AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
Legal and Law Questions - * No Discussion *
- Thread starter NewMommy09
- Start date
New Posts
-
AMBER ALERT TX - Legend Torres, 2, abducted by Joey Torres - April 27, 2024
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
-
Az..thank you so much in the time and effort you put in this case...Merry Christmas...
Quote:
Originally Posted by noopy
AZ, Logan's lawyer suggested EJ could walk in 1 YEAR with what they have.... please say it isn't true?
The only reason she's facing any serious prison time is because of the text she sent saying she killed Gabriel--that's what triggered the kidnapping charge. A year would not be out of the question as a sentence for giving away or even selling your baby to keep him away from the custodial parent. Which is insane, of course.
AZ...I don't want to see EJ's case dismissed. But I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about it right now. I bought back this quote from May to ask, if the case were not dismissed...based on what we know so far...would a year be out of the question? And if so, does time served apply to that and she would be let go anyway ? Am I making sense ??? THX..AZ
Originally Posted by noopy
AZ, Logan's lawyer suggested EJ could walk in 1 YEAR with what they have.... please say it isn't true?
The only reason she's facing any serious prison time is because of the text she sent saying she killed Gabriel--that's what triggered the kidnapping charge. A year would not be out of the question as a sentence for giving away or even selling your baby to keep him away from the custodial parent. Which is insane, of course.
AZ...I don't want to see EJ's case dismissed. But I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about it right now. I bought back this quote from May to ask, if the case were not dismissed...based on what we know so far...would a year be out of the question? And if so, does time served apply to that and she would be let go anyway ? Am I making sense ??? THX..AZ
The_Flashlight
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 1
How about this on top of that, she gets time served...
What's the possibility of that in addition to kappy's question AZ?
What's the possibility of that in addition to kappy's question AZ?
And to take Kappy and The Flashlight's questions a step further...
since EJ's already been in jail for over a year, can a person be held in jail awaiting trial for a longer period of time than they could be sentenced to if found guilty of the charges?
Could EJ's strategy (if the charges aren't dropped) be to just stay in jail, trying to delay the start of trial to, in effect, serve her sentence without ever having to actually go to trial?
since EJ's already been in jail for over a year, can a person be held in jail awaiting trial for a longer period of time than they could be sentenced to if found guilty of the charges?
Could EJ's strategy (if the charges aren't dropped) be to just stay in jail, trying to delay the start of trial to, in effect, serve her sentence without ever having to actually go to trial?
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
If that quote was from Logan's attorney, I think what he was saying is that a year would not have been out of the question IF she had not sent that text (and then reiterated her statements in the phone call with Logan).
Here was my analysis back in March 2010:
She could get 24 years just for what she's already admitted to: taking Gabriel for the purpose of keeping him away from his dad at a time when the custody order did not permit her to do so, partly for the purpose of placing the father in fear for Gabriel's life or safety, aggravated by her threatening actual infliction of injury to Gabriel.
If she had not stupidly threatened to harm or claimed to have actually killed Gabriel, the presumptive sentence would have been 4 to 5.33 years even if she sold Gabriel or gave him up in an adoption involving forged documents!
Well, she would have to get credit for time served, yes.
As I mentioned above, she could get 24 years just for what she's actually confessed to, even assuming the murder confessions were false.
Anyway, I don't think Logan's attorney meant that a year was the MAXIMUM she could have been sentenced to, even in the hypothetical situation he was discussing in which she didn't send the text. But she did send the text so there's no point in worrying about how light the sentence might have been if she hadn't sent the text.:waitasec:
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
Because there's no reason to have the defendant present for most court proceedings. Nothing but a distraction and a security hassle. Most court proceedings are unintelligible to the defendant anyway and concern crashingly boring issues.
(1) I must have missed something--what do you mean something "happened" to it?
(2) Whether or not he has to give up the tape is a totally separate question unaffected by whether or not he wants to tell his side of the story. But the tape is a complicated issue--there might be some conflicts between jurisdictions if the AZ judge wants the tape to determine whether the AZ charges have to be dismissed but TX wants the tape kept confidential to investigate a homicide. They ought to be able to work something out where the tape is released to the AZ court but kept sealed.
kissdegirl
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,135
- Reaction score
- 10
In the case history, next to all both parties' charges, it says "Dismissed Due To Grand Jury Indictment." Clarification, please?! Thanks so much.
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
In the case history, next to all both parties' charges, it says "Dismissed Due To Grand Jury Indictment." Clarification, please?! Thanks so much.
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/
It means that the charges were originally brought without a grand jury indictment, but then were submitted to a grand jury. As a technical matter, the court has to dismiss the "old" charges and substitute the "new" grand jury charges, which are exactly the same.