble opinion.

Sorry mods! :blushing:
 
No, testimony given would not be a fact concerning the indictment.



No way. That's the whole point of the 5th Amendment--you can't be punished criminally for refusing to talk.

Thank you SO MUCH for being on here and taking the time to answer these questions. Seriously it helps a lot to have just good honest information.
 
If a subpoenaed person was unable to attend the grand jury in person, would it possible for them to testify via video teleconference?

Thanks!
 
In response to AbbyNorma, who asked on a now-closed thread: "One more question then I have to get out of here for awhile (RL calls) WHAT IF Terri had Kyron stashed, lets even say she had him stashed with a sexual pervert/ offender, and Terri was honest w/ her atty about this...would the atty STILL not be obligated to tell LE that Kyron was at such and such location with a sex offender, possibly being sexually abused day after day????"

Lawyers owe a strict ethical duty of confidentiality to their clients but there is an exception that allows the lawyer to disclose confidential communications to the extent necessary to prevent a death or serious bodily harm.
 
If a subpoenaed person was unable to attend the grand jury in person, would it possible for them to testify via video teleconference?

Thanks!


When I was on an OR GJ, we swore in and heard from several LE via a telecam from other locations. So, I would assume it could be done for other witnesses besides LE. Also, FYI we also received letters from DNA and Drug Testing Professionals to be viewed as testimony.
 
A competent defense attorney would never say that since the statement could be viewed as evidence of intent to hinder the prosecution by an act of concealment. A competent defense attorney would say that the client does not feel comfortable using the cell phone account held jointly with her estranged husband in the midst of an acrimonius divorce and, having no independent means, is merely relying on the generosity of her many friends that have stepped forward to offer her telecommunications services among other things in her time of need

Thank you - I was just repeating the sentiment I had seen in several posts that day. It seemed extremely unlikely to me that any competent attorney would do that.

However, I don't think the excuse about the friends and phones would completely hold water with a judge, especially multiple phones before the divorce was filed. JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
2,174
Total visitors
2,372

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,255
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top