Casey Anthony Grand Jury Meeting Details Leaked

[BB12]

What bothers me is the incorrect statements that George is going to testifyagainst casey etc...

A Grand Jury accepts evidence; such as testimony.....

There is no such things as testifying for or against......one mearly testifies and answers all questions from the Grand Jury or a member of the Prosecution team.

All people presented to the Grand Jury are just merely answering questions under oath and subject to prosecution for admiting crimes or lying to the gj.

I find it repulsive that news organization would twist reality to report that George will testify against his daughter and the fact that the gj will even convene and when.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Before the media moved to being everywhere and we were given 24/7 coverage of the whereabouts of people in high profile cases...they could maintain a sense of "secrecy" about who was testifying. They can no longer do that. We knew about almost every person in DP's case who were testifying and when because of the media (this excludes Tom in that case because it truly has remained a secret if he did testify).

 

[Seranade]

I didn't think it was secret either. I just thought WHAT was discussed in a GJ session was off limits. I have read many times about a case being taken before a grand jury.

This is my understanding as well.

I did hear that jurors are allowed to talk about their testimony all they want, but aren't allowed to discuss issues that they learned about while testifying.

There is a reason this was leaked by an anonymous source to that female reporter in Orlando, and there is a reason they will neither confirm nor deny the leak.

State Attorney spokesman Randy Means would not comment Wednesday on whether the grand jury would be hearing the Anthony case.

Orlando Sentinel

The reason the fact that a case is going before the GJ is to protect the jurors from undue influence or intimidation.

~snipped~

SECRECY OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
Secrecy as to all grand jury proceedings is of the utmost importance. This includes not only the actions upon an indictment or a presentment but even the fact that any such matter was considered, or any witness was called. It is only in this manner that the grand jurors themselves can be protected from pressure by persons who may be involved by the action of the grand jury. Secrecy also is the only protection that a witness may have before a grand jury, which will protect the witness from being tampered with or intimidated before testifying at the trial. Further, secrecy may prevent one under indictment, or subject to indictment, from escaping while the issue of indictment is under consideration. It also should be remembered that secrecy may encourage witnesses to give the grand jury frankly and candidly any knowledge they may have concerning crime or corruption. Lastly, and of equal importance to all other consideration of secrecy, is the fact that an innocent person who has been subjected to a charge but not indicted should be protected from the embarrassment and disgrace attendant upon the making of a charge before a grand jury.
The pledge of secrecy is paramount. It also is permanent.
A grand juror will not communicate to family, friends, associates, or anyone concerning any matter that takes place in the grand jury room. The only time this veil of secrecy may be lifted is by order of the court after a full hearing, and then only in exceptional cases.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/j...ryhandbook.rtf

 

[NancyT]

Don't attack me, geez! I'm just saying the evidence presented is all one sided and it's hard to agree with the defense when you don't hear it. Detectives generally do not present cases that they do not believe they can get an indictment on. Overwhelming majority of cases are indicted if presented - it does not indicate guilt or innocence.

The "ham sandwich" reference that I made just states my opinion that grand juries will indict people based on the detective's say so - and then justice is served in court. That's my opinion of the way the judicial system works. (not specific to the this case)

Of course it's one sided. That's the point really.

In Florida though, only a grand jury can hand down an indictment for a capital case. So, the process is mandatory there.

 

[NancyT]

No, Jurors can't talk about anything, but in some cases the witnesses can talk, like the Drew P case, several witnesses talked about what they were asked.

:bang: LOL

I didn't mean jurors, I did mean witnesses. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Gaia713]

What bothers me is the incorrect statements that George is going to testifyagainst casey etc...

A Grand Jury accepts evidence; such as testimony.....

There is no such things as testifying for or against......one mearly testifies and answers all questions from the Grand Jury or a member of the Prosecution team.

All people presented to the Grand Jury are just merely answering questions under oath and subject to prosecution for admiting crimes or lying to the gj.

I find it repulsive that news organization would twist reality to report that George will testify against his daughter and the fact that the gj will even convene and when.

Witnesses can be charged with perjury in a Grand Jury hearing in Florida

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI...badd5b4fce22d788852569cb004cc254?OpenDocument

 

[LCoastMom]

During the hearing on Friday, I thought I heard Judge S start to say GJ, then he appeared to catch himself. I asked at that time if he had a slip of the tongue. He went on to talk about possible up coming murder charges more then once.

Well who ever let the cat out of the bag, this complaint smells like JB, all over it.

 

[whiteangora]

I think everybody's getting their panties in a knot over nothing.
A GJ meeting does NOT have to be kept secret, only the proceedings are secret. There have been many witnesses come from the GJ room and answer questions for reporters. That is not against the law, but it is also not favored by the state.
I have complete faith in the GJ system, you are being considered by a jury of your peers to see if they think you should be charged with said crime.
Your day in court will come.

 

[magiemay]

Shhhhhh!! We can't talk about it. It's a secret. :crazy:

Do you think???

 

[whiteangora]

:bang: LOL

I didn't mean jurors, I did mean witnesses. Thanks for correcting me.

No problem I still think everyone is getting too hyper over the fact that we know the GJ will meet.

 

[magiemay]

I think everybody's getting their panties in a knot over nothing.
A GJ meeting does NOT have to be kept secret, only the proceedings are secret. There have been many witnesses come from the GJ room and answer questions for reporters. That is not against the law, but it is also not favored by the state.
I have complete faith in the GJ system, you are being considered by a jury of your peers to see if they think you should be charged with said crime.
Your day in court will come.

I agree Angora sounds like more of A's or the Jose song and dance to me I wish someone would just have Cindy and Jose call 1-800-wawa !!!

 

[Short_Stuff]

A state can seat a grand jury for any case they want to, not just capital cases.

The Supreme Court states the importance of secrecy but does not mandate it. IIRC, Florida grand jury's are routinely seated, and not done in secret for the most part.

IMO, the article is making a mountain out of a molehill.

I totally agree! Dont see the big deal.

 

[Leila]

That fact that a grand jury will hear a case is not secret. Just google "grand jury will hear". They can't divulge the proceedings or name the members of the grand jury.

That is correct. In many cases you hear "the case will be going to the grand jury next week", or words similar. It's not disclosed who sits on the grand jury, what questions are asked, or what testimony is heard, or anything about the deliberations.

In the Drew Peterson case (Illiniois), it's public knowledge that the grand jury meets on Thursdays. Reporters commented on who went into the grand jury chambers, and often people were interviewed after they testified before the grand jury. In almost all cases, those being interviewed didn't go into any detail about their testimony. But, it gave the public a good idea, based on who was testifying, what was going on.

 

[truthsleuth]

I served on a state grand jury and obviously had to inform my boss and employees that I would be out of the office every Friday for a 8 to 10 week period due to jury duty.

The GJ heard 4-5 cases each Friday. The only thing we were instructed not to share was what happened in the GJ room, what evidence was presented to the GJ, what witnesses appeared.

As for the number of indictments passed down during what turned out to be a 10-week GJ period, every single case we heard brought about a true bill (indictment). Not one case was dismissed. This is pretty reasonable considering we only heard and saw evidence presented by the prosecution. And the prosecution always presented strong cases and rock-solid evidence. How could we not indict?

So expect an indictment in the KC case, but do not expect to hear about the evidence or witnesses (although those people could probably be deduced by the media upon seeing who arrives at the courthouse). If you hear about the evidence, you're hearing a "leak."

ts

 

[Samijeansg]

I hope some of you weren't thinking that I was trying to make a big deal out of the article? It just didn't make sense to me first when it mentioned neighbors, and secondly the source of this information I guess. I was just trying to understand why and who said this information about going to a GJ would be secret, wouldn't that be the rule for any case that may be like this? Maybe I'm not coming across right on what I am trying to say or ask...I apologize.

 

[magic-cat]

Hey, guess what? The Grand Jury is going to hear this case on Tuesday...anybody else heard that?

I don't see what all the hoopla is about. Grand Jury is a necessary step in this progression towards her day in court, so the defense should be relieved that their opportunity to vindicate "the Casey no one else knows"(BARF!) is soon to arrive...

 

[Brini]

Well only one neighbor was quoted and is misinformed at that. The fact a GJ is seated to hear a case is not mandated to being kept secret. Now the testimony is another matter....and that hasn't happened yet.

So.. we have a defense attorney who thinks a GJ is a trial, and a bunch of people who think it's secret?

 

[Brini]

I didn't think it was secret either. I just thought WHAT was discussed in a GJ session was off limits. I have read many times about a case being taken before a grand jury.

They sure aren't secret in California.

 

[magiemay]

I hope some of you weren't thinking that I was trying to make a big deal out of the article? It just didn't make sense to me first when it mentioned neighbors, and secondly the source of this information I guess. I was just trying to understand why and who said this information about going to a GJ would be secret, wouldn't that be the rule for any case that may be like this? Maybe I'm not coming across right on what I am trying to say or ask...I apologize.

I understand what you were saying and I totally agree could be the leak came from in the A camp if it was at all a leak as I said Jose was on national tv last night discussing it but we all know he talks out his _____ and then wants to cry about it as I said earlier give him and Cindy a new phone number to call 1-800-wawa

 

[Brini]

During the hearing on Friday, I thought I heard Judge S start to say GJ, then he appeared to catch himself. I asked at that time if he had a slip of the tongue. He went on to talk about possible up coming murder charges more then once.

Well who ever let the cat out of the bag, this complaint smells like JB, all over it.

But, JB, himself discussed it on at least two TV shows.