OK OK - Molly Miller, 17, & Colt Haynes, 21, Wilson, 7 Jul 2013 - #2

[Dallen]

Just saw a rumor on OFMM that Sabrina has been visiting Con in jail and thought, nawww...

And then Molly's cousin PMF posted this:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203390211748919&set=p.10203390211748919&type=1&theater

Oh dear Lord! This case just keeps getting crazier! Why in the world would you keep ties with this kid unless you were in on it too?

 

[McSpy]

Oh dear Lord! This case just keeps getting crazier! Why in the world would you keep ties with this kid unless you were in on it too?

Oh great, a prison wedding. They'll be checking for contraband in her wedding gown. I think I know why he wants to get married.

 

[McSpy]

http://www.ardmoreite.com/article/20140709/NEWS/140709681/-1/community?rssfeed=true

Several days!? They are being thorough. Hope they are successful!

 

[OkieGranny]

Oh great, a prison wedding. They'll be checking for contraband in her wedding gown. I think I know why he wants to get married.

Yep, yep, maybe they'll have a double jailhouse wedding with CB ad JN.

 

[Eileen730]

Well does that mean they cant testify against each other? If they Marry?

 

[tobeintheshade]

Eileen, it does here in Texas. I assume its the same for OK. Edited to add that they CAN, but can't be made to. That poor little messed up gal....

 

[WhittyG]

Eileen, it does here in Texas. I assume its the same for OK. Edited to add that they CAN, but can't be made to. That poor little messed up gal....

Heavens to Betsy. That is literally the last news I expected when opening this thread today.

 

[SuziQ]

In many states there is an exception to spousal testimony when the victim is a minor. Molly was 17.

 

[tobeintheshade]

Oh wow, wouldn't that be wonderful!

I know this gal has made bad decisions and hurt folks, but i still kinda see her as just another life getting farther and farther off track...so sad.

Ima be quiet again for a while, this place is a bad influence on my data usage. I want to thank everyone again for the work and input, especially Okie for simplifying it all so well!

 

[OkieGranny]

According to the Oklahoma Statutes:

http://www.lexvisio.com/article/1713/1400/0-1000/1/dA/Oklahoma+Evidence+Code

§12 2504. Husband-wife privilege.

A. A communication is confidential for purposes of this section if it is made privately by any person to the person’s spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.

B. An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent the spouse of the accused from testifying as to any confidential communication between the accused and the spouse.

C. The privilege may be claimed by the accused or by the spouse on behalf of the accused. The authority of the spouse to do so is presumed.

D. There is no privilege under this section in a proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of:

1. The other;
2. A child of either;
3. A person residing in the household of either; or
4. A third person when the crime is committed in the course of committing a crime against any other person named in this section.

Well, that's just clear as mud. I need a few re-readings to untangle the legalese. :waitasec:

 

[okmom23]

JMO and all but I don't think you can claim spousal privilege retroactively-I believe it starts with the actual act of marriage or in a common law marriage situation in Oklahoma and since he lived with his Grandparents during the commission of his charged crimes I wouldn't "think" she has a leg to stand on so to speak. I think unless she is truly in love she is really grasping for straws if their plan is to try claiming spousal privilege.

 

[McSpy]

According to the Oklahoma Statutes:

http://www.lexvisio.com/article/1713/1400/0-1000/1/dA/Oklahoma+Evidence+Code



Well, that's just clear as mud. I need a few re-readings to untangle the legalese. :waitasec:

I know what you mean. It is so hard to understand, but I think she wouldn't be pressured to testify against him if she was his spouse. In other words, she could refuse to testify and there is nothing LE or the courts could do about it. This is what I get out of it. Maybe there is a loop hole . . She wasn't married to him when this crime occurred. Her lawyer and his lawyer would fight it though.

 

[Hatfield]

my goodness. This is unbelievable. I think people are right for the reason why.
It seems like something could be done to legally object or delay till after any trials are over since an ongoing investigation is occurring and certain people may be called to testify.

 

[OkieGranny]

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/...ch-operations-to-another-level-267089101.html

Klein says, later this week, they plan to fly drones above the Nipp family property to view areas his team hasn't been able to view on foot.

"To get a good look at the topography, to get a good look at some of the lakes, or actually ponds that are on the property, and we'll actually be getting a look at some of the ground surfaces near some of the lakes that are points of interest for us to look at," said Klein.

Klein also says they are asking for the public's help in locating D.J. Epley for questioning. They believe he was one of the last people to speak with Molly.

 

[McSpy]

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/...ch-operations-to-another-level-267089101.html

Hmmm, they are having a hard time finding DJ? Hiding or running?

 

[jns207]

I know what you mean. It is so hard to understand, but I think she wouldn't be pressured to testify against him if she was his spouse. In other words, she could refuse to testify and there is nothing LE or the courts could do about it. This is what I get out of it. Maybe there is a loop hole . . She wasn't married to him when this crime occurred. Her lawyer and his lawyer would fight it though.

Actually, the spousal privilege under OK law is much narrower than what you describe. There are actually two different types of spousal privileges in American law. One is the "spousal communications" privilege and the other is the "spousal testimonial" privilege. In general terms, the testimonial privilege applies more broadly and allows a spouse to refuse to testify about both observations (such as witnessing their spouse commit a crime) and communications (such as discussing a crime that the spouse committed). However, the communications privilege - which I am fairly certain is the only privilege available under OK law - is not nearly as broad. Basically, the privilege only protects a spouse from testifying about confidential communications that occurred between two spouses during the course of their marriage - they still must testify about anything/everything else. While the communications privilege generally survives the dissolution of a marriage, I cannot recall coming across a state that protected communications that occurred prior to the marriage. (This is another difference between the two types of privileges, as the testimonial privilege will often protect spouses who are married at the time of trial, but who were not yet married at the time the observations or communications in question occurred.)

I hope that I explained that somewhat clearly. Please feel free to ask a follow up if any of that was confusing.

-----------------

Also, while I am at it, I thought I would dice up the rule into a more understandable order -

The general rule is provided in part (B):

B. An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent the spouse of the accused from testifying as to any confidential communication between the accused and the spouse.

The definition for confidential communication is provided in part (A):

A. A communication is confidential for purposes of this section if it is made privately by any person to the person’s spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.

Part (C) just explains that either the accused spouse can prevent the witness spouse from testifying about confidential communications, or the witness spouse can themselves refuse:

C. The privilege may be claimed by the accused or by the spouse on behalf of the accused. The authority of the spouse to do so is presumed.

And finally, part (D) just provides an exception to the privilege otherwise applying (which largely deals with domestic violence type situations):

D. There is no privilege under this section in a proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of:
1. The other;
2. A child of either;
3. A person residing in the household of either; or
4. A third person when the crime is committed in the course of committing a crime against any other person named in this section.

http://www.lexvisio.com/article/1713/1400/0-1000/1/dA/Oklahoma+Evidence+Code

 

[McSpy]

Actually, the spousal privilege under OK law is much narrower than what you describe. There are actually two different types of spousal privileges in American law. One is the "spousal communications" privilege and the other is the "spousal testimonial" privilege. In general terms, the testimonial privilege applies more broadly and allows a spouse to refuse to testify about both observations (such as witnessing their spouse commit a crime) and communications (such as discussing a crime that the spouse committed). However, the communications privilege - which I am fairly certain is the only privilege available under OK law - is not nearly as broad. Basically, the privilege only protects a spouse from testifying about confidential communications that occurred between two spouses during the course of their marriage - they still must testify about anything/everything else. While the communications privilege generally survives the dissolution of a marriage, I cannot recall coming across a state that protected communications that occurred prior to the marriage. (This is another difference between the two types of privileges, as the testimonial privilege will often protect spouses who are married at the time of trial, but who were not yet married at the time the observations or communications in question occurred.)

I hope that I explained that somewhat clearly. Please feel free to ask a follow up if any of that was confusing.

-----------------

Also, while I am at it, I thought I would dice up the rule into a more understandable order -

The general rule is provided in part (B):


The definition for confidential communication is provided in part (A):


Part (C) just explains that either the accused spouse can prevent the witness spouse from testifying about confidential communications, or the witness spouse can themselves refuse:


And finally, part (D) just provides an exception to the privilege otherwise applying (which largely deals with domestic violence type situations):


http://www.lexvisio.com/article/1713/1400/0-1000/1/dA/Oklahoma+Evidence+Code

Would this priviledge apply to communications before they were married?

 

[jns207]

Would this priviledge apply to communications before they were married?

Sorry, I tried to answer that in the original post, but I had a feeling I wasn't being very clear!

I can't give you a 100% answer on that because I don't have access to an OK caselaw database, but I would be extremely surprised if it did. The spousal communication privilege does not usually apply to any communications that occurred prior to marriage. So for purposes of this case, I struggle to see how CN and SF would actually benefit at all from the privilege.

 

[ZooSleuth]

Sorry, I tried to answer that in the original post, but I had a feeling I wasn't being very clear!

I can't give you a 100% answer on that because I don't have access to an OK caselaw database, but I would be extremely surprised if it did. The spousal communication privilege does not usually apply to any communications that occurred prior to marriage. So for purposes of this case, I struggle to see how CN and SF would actually benefit at all from the privilege.

I would hope that whatever the law is, it's designed to prevent people from marrying just to claim spousal communication privilege after a crime. CN and SF might be "slow" enough to believe they could actually do that though.

 

[Dallen]

Is DJE a friend or relative or...?