Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #6

[~n/t~]

The local Sheriffs department are the responsible investigators, not the TBI. The TBI is just providing assistance and technical expertise. Effectively they are outside the orbit of normal discovery obligations as a result.

Hi Tugela, so what is the process when it comes to evidence. Who ultimately has the obligation to turn it over to the prosecution? I thought the local Sheriffs handed the case over to TBI and TBI are responsible. A big ut oh if the local Sheriffs department have the evidence!! :hills:

 

[SteveS]

Tugela, you apparently are not aware (or not recognizing) that this is not really a local trial, even though there are local players involved in the parts of the process. Legally it is a State of Tennessee matter.

* The crime is one against the law of the State of Tennessee,
* the charges are issued from the State of Tennessee,
* the prosecutor is for a district of the State of Tennessee,
* the trial is held in a court of the State of Tennessee, and
* any verdict and punishment will be administered by the State of Tennessee.

Responsibility for obtaining and supplying discovery rests with the prosecutors, not the investigators. If the investigators don't cooperate then presumably the prosecutors could get a court order to force them to, but supplying discovery is not an obligation for the investigators.

That is simply not accurate, in the ultimate sense of things. The responsibility to supply discovery ultimately rests on the State of Tennessee, not being limited to any one person or office working for the state apparatus.

The prosecutors have an obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure that all discoverable materials are available.

This obligation is on Tennessee as a whole, and the fact that the prosecutors would be the ones tasked with gathering the evidence and providing it to the defense does not mean that the prosecutors, in a legal sense, are the only ones with that constitutional responsibility.

Essentially any information made available to them can't be concealed, but if the investigators don't inform them of the existence of relevant information then they will not be in a position to turn it over as discovery.

You're making a distinction here as if this creates an exception in the law. It does not.

Here's the key point. If the individual prosecutory team in a criminal trial does not have all the exculpatory evidence gathered by the state, and therefore does not share all the exculpatory evidence with the defense, then the burden of providing discovery has NOT been met by the state, and the trial process has been done in a way that violates the rights of the defendant(s).

Also, the jurisdictional investigative agency is the local sheriffs department, not the TBI.

Not really true. But again, who did the investigating and gathered the evidence for the "state" really doesn't matter, when it comes to the trial. Constitutionally, the ones doing the prosecution MUST turn over all exculpatory evidence that has been obtained by the state, and that legal obligation ends only when all of that has been provided. It does NOT end or vanish if the prosecution team fails to fully obtain it from all investigatory agency(s), and penalties would be applicable.

 

[~n/t~]

Thanks for clearing that up Steve

 

[SteveS]

It also needs to be pointed out that the original claim in this discussion - a claim that a news article outlined that TBI is routinely withholding information from trials, at their discretion - was completely wrong.

That article said no such thing. It was about what information TBI provides to the public at large.

There is no claim anywhere that the TBI is legally withholding evidence from trials, nor that are doing so routinely or at their discretion. (That would be SUPER-HUGE news.) And Stowe's unsubstantiated claims (which I personally suspect were simply grandstanding to try to get himself recused from a case he had botched) were attention-grabbing for the very reason that they would indicate something illegal and improper is being done by TBI in the Bobo case.

 

[~Lyric~]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

I've been MIA for a bit, keeping my grandbaby but here is the latest coming down the news wire.

Chris Conte @chrisconte · 18m 18 minutes ago
#BREAKING Lawyer for accused #HollyBobo rape suspect Dylan Adams demand he be released from jail

Chris Conte @chrisconte · 15m 15 minutes ago
More: Lawyer for Dylan Adams says he's received no evidence relating to rape charges, asks DA's be held in contempt of court #HollyBobo @NC5

The lawyer for the man accused of raping Holly Bobo before her murder in 2011 is demanding his client, Dylan Adam, be released from jail due to the lack of progress that's been made in the case.

Matt Maddox filed four motions in Decatur County Court Wednesday relating to the rape charges filed against Dylan Adams in September of 2014.

"As a criminal defense lawyer, I’m almost appalled with everything that’s happened in this case and the lack of the rule of law being carried out," Maddox said in an interview with NewsChannel 5 on Wednesday.

Motions filed Wednesday ask the court to hold District Attorney Matt Stowe, Memphis District Attorney Amy Weirich and Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Nichols in contempt of court for their "willful failure to abide by the Court's direct orders" to provide specific discovery as it relates to Dylan Adam's case.

Another motion asks the court to determine the qualifications of Amy Weirich and Jennifer Nichols. Maddox believes there is a conflict of interest with their appointment to the case.

The motions will likely be heard at a court date tentatively set for April 15.

http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/Holly-Bobo-Rape-Suspect-Demands-He-Be-Released-297575411.html

He also wants Dylan released on his own recognizance... basically because he hasn't been given any evidence, and this is all interfering with his client's right to a fair and speedy trial.

 

[~Lyric~]

I am the one that brought the articles over about the TBI... Even the files they may use in court, the public yes, probably will never see them.
The TBI did an investigation into the Judge in Knoxville who then got into trouble, it was a huge issue in the Christain/Newsome case. The Appeals court said the TBI did not have to show their records to anyone... which got me into looking a little deeper.

Then I found this article, that question the Secrecy of the TBI
http://wreg.com/2013/11/21/secrecy-of-tbi-files-keeps-public-in-dark-on-high-profile-cases/

It speaks of several cases, whether a trial or not.....No one, when it comes to the public can have access to the TBI files. So, if, a DA asks the TBI to investigate, it is their files until trial, sure the Prosecution will have access eventually to go to trial or not.......

I only posted this stuff, to say hey, just what is the TBI doing....what are DA's doing....


LOL I think I will just stick to posting news stuff, cuz I sure am not well verse in the law!! LOL

 

[SteveS]

I am the one that brought the articles over about the TBI... Even the files they may use in court, the public yes, probably will never see them.

The TBI did an investigation into the Judge in Knoxville who then got into trouble, it was a huge issue in the Christain/Newsome case. The Appeals court said the TBI did not have to show their records to anyone... which got me into looking a little deeper.

Then I found this article, that question the Secrecy of the TBI
http://wreg.com/2013/11/21/secrecy-of-tbi-files-keeps-public-in-dark-on-high-profile-cases/

It speaks of several cases, whether a trial or not.....No one, when it comes to the public can have access to the TBI files. So, if, a DA asks the TBI to investigate, it is their files until trial, sure the Prosecution will have access eventually to go to trial or not.......

I only posted this stuff, to say hey, just what is the TBI doing....what are DA's doing....

LOL I think I will just stick to posting news stuff, cuz I sure am not well verse in the law!! LOL

Thanks.

Yes, as you note, the article was about public access to TBI files pertaining to investigations, and did not say that prosecutors, defense, or trials are somehow left at the mercy of TBI as to what is provided for use in a trial.

As a PS, it should be noted that there is a push for a change to the law, so that not only trials will be served, but also the public. The proposed new law will afford much greater access to TBI files after the use for them in criminal proceedings is finished. The TBI is reportedly only as secretive as they are because the old law has required it. Or so they say.

http://wreg.com/2014/11/07/memphis-legislator-ready-to-unveil-secrecy-of-tbi-dcs/

 

[~Lyric~]

Thanks.

Yes, as you note, the article was about public access to TBI files pertaining to investigations, and did not say that prosecutors, defense, or trials are somehow left at the mercy of TBI as to what is provided for use in a trial.

As a PS, it should be noted that there is a push for a change to the law, so that not only trials will be served, but also the public. The proposed new law will afford much greater access to TBI files after the use for them in criminal proceedings is finished. The TBI is reportedly only as secretive as they are because the old law has required it. Or so they say.

http://wreg.com/2014/11/07/memphis-legislator-ready-to-unveil-secrecy-of-tbi-dcs/

Exactly, so they say. I can understand keeping certain things closed to the public, such as a minor, or some one whose life would be in the ultimate danger, Undercover Agents, etc etc.

It just blows my mind on how this case has been handled.

I know someone, who, a few years ago, had their own legal trouble. I won't give specifics, but they were so waiting on discovery being handed over to their lawyer, so they could find out who snitched on them. When he finally heard the tape, then everyone know's who it was.

It's such a slippery slope when it comes to people's lives. The person who did talk to LE to this day, I have read cuz of his own arrest, was very well covered with his own weapons to keep himself safe. It was all in the local paper here.

Just what is the hold up with this case?

 

[Bali]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

I've been MIA for a bit, keeping my grandbaby but here is the latest coming down the news wire.

Chris Conte @chrisconte · 18m 18 minutes ago
#BREAKING Lawyer for accused #HollyBobo rape suspect Dylan Adams demand he be released from jail

Chris Conte @chrisconte · 15m 15 minutes ago
More: Lawyer for Dylan Adams says he's received no evidence relating to rape charges, asks DA's be held in contempt of court #HollyBobo @NC5



http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/Holly-Bobo-Rape-Suspect-Demands-He-Be-Released-297575411.html

He also wants Dylan released on his own recognizance... basically because he hasn't been given any evidence, and this is all interfering with his client's right to a fair and speedy trial.

So is this the same as a motion to dismiss? Or are they just asking for them to release him without bond? As in, he'd still be facing charges, he'd just be waiting for trial at home instead of in jail?

 

[murphy3k]

So is this the same as a motion to dismiss? Or are they just asking for them to release him without bond? As in, he'd still be facing charges, he'd just be waiting for trial at home instead of in jail?

As stated in the article, four separate motions were filed. One motion was to hold the three named prosecutors in contempt of court for failing to abide by court orders (similar to what has been filed on behalf of Autry). A second motion requests the court qualify Amy Weirich and Jennifer Nichols as prosecutors due to a possible conflict of interest. The article does not explicitly state what the other two motions are. However, based on the statements in the article, I would guess one of them is a Motion to Dismiss. Also, since they are requesting that DA be released on an OR bond (released on their own recognizance), I would guess one of the motions is for bond reconsideration or something similar.

Just MOO.

 

[SteveS]

So is this the same as a motion to dismiss? Or are they just asking for them to release him without bond? As in, he'd still be facing charges, he'd just be waiting for trial at home instead of in jail?

The report is certainly that there's motions of some sort that were filed. The specifics as to what kind of motion, and the remedies proposed, would be in the motion itself. Hopefully, someone on the scene (reporter) provides details, or a scan of the motion itself, then we'll know the specifics.

 

[Foxfire]

Just curious.. If, and when this trial/s take place. How many WS members plan to attend, either all or part of the trial/s?

 

[~Lyric~]

Just curious.. If, and when this trial/s take place. How many WS members plan to attend, either all or part of the trial/s?

I wish I could attend, I guess it's about 3 hours from me. Little much in driving time, and then trying to find a place to stay.
I'm trying to figure out when they are actually going to have the trial for the man that killed Courtney Cash, that will be held here where I live.

 

[Chainsaw385]

http://www.wsmv.com/story/28616147/defense-attorneys-in-bobo-case-file-several-new-motions (source for below quote)

"He said Stowe is still the prosecutor and the court needs to order the change."...........If this is the case it completely explains why no discovery has been turned over lately.

The defense is not going to get anything else in the way of discovery until the judge rules on who is actually the prosecutors.I forget which defendant filed a while ago to exclude the special prosecutor and that hasn't been ruled on yet either.

Is it just me or are they asking to hold people in contempt that they also say aren't legally involved in the case?

But this article seems to imply they want the prosecutors confirmed while another posted here seems to imply exclusion.Since I am not from Tenn. I don't know which news source would be more accurate....guess just have to wait and see the motion itself.

 

[Tugela]

Tugela, you apparently are not aware (or not recognizing) that this is not really a local trial, even though there are local players involved in the parts of the process. Legally it is a State of Tennessee matter.

* The crime is one against the law of the State of Tennessee,
* the charges are issued from the State of Tennessee,
* the prosecutor is for a district of the State of Tennessee,
* the trial is held in a court of the State of Tennessee, and
* any verdict and punishment will be administered by the State of Tennessee.



That is simply not accurate, in the ultimate sense of things. The responsibility to supply discovery ultimately rests on the State of Tennessee, not being limited to any one person or office working for the state apparatus.



This obligation is on Tennessee as a whole, and the fact that the prosecutors would be the ones tasked with gathering the evidence and providing it to the defense does not mean that the prosecutors, in a legal sense, are the only ones with that constitutional responsibility.



You're making a distinction here as if this creates an exception in the law. It does not.

Here's the key point. If the individual prosecutory team in a criminal trial does not have all the exculpatory evidence gathered by the state, and therefore does not share all the exculpatory evidence with the defense, then the burden of providing discovery has NOT been met by the state, and the trial process has been done in a way that violates the rights of the defendant(s).



Not really true. But again, who did the investigating and gathered the evidence for the "state" really doesn't matter, when it comes to the trial. Constitutionally, the ones doing the prosecution MUST turn over all exculpatory evidence that has been obtained by the state, and that legal obligation ends only when all of that has been provided. It does NOT end or vanish if the prosecution team fails to fully obtain it from all investigatory agency(s), and penalties would be applicable.

You are still missing the point - the obligation is for the PROSECUTOR to locate and turn over discovery. The investigators do not have that responsibility since they are a neutral (in theory) body when it comes to the actual prosecution of a case.

If the investigators don't co-operate, or they are in a supporting role only, what they do outside the orbit of the official investigation can and will fly under the radar. The local sheriffs department, as the primary agency, will have an investigation file that will contain all of the information they have uncovered, and the information that secondary agencies have provided to them. That is what the prosecutor is given when asked to decide if charges should be pressed or not. The secondary agencies don't turn over their files when charges are made, the prosecutor has to seek them out and specifically request the information they might have. If the secondary agency has information that is not turned over to the primary investigator (and they have no obligation to, as they are providing assistance as a service only, not as a duty), then it will not be in the file. The fact that one or both agencies is or is not some arm of the state government is irrelevant, the "state" as described in court means the prosecutor as an agent who enforces state laws, not the apparatus of the state itself. If the local parks service has relevant information for example, they are not obliged to turn it over, it has to be requested, and for that to happen the prosecutor has to be aware that they have it first.

If you are still questioning this, might I point out that the fight was supposedly exactly about what I have just described, namely that Stowe believed that the TBI had information that they were withholding, even to him. Or should we blatantly ignore what has been happening recently and just say that you are right? The problem for Stowe is that the TBI are outside his jurisdiction even though they are assisting him, and he can't instruct them to do anything. If he wants to get their cooperation he either has to persuade them or get a court order. They do not answer to him, they answer to the state AG.

 

[Chainsaw385]

"the fight was supposedly exactly about what I have just described"............no offense but statements like this do not help your argument at all.

The prosecutor almost exclusively relies on law enforcement to gather their evidence.How in the world is he supposed to specifically ask for information that he does not know exists?.....seriously think about that for a second.

There are a lot of cases that have been re-tried or conviction overturned by evidence of innocence being suppressed by the prosecutor or INVESTIGATORS.

http://resources.lawinfo.com/criminal-law/police-misconduct-leading-to-wrongful-convict.html

Just a quick search turned up this not the actual law ^^^..........but I am not going to spend much more time then that trying to explain further that police,sheriffs or whoever can not pick and choose what evidence they turn over.They must turn it all over.That is the law.......if they don't and get caught they will face charges.

Of course the defense wouldn't care about the hiding of guilty evidence by investigators but the DA sure would.......please point out a case such as this because I do not know of any.

Pointing out the law that you keep referring to that investigators have the right to hold onto certain evidence would help your argument also........but I don't think you are going to be able to do that.

 

[steelman]

Memphis legislator ready to unveil secrecy of TBI, DCS

The law lets the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation keep secret any evidence or witness information in a criminal case forever, and despite several pushes, the law was never changed. But this year may be different.

We may never know what TBI agents found when they investigated a number of controversial cases in Memphis because the agency’s investigative files are secret, protected by law until there’s a change.

DeBerry says he’s putting the wheels in motion for change in state government. He hopes it will lead to more transparency in the TBI and the Department of Children’s Services, the agency that investigated the deaths of hundreds of children. Some of those children died while in state custody.

“I think that has to change. I think people need to have the total opposite idea that when the TBI comes in, OK, now we’re going to get the straight of it. Now, we’re going to know what really happened,” DeBerry said.

http://wreg.com/2014/11/07/memphis-legislator-ready-to-unveil-secrecy-of-tbi-dcs/


Great article, I'm glad I found it in here. This explains a whole lot of the questions I've had about the TBI.

Basically, the public doesn't have the right to know zilch, nada. Everything they do is cloaked in secrecy.

This HAS to change, this isn't the way the government or LE is supposed to work in this country.

 

[Bali]

Just curious.. If, and when this trial/s take place. How many WS members plan to attend, either all or part of the trial/s?

I soooo wish I could. I'd be there every day if I could. Between the distance and family obligations, it would not be possible.

 

[Mightymight]

You are still missing the point - the obligation is for the PROSECUTOR to locate and turn over discovery. The investigators do not have that responsibility since they are a neutral (in theory) body when it comes to the actual prosecution of a case.

If the investigators don't co-operate, or they are in a supporting role only, what they do outside the orbit of the official investigation can and will fly under the radar. The local sheriffs department, as the primary agency, will have an investigation file that will contain all of the information they have uncovered, and the information that secondary agencies have provided to them. That is what the prosecutor is given when asked to decide if charges should be pressed or not. The secondary agencies don't turn over their files when charges are made, the prosecutor has to seek them out and specifically request the information they might have. If the secondary agency has information that is not turned over to the primary investigator (and they have no obligation to, as they are providing assistance as a service only, not as a duty), then it will not be in the file. The fact that one or both agencies is or is not some arm of the state government is irrelevant, the "state" as described in court means the prosecutor as an agent who enforces state laws, not the apparatus of the state itself. If the local parks service has relevant information for example, they are not obliged to turn it over, it has to be requested, and for that to happen the prosecutor has to be aware that they have it first.

If you are still questioning this, might I point out that the fight was supposedly exactly about what I have just described, namely that Stowe believed that the TBI had information that they were withholding, even to him. Or should we blatantly ignore what has been happening recently and just say that you are right? The problem for Stowe is that the TBI are outside his jurisdiction even though they are assisting him, and he can't instruct them to do anything. If he wants to get their cooperation he either has to persuade them or get a court order. They do not answer to him, they answer to the state AG.

Tugela- You have a huge misunderstanding of TN law and the relationship between the prosecutor, local law enforcement, and the TBI.

 

[Tugela]

I don't think I have a misunderstanding of the law at all. What you guys don't seem to grasp is that the TBI in the context of cases like this provides assistance to local authorities, they are not primary parties. The FBI does the same thing, while it is the primary investigative office in federal matters, at the state level it provides assistance and services where appropriate if the locals don't have them. They are at arms length and technically neutral in the case, that is why they could threaten to withdraw their services (and actually do it). They don't have the obligations that the county sheriff and county DA have, and it allows them to engage in tactics that the other two offices cannot as a result of that, including refusing to cooperate if they see fit. To overcome the latter you would need a court order, just as you would for any other agency or organization that was providing a service to the sheriff or prosecutor if the relationship broke down. SteveS has got hung up on the fact that they all are paid by TN and thinks somehow that they are all therefore part of the same organization. That is simply not true, the offices are independent of each other. He has confused the "state" with the "State". They are not the same thing.

The way it works is that the primary investigator gathers a file containing information and evidence regarding a crime, and at some point turns that file over to the local prosecutor who then decides to prosecute or not. If the prosecution happens then the primary investigator continues to gather information and add it to the file. When a secondary investigator or organization is involved who provides assistance to the primary investigator, they may maintain their own files on the case, all or some of which gets provided to the primary investigator at their discretion. They can do that without violating any constitutional obligations because they are at arms length to the investigation (in theory) and are under no obligation to do anything. In practice they might be doing a whole bunch of other stuff as well which they might or might not choose to share with the primaries. What can't happen is that once information is provided to the primary agency, it cannot be withheld from discovery. But that is an obligation for the primary agencies, not the secondary agencies.

This is the problem in this case - the investigation is being largely driven by the secondary agency, not the primary agency, so the normal flow of information you might expect is not necessarily happening. That appears to be what Stowe is frustrated about, because he was being cut out of the loop on some aspects as well. That setup might be desirable for some amoral prosecutors, because information that might be inconvenient for their cases does not end up with the primary investigators and consequently they don't "know" about it (and therefore can't turn it over for discovery). My guess is that Stowe knew that there was a bunch of other stuff out there based on personal conversations he had with TBI agents, but it was not in the sheriff's investigation files, and that is what caused the fight when he demanded to see the stuff that wasn't there. Essentially what appears to be happening is that the TBI are being cowboys and running their own thing outside of the proper jurisdictional responsibilities and using that to manipulate the direction investigations take.