Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*

New Posts

gliving said:
If a subpoenaed person was unable to attend the grand jury in person, would it possible for them to testify via video teleconference?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Here's the actual statue:

(5) A grand jury may receive testimony of a witness by means of simultaneous television transmission allowing the grand jury and district attorney to observe and communicate with the witness and the witness to observe and communicate with the grand jury and the district attorney.

from this link with lots of other interesting stuff:
http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.320.html
 
Assuming Terri is the one the prosecutor has asked the grand jury to indict ...

If they do not do so, can he present the case again to another grand jury? How many times can a case against a particular suspect be brought before a grand jury? What rules must the prosecutor follow in order to do that? For example, would he have to be able to present new evidence or witnesses? Or can he just keep bringing up the same ol' stuff again and again until he finds a jury that will give him the indictment? If that is allowed (I shudder to think it would be), what recourse would the person have to put a stop to it, if at all?
 
Calliope said:
Assuming Terri is the one the prosecutor has asked the grand jury to indict ...

If they do not do so, can he present the case again to another grand jury? How many times can a case against a particular suspect be brought before a grand jury? What rules must the prosecutor follow in order to do that? For example, would he have to be able to present new evidence or witnesses? Or can he just keep bringing up the same ol' stuff again and again until he finds a jury that will give him the indictment? If that is allowed (I shudder to think it would be), what recourse would the person have to put a stop to it, if at all?
Click to expand...

How much would it cost to have a grand jury sit on a case, and rehash it, and rehash it, and rehash it, and would the prosecution see any point doing so? If there is little enough evidence to convince only, say, one in four grand jurys to indict, what would be the odds of getting a conviction in a trial?
 
Donjeta said:
How much would it cost to have a grand jury sit on a case, and rehash it, and rehash it, and rehash it, and would the prosecution see any point doing so? If there is little enough evidence to convince only, say, one in four grand jurys to indict, what would be the odds of getting a conviction in a trial?
Click to expand...

Well, I may have found the answer to our questions:



The grand jury may find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.
---
When an indictment indorsed “not a true bill” has been filed with the clerk of the court, the effect thereof is to dismiss the charge; and the same cannot be again submitted to or inquired of by the grand jury unless the court so orders.

-----

So I'm guessing that the prosecutor only has one shot? What if he comes into new evidence after the grand jury refuses to indict, is it just too bad for him? Is this considered 'double jeopardy' to bring the same charges? I thought that referred to the actual trial (really getting confused).

In this case, if the prosecutor is trying to indict Terri for Kyron's murder and the grand jury doesn't feel there's enough evidence and refuses to indict her, what happens if at some point in the future he receives evidence that points to her guilt? Does the above mean a judge would have to review the evidence and then order the grand jury to meet again?
 
I asked about all this because I have a vague memory of Tom DeLay accusing the prosecutor of bringing charges up to a grand jury over and over again until he got his indictment. I can't remember all the details, and don't know if with each grand jury he presented new facts or just rehashed the old.
 
Calliope said:
Well, I may have found the answer to our questions:



The grand jury may find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.
---
When an indictment indorsed “not a true bill” has been filed with the clerk of the court, the effect thereof is to dismiss the charge; and the same cannot be again submitted to or inquired of by the grand jury unless the court so orders.

-----

So I'm guessing that the prosecutor only has one shot? What if he comes into new evidence after the grand jury refuses to indict, is it just too bad for him? Is this considered 'double jeopardy' to bring the same charges? I thought that referred to the actual trial (really getting confused).

In this case, if the prosecutor is trying to indict Terri for Kyron's murder and the grand jury doesn't feel there's enough evidence and refuses to indict her, what happens if at some point in the future he receives evidence that points to her guilt? Does the above mean a judge would have to review the evidence and then order the grand jury to meet again?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked about this, Calliope. I was wondering the same thing. I am hoping that the "unless the court so orders" could be cleared up too. That sounds kind of open to interpretation doesn't it?
 
Calliope said:
Well, I may have found the answer to our questions:



The grand jury may find an indictment when all the evidence before it, taken together, is such as in its judgment would, if unexplained or uncontradicted, warrant a conviction by the trial jury.
---
When an indictment indorsed “not a true bill” has been filed with the clerk of the court, the effect thereof is to dismiss the charge; and the same cannot be again submitted to or inquired of by the grand jury unless the court so orders.

-----

So I'm guessing that the prosecutor only has one shot? What if he comes into new evidence after the grand jury refuses to indict, is it just too bad for him? Is this considered 'double jeopardy' to bring the same charges? I thought that referred to the actual trial (really getting confused).

In this case, if the prosecutor is trying to indict Terri for Kyron's murder and the grand jury doesn't feel there's enough evidence and refuses to indict her, what happens if at some point in the future he receives evidence that points to her guilt? Does the above mean a judge would have to review the evidence and then order the grand jury to meet again?
Click to expand...

Calliope said:
I asked about all this because I have a vague memory of Tom DeLay accusing the prosecutor of bringing charges up to a grand jury over and over again until he got his indictment. I can't remember all the details, and don't know if with each grand jury he presented new facts or just rehashed the old.
Click to expand...

Tuffy said:
I'm glad you asked about this, Calliope. I was wondering the same thing. I am hoping that the "unless the court so orders" could be cleared up too. That sounds kind of open to interpretation doesn't it?
Click to expand...

There would be no "double jeopardy" problem with going back to a grand jury with the same evidence. But Oregon has put some protection in place by requiring a court order to resubmit a case to the GJ. My guess is that it would be tough to get such a court order without some new evidence, but certainly the statute quoted by Calliope seems to leave it up to the discretion of the judge.
 
I am puzzled as to why TH has not been arrested for the MFHP. I'm guessing they don't have any evidence other than the landscaper's testimony and perhaps he/she is not considered a very credible witness.

However, I have a question. If someone gets really ticked at their spouse and you know, says something to the effect of "I wish he/she were dead. I'd give you a million bucks to blow his/her head off". You know that sort of "heated" statement. Would that be considered a MFHP? Even though it may never have been intended as something the person really wanted anyone to do? Or does there have to be more than a conversation involved? Hope I'm making myself clear on this one. Thanks.
 
On an American Bar Assoc site it states that double jeopardy does not apply to grand juries..."in practice, however, it is uncommon for a prosecutor, having failed once,to try again without good reason."

So probably new evidence would be considered good reason?
(I am not a lawyer...)
 
I have a question about the manner in which a prosecutor presents his case to a Grand Jury. Lets assume that a prosecutor's case for indicting Jane Doe in based in large part on the testimony of witnesses. Would the key witnesses need to appear in person before the Grand Jury, or could a prosecutor instead tell the Grand Jury that that witnesses A, B, and C are cooperating with LE and the DA and are willing to testify that they saw Jane Doe do X, Y, and Z?

Thank You.
 
This post brought up a question :

grandmaj said:
It sounds to me like they are investigating 2 people.

snipped

Investigators were also still working to pin down the exact movements of Terri Horman on the day her stepson disappeared, as well as on the exact movements of her friend, DeDe Spicer.

Some of the testimony was expected to focus on people who saw and dealt with the women on the day Kyron vanished.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Sources-2-friends-gave-Terri-Horman-cell-phones-100052359.html
Click to expand...

If I read the statute correctly, the prosecutor brings evidence and witnesses before the grand jury of triable crime(s) he feels were committed.

In a trial, each person answers to charges against them and each is entitled to his own defense (even if using the same attorney as the others) right?

So a grand jury is simply deciding if a triable crime occurred and if the evidence could result in conviction, regardless of how many people may be involved? If that's true, does this mean the prosecutor doesn't need more than one grand jury case to get an indictment for people who may committed a crime related to what he's presenting? IOW, if by presenting this evidence to this one grand jury it's determined Terri killed Kyron, DeDe helped hide his body, Friend X lied to police to cover for her, etc., could this particular grand jury indict each for the part they played, or would he have to convene a separate one for each person involved?
 
Hi AZlawyer :)

If this Grand Jury doesn't return an indictment, will that be announced or publicized? Or will we have to hear it from Unnamed Sources? :)

They return a document or finding, called a presentment? Something like that? If there's no indictment? Would that document state why they didn't indict, e.g., not enough evidence? Would that be released to the public?

TIA!

:blowkiss:
 
Billylee said:
I am puzzled as to why TH has not been arrested for the MFHP. I'm guessing they don't have any evidence other than the landscaper's testimony and perhaps he/she is not considered a very credible witness.

However, I have a question. If someone gets really ticked at their spouse and you know, says something to the effect of "I wish he/she were dead. I'd give you a million bucks to blow his/her head off". You know that sort of "heated" statement. Would that be considered a MFHP? Even though it may never have been intended as something the person really wanted anyone to do? Or does there have to be more than a conversation involved? Hope I'm making myself clear on this one. Thanks.
Click to expand...

If the only evidence on the MFH plot is the landscaper's testimony, IMO TH will not be arrested for that.

Intent is a slippery thing. There's no "bright line" where you cross over from joking to serious intent, but no prosecutor is going to mess with it if there's any real possibility that it was a joke.

palladore said:
I have a question about the manner in which a prosecutor presents his case to a Grand Jury. Lets assume that a prosecutor's case for indicting Jane Doe in based in large part on the testimony of witnesses. Would the key witnesses need to appear in person before the Grand Jury, or could a prosecutor instead tell the Grand Jury that that witnesses A, B, and C are cooperating with LE and the DA and are willing to testify that they saw Jane Doe do X, Y, and Z?

Thank You.
Click to expand...

I believe the Oregon procedures allow for the prosecutors to present written affidavits from witnesses in lieu of "live" testimony, but not for the prosecutors to just verbally describe the witnesses' testimony.

Calliope said:
This post brought up a question :

If I read the statute correctly, the prosecutor brings evidence and witnesses before the grand jury of triable crime(s) he feels were committed.

In a trial, each person answers to charges against them and each is entitled to his own defense (even if using the same attorney as the others) right?

So a grand jury is simply deciding if a triable crime occurred and if the evidence could result in conviction, regardless of how many people may be involved? If that's true, does this mean the prosecutor doesn't need more than one grand jury case to get an indictment for people who may committed a crime related to what he's presenting? IOW, if by presenting this evidence to this one grand jury it's determined Terri killed Kyron, DeDe helped hide his body, Friend X lied to police to cover for her, etc., could this particular grand jury indict each for the part they played, or would he have to convene a separate one for each person involved?
Click to expand...

Yes, the grand jury could indict more than one person.

BeanE said:
Hi AZlawyer :)

If this Grand Jury doesn't return an indictment, will that be announced or publicized? Or will we have to hear it from Unnamed Sources? :)

They return a document or finding, called a presentment? Something like that? If there's no indictment? Would that document state why they didn't indict, e.g., not enough evidence? Would that be released to the public?

TIA!

:blowkiss:
Click to expand...

I don't think we will see anything at all if there is no indictment.

A presentment is not a non-indictment; it is an indictment made by the grand jury on its own rather than at the prosecutor's request. E.g., if the prosecutor requests an indictment for first-degree murder, the grand jury could say no but offer a presentment for manslaughter.
 
What happens to a case if it's found that someone from within the grand jury proceedings is leaking information to the press (or even to others who then tell the press)? I'm not talking about witnesses called to testify, but the jurors, court reporters, and others present who are sworn to secrecy?
 
Could the landscaper that was "solicited" for the murder for hire plot be arrested on this charge and not TH (TM/the step mother)?

I have my thinking cap on, but wanted to bring this forth for a professional.
 
sherbetjello said:
Could the landscaper that was "solicited" for the murder for hire plot be arrested on this charge and not TH (TM/the step mother)?

I have my thinking cap on, but wanted to bring this forth for a professional.
Click to expand...

Being solicited is not a crime. Since KH was obviously not murdered and we haven't heard of any attempt on his life, the most likely charge against the landscaper would be conspiracy to commit murder. This would require the prosecutor to prove that the landscaper had agreed to participate in or cause the performance of a murder.

Given the news reports, it doesn't sound as if the lanscaper ever agreed to participate. Even if - hypothetically - he had originally agreed, renunciation of the conspiracy (e.g., by reporting it to police) is a complete defence to the charge. So it's highly unlikely that the lanscaper would be the target of the grand jury (if that's what you were thinking).
 
If TH is not arrested/charged with the MFH but is charged for Kyron's disappearance, if the DA wanted can they still used the MFH as a pattern?

If TH goes to trial can the DA reference the MFH plot if she isn't arrested/convicted/on trial for it, at any point during a trial over Kyron's disappearance?

If TH is not arrested/charged/convicted with the MFH, and that is what was partly used in the restraining order can she contest the restraining order/make it void/counter claim it because of that?

Thank you for all your help!
 
Calliope said:
What happens to a case if it's found that someone from within the grand jury proceedings is leaking information to the press (or even to others who then tell the press)? I'm not talking about witnesses called to testify, but the jurors, court reporters, and others present who are sworn to secrecy?
Click to expand...

Other than the witness, the only ones present would be the jurors, prosecutor and, possibly, a recorder. If any of those - including a juror - violated the secrecy of the proceedings, they could be charged with contempt and/or an abuse of public office charge (e.g., official misconduct or misuse of confidential information). Jurors are considered public officers.
 
desquire said:
Other than the witness, the only ones present would be the jurors, prosecutor and, possibly, a recorder. If any of those - including a juror - violated the secrecy of the proceedings, they could be charged with contempt and/or an abuse of public office charge (e.g., official misconduct or misuse of confidential information). Jurors are considered public officers.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks. I was wondering if it would mean the DA has to start over with a new grand jury or if it could possibly be basis for an appeal down the road (or even if it could be used in trial somehow)?
 
Calliope said:
Yes, thanks. I was wondering if it would mean the DA has to start over with a new grand jury or if it could possibly be basis for an appeal down the road (or even if it could be used in trial somehow)?
Click to expand...

Oh! Sorry for taking the easy out on that question. You always do your homework thoroughly, so I should have known there was more to it. I think the DA might be able to use such juror misconduct as a reason for getting the court to give him a second bite at the apple with a new grand jury if the "bad" jury returns a no-bill. If the "bad" jury returns an indictment, however, the DA would still be free to prosecute on it. Also the improper disclosure of grand jury testimony would not affect the DA's ability have that witness/testimony admitted at trial. Finally, maybe some of the other lawyers here feel differently, but it's hard for me to picture a realistic scenario under which the improper disclosure of grand jury testimony would form the basis of an appeal of the trial unless it ties with a subsequent error of the trial judge (e.g., the improperly disclosed testimony is so outrageous that it prejudices the local jury pool and the trial judge refuses to take any action to remedy that situation).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 89 more.
Total: 1,210 (members: 90, guests: 1,120)

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
1,120
Total visitors
1,210
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,784
Messages
17,958,846
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top