Terri's Constitutional Rights

[eyes4crime]

Saying the Kevin Fox case and Kyron's case are different and attacking me for the simplicity of it, is beyond what I can comprehend. I never compared the criminal cases.

What I did do was point out that Kevin's Constitutional rights were violated. Evidence was tampered with, LE and prosecution lied by omission, and LE/polygrapher along with prosecutor united to frame Kevin for the murder of his 3yo daughter. He was arrested and thrown behind bars. The prosecution stated he was going for the death penalty. Turns out, Kevin is innocent. KEVIN DID NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY. And because he didn't, Kevin's Constitutional rights were trampled on over and over. Please take note...that's my point!!!! Thank you.

Point II: I never said Terri's Constitutional rights were violated, If my comment came accross like that, I'm sorry. What I meant is that I was concerned how certain aspects of this case have been handled so far. How any of us can say with certainty that her rights have been or have not been violated is beyond me. We have no idea how Houze is interpreting the flow of this case. His interpretation is through the lens of a brilliant criminal defense attorney's mind of which very few of us are endowed with. moo

Point III: My need to comment about Constitutional rights was prodded by the lack of respect I was seeing for our Constitution.

I'm right there with Ms. Emma Peel in thinking it's one of the most brilliant documents ever written. I am convinced that without it we would be 'just' another country.

I have the right to point out the beauty of our Constitution as it pertains to criminal law, defense attorneys, and to the cases we follow here on WS. I have the right to defend against the trashing, dismissal, and trivialization of such an extraorordinary document. moo

I'm out of time right now and will comment later on what areas of the case I'm concerned with. moo mho

 

[tlcya]

Terri has not been incarcerated or held against her will, she has not been charged, she is not under house arrest, she can come and go from her parents home at will, she hasn't been tortured, LE has not seized her property or her funds without due process, have I missed something?

Granted she has been villianized but LE did not do that IMO. The press, the parents, and the public have done that.

I have no concern about her constitutional rights having been or going to be violated.

 

[mmmagique]

Eyes, I'm sorry you felt attacked. I don't think anyone here meant to make you feel that way.

I think sometimes we get so caught up in the emotions of these cases that we forget what we're all here for.

It's time little Kyron came home.

 

[Kimster]

No one was being attacked. Everyone was having a good healthy debate, IMO. It's been an interesting thread and no reason for hurt feelings.

Carry on.

 

[Billylee]

Not to be snarky, but the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.

No kidding? Please refer to the question I was answering about inalienable rights and whether they apply to children.

 

[tlcya]

Question: is it Houze's responsibility to use every bit of skill and legal knowledge he has to protect Terri's constitutional rights or to try to get an acquittal even if she killed this child in cold blood?

Will Houze get her a jury loaded with divorced women who think Kaine is the embodiment of their ex-husband...and see acquitting Terri as payback? Throw in a few men who think she's too pretty to be guilty? Did the Founding Fathers envision that kind of jury selection?

Will he work to get the emails showing her intense hatred and desire to hurt a 7 year old..thrown out...so the jury can never know the way this woman's mind works?

Will he try to demonize Kaine and/or Desiree on the stand in order to make his client look like she was THEIR victim?

Will he be looking for ways to undermine EVEN WHAT HE KNOWS to be the truth...so that his client may go home one day, sink into her favorite chair, smile and say...."I did it. I killed that freaking kid I hated. And Mr. Big Bucks got me the slick lawyers I needed...and WOW! Hurrah! and Joy to the world! I'm home free!! Cry your eyes out, Kaine and Desiree..I killed your brat and got away with it!"

Is that what the founding Fathers had in mind?

in answer to your BBM - Yes. I believe it was. We must remember what caused the founding fathers to form this United States in the first place. The complete lack of their right to an advocate or defense against the all powerful crown.

They may not have envisioned Miranda and warrants and discovery and all that procedural stuff that has since beed crafted but IMO, in theory, they imagined EVERY person having the right to being defended against governmental prosecution with extreme vigor, despite that advocate's belief of his client's innocence or guilt.

 

[Billylee]

I have bumped this article several times since it came out on August 21. There are people much smarter than myself, who question what is legally going on in this case, between LE and family, between civil and criminal. IMO there are things in this case that will make legal history, setting future precedence. I have grave concern, that IF TH is guilty, she will walk. I'm not alone in this thought process.


snipped:

Oregon's ethics rules for lawyers prohibit prosecutors from making statements about an investigation if they're likely to be disseminated widely and be prejudicial, meaning they would make it harder for the accused to get a fair trial, Lininger said. But Oregon's ethics rules don't clearly regulate the indirect disclosure of information to the public, via the victim's family, he said.


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/kyron_horman_divorce_case_cast.html

 

[tlcya]

snipped:

Oregon's ethics rules for lawyers prohibit prosecutors from making statements about an investigation if they're likely to be disseminated widely and be prejudicial, meaning they would make it harder for the accused to get a fair trial, Lininger said. But Oregon's ethics rules don't clearly regulate the indirect disclosure of information to the public, via the victim's family, he said.

IMO, the revalations that emails from Terri exist that reference Kyron has been released. That in and of itself is not prejudicial. The parents have disclosed they have been told of those emails and that the emails cause them grave concern. That in and of itself is not prejudicial. The emails themselves have not been released for public comsumption. THAT IMO would be prejudicial.

IANAL but that is my:twocents: for what its worth

 

[stmarysmead]

in answer to your BBM - Yes. I believe it was. We must remember what caused the founding fathers to form this United States in the first place. The complete lack of their right to an advocate or defense against the all powerful crown.

They may not have envisioned Miranda and warrants and discovery and all that procedural stuff that has since beed crafted but IMO, in theory, they imagined EVERY person having the right to being defended against governmental prosecution with extreme vigor, despite that advocate's belief of his client's innocence or guilt.

I support "extreme vigor"...as long as the FOUNDATION is rooted firmly in a quest for truth not "victory."

I think the Founders would be appalled at the machinations, obfuscations, and distortions of the truth we see with these high priced defenses. The celebrity lawyers jumping in to be part of a Dream Team to get the TV ecposure...and pump up their PR andwallets. It's obscene. You'd think they were auditioning for a role on Jersey Shore.

The hiring of jury selection experts to try and seat a group vulnerable to certain manipulations.... the dueling experts...keeping out pertinent evidence because it might inflame...that tilts the scale of justice too far IMO.

Terri has every right to present a strong defense OF WHAT IS TRUE...of how she can best explain and defend herself. But what we have seen in these last years is a legal burlesque show...bumping and grinding the victim's constitutional right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness into dust...into something perverted and obscene.

 

[tlcya]

snipped from stmarysmead above.

I support "extreme vigor"...as long as the FOUNDATION is rooted firmly in a quest for truth not "victory."

I respectfully disagree. As angry as I get at defense attorneys because my heart belongs to the victims and their families, I think the system only works if BOTH sides fight with all their might to represent their side of the case. Defense attorneys jobs could not be done properly if their aim was the noble quest for truth. That is the job of LE and the DA and they are charged with performing THAT task with extreme vigor.

As distasteful as attorneys can seem in the pursuit of defense for their clients, I recognize the necessity of that role.



As to the rest of your post, I agree with much of it. The cult of celebrity has changed the way defense attorneys work in some instances. But DA's can sometimes b e polically motivated. There will always be problems and imperfection in the justice system. That is a given. But I still think it works for the most part.

 

[stmarysmead]

snipped from stmarysmead above.

I support "extreme vigor"...as long as the FOUNDATION is rooted firmly in a quest for truth not "victory."

I respectfully disagree. As angry as I get at defense attorneys because my heart belongs to the victims and their families, I think the system only works if BOTH sides fight with all their might to represent their side of the case. Defense attorneys jobs could not be done properly if their aim was the noble quest for truth. That is the job of LE and the DA and they are charged with performing THAT task with extreme vigor.

As distasteful as attorneys can seem in the pursuit of defense for their clients, I recognize the necessity of that role.



As to the rest of your post, I agree with much of it. The cult of celebrity has changed the way defense attorneys work in some instances. But DA's can sometimes b e polically motivated. There will always be problems and imperfection in the justice system. That is a given. But I still think it works for the most part.

So, is it your view that a defense attorney should do everything he can to distort the truth... and fool the jury...from the fact that his client, say, brutally murdered a child...because it is in the best interest of our society and the Constitution?
Where is the justice in that? How can there be justice for victims if defense attorneys hold their clients "rights" to supercede truth?

 

[tlcya]

It is my view that a defense attorney should do everything legal within his or her power to provide the best possible defense for his her client whether he or she believes the client to be blameless or guilty as sin.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that concept is what our entire system of justice is based upon.

I have stated my opinion, you have stated your derision for it. How bout we agree to disagree?

 

[eyes4crime]

Still waiting for an answer to your question, as it's--I suppose--central to this thread.

First of all Puff, I didn't start this thread - looks like a mod who thought the subject was relevant did. Not sure which one. A major drug has been taken off the market by the FDA and I've been hugely busy with that, causing a delay in my response. Sorry you had to wait so long! moo

My 2 concerns were posted in the previous thread - they were CONCERNS and not allegations that the rights of Terri have been violated...c o n c e r n s! and that's it.

Sending out wanted posters to those in the community who had already been interviewed and having them posted all over the internet concerned me. It concerned me at the time and it continues to concern me. Terri has the right to an impartial jury. moo

The other area of CONCERN is the divorce proceedings taking place prior to a possible criminal trial. Her right to not incriminate herself. I amazed that people think it's so cut and dry. moo

Why am I concerned? Because, as I have stated numerous times on these threads, if Terri is guilty, I don't want her to walk due to a dismissal of the case by a judge.

Virtually every case I follow here on WS where there are prosecutors and defense attorneys involved, my concerns surface. moo

As I've said in a prior comment, I have the right to defend the Constitution when it is framed with dramatic trivia that I find disrespectful. Until I'm told to stop, I will continue to do so. moo mho

 

[eyes4crime]

Question: is it Houze's responsibility to use every bit of skill and legal knowledge he has to protect Terri's constitutional rights or to try to get an acquittal even if she killed this child in cold blood?

Will Houze get her a jury loaded with divorced women who think Kaine is the embodiment of their ex-husband...and see acquitting Terri as payback? Throw in a few men who think she's too pretty to be guilty? Did the Founding Fathers envision that kind of jury selection?

Will he work to get the emails showing her intense hatred and desire to hurt a 7 year old..thrown out...so the jury can never know the way this woman's mind works?

Will he try to demonize Kaine and/or Desiree on the stand in order to make his client look like she was THEIR victim?

Will he be looking for ways to undermine EVEN WHAT HE KNOWS to be the truth...so that his client may go home one day, sink into her favorite chair, smile and say...."I did it. I killed that freaking kid I hated. And Mr. Big Bucks got me the slick lawyers I needed...and WOW! Hurrah! and Joy to the world! I'm home free!! Cry your eyes out, Kaine and Desiree..I killed your brat and got away with it!"

Is that what the founding Fathers had in mind?

Bolded and underlined by me!

I would like to point out that I FIND your reference to 'divorced women' and 'men' being swayed by a 'pretty' face when deciding innocence or guilt of a child murderer - unsubstantiated, and in no way, does that represent what a group of jurors will buckle to. moo mho

Maybe there are fixed juries but can't imagine that divorced women and men being swayed by a pretty face makes up the definition of 'fixed jury'. :no:

If you have a link for such a suggestion, I would appreciate it!

 

[Adrienne37]

Actually it wasn't a mod who started this thread to begin with, it was Chablis. GrandmaJ moved the posts from the other thread which had gotten off topic to this new thread.

 

[Billylee]

Are we allowed to ask for links anymore, or is that considered "dogging"? Truly, I'm confused with all of this. I thought linking was a way to rule out rumors, no?

 

[grandmaj]

What would you like a link to BillyLee?

Links to opinion? No it has never been allowed. When a person states their opinion asking for a link is dogging yes.

 

[Billylee]

What would you like a link to BillyLee?

Links to opinion? No it has never been allowed. When a person states their opinion asking for a link is dogging yes.

I was referring to eyes4crime's post above, I thought maybe we can't ask for links anymore like that?

 

[stmarysmead]

Bolded and underlined by me!

I would like to point out that I FIND your reference to 'divorced women' and 'men' being swayed by a 'pretty' face when deciding innocence or guilt of a child murderer - unsubstantiated, and in no way, does that represent what a group of jurors will buckle to. moo mho

Maybe there are fixed juries but can't imagine that divorced women and men being swayed by a pretty face makes up the definition of 'fixed jury'. :no:

If you have a link for such a suggestion, I would appreciate it!

Eyes, surely you understand that juries are picked today in calculated ways if the funds exist to hire a jury specialist. IMO whomever is paying the Big Bucks for Terri will happily find such a "specialist." Money seems to be no be no object and someone wants her to have the best.

I would expect that such a specialist could twig to the fact....just from reading across the Internet for a few days..that one group of Terri supporters seem to continually compare Kaine to their ex-husbands...and not favorably. Many, many "excuses" for Terri...begin with a comparison of Kaine to a previous ex-husband.

Therefore if I can see this pattern..so will a jury specialist.

There is nothing offensive in this. Just a general observation. In fact, I may have saved Terri's team some expenses.

 

[JBean]

It is my view that a defense attorney should do everything legal within his or her power to provide the best possible defense for his her client whether he or she believes the client to be blameless or guilty as sin.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that concept is what our entire system of justice is based upon.

I have stated my opinion, you have stated your derision for it. How bout we agree to disagree?

Everyone is entitled to a defense which is precisely why counsel is provided to the accused if they cannot afford one on their own.
IT would be an injustice if an attorney did not provide a robust and vigorous defense for someone because the attorney thought that person was guilty and didn't deserve one.

As an aside and as a general comment to everyone, I think this thread was created to discuss the potential violation of rights, which is a possibility in any criminal case. Shoot, I posted a story earlier in the crimes forum where a child molester may get his guilty verdict overturned because the prosecutor was dating the interpreter used during the trial. There are allegations that the interpreter was translating with a bit of a prosecutorial bias.

Anyway, maybe we shift gears on this thread and work together to discuss any potential for problems, if any. I don't think anyone is suggesting that rights have been violated, but are there any signs of it? Is there anything that is right up to the line?