Found Deceased OK, Veronica Butler 27 & Jilian Kelley 39, Vehicle Abandoned, Texas County, 30 Mar 2024 #6 *Arrests*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Seattle1 said:
Interesting that the misfits and the state of OK do not observe June 19 as a federal and state holiday. No Karen Read trial today...
Click to expand...
OK has been celebrating June 19 since 1994 but has not made it a State holiday.
www.pewresearch.org

More than half of states will recognize Juneteenth as an official public holiday in 2023

This year, at least 28 states and the District of Columbia will legally recognize Juneteenth as a public holiday.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org
But at the state level, governments vary considerably in whether they commemorate it as an official holiday, a day of observance or something in between.
 
www.newsnationnow.com

Medical examiner’s report still missing in Kansas moms case

The killings allegedly stemmed from a custody dispute between one of the women and her children’s grandmother.
www.newsnationnow.com www.newsnationnow.com


"At one point, nine deputies, seven defense attorneys and three prosecutors were present in the courtroom. All five defendants were also present..."

I wonder if this is the first time any of the 5 has actually seen their fellow misfits since being arrested?
 
geevee said:
@BrianEntin

Grandma Tiffany Adams and the four other Kansas mom murder suspects are all in court right now. Hearing just started. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds … who turns on who.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1803430386376020402
Click to expand...
From Brian's report:

Defense attorneys complained to the judge about not having received evidence from the prosecution as part of the discovery process. There was also concern about the fact that discovery would be coming from multiple agencies, including the FBI, which can be difficult in state cases.

Defense attorneys expressed concerns that the lack of discovery would not give them enough time to review evidence prior to a preliminary hearing. The prosecutors noted that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation is likely turning over four terabytes of discovery and will produce two terabytes prior to the preliminary hearing.

[..]

The judge appears to be set to proceed with all five defendants present at every hearing as long as it can be done safely. Once defense counsel has a reasonable amount of time to prepare, a date for the preliminary hearing will be set.

While all defendants may have a joint preliminary hearing, the judge noted that any defendant who wishes to have a separate hearing can file a motion to do so. The next status hearing is set for July 17.

Newsnation
 
From the News Nation broadcast report - still no word on the cause of death, and ME report is not expected for another 3 weeks. It was previously reported that the victims had no gunshot wounds.

Also, it was the attorneys for the defendants that requested the joint hearing today with all 5 suspects present in the courtroom at the same time. This “physical arrangement" to accommodate all 5 defendants was said to be unprecedented in both the courtroom’s history and the courthouse.

I'm curious if they will follow the same co-defendant approach for the preliminary hearing, or if any will make a Motion for a separate hearing. Perhaps they made this decision before they carried forth the murders and took an oath “All for one and one for all.” MOO
 

6/19/24

TEXAS COUNTY, Okla. (KAMR/KCIT) – Texas County Associate District Judge, A. Clark Jett, set a new precedent for the county courtroom by allowing all five defendants to be together during the first discovery status hearing in the case of the deaths of two Kansas women.

[..]

Originally, each case for each defendant was held separately however, at the beginning of the discovery status hearing Judge Jett ruled for all defendants to be in the courtroom for any procedures moving forward.

Judge Jett also focused on other motions filed by the defense including one filed by Joi E Miskel, the attorney representing Cullum, requesting Cullum have access to law materials due to lack of familiarity with court language and law in which Jett granted this motion. During their argument, the state also requested that there be a process moving forward regarding motions and how much time to respond to the motions filed from either side due to the severity and size of the case.

[..]

The state objected to the [defense] filed motion due to the broad language in the document regarding physical and DNA evidence and the state noted that there will be time for discovery for the defense counsel despite concerns from the counsel over what the language change request meant.

[..]

The state also noted to the court that they have asked the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to not give up or destroy any test or sample that has “extra” DNA for defense and has no objection to keeping evidence for the defense’s discovery period.

[..]

In his final summary of the day, Judge Jett noted that the court does not conduct preliminary hearings before the time of discovery and has no intent on doing so. Judge Jett then granted the state’s motion to change the paragraph regarding evidence to be less broad and specifically changed it so the state of Oklahoma shall use its best efforts to not consume all physical or DNA evidence during testing before notifying the defense counsel.

[..]
 
I'm already not liking this!

It's hard enough to research the criminal rules of procedure for each respective State/County jurisdiction to keep tabs on the case's judicial timeline, and already we have a disagreement about procedure between the parties where it seems the defense Motioned the Court for discovery using language unacceptable to the State.

Although it appears the Prosecution brought this tweaked defense Motion to the attention of the Court timely, and the Court granted the state’s motion to change the paragraph regarding evidence to be less broad (specifically changed it so the state of Oklahoma shall use its best efforts to not consume all physical or DNA evidence during testing), I worry the Prosecution will be unable to keep up with overly broad defense Motions and where they end up on the other side arguing defense Motions for Sanctions for Discovery violations, pursuant to a (broad) technicality rather than a statutory procedure.

These defendants have their lives at stake and it's always a concern when unprecedented criminal events land at the feet of Prosecution teams from small districts with lean judicial budgets.

Seems the Judge is being firm about no preliminary hearing until the time of discovery where evidence is estimated at the size of four terabytes, and two terabytes should be available to the defense before preliminary hearings.

Until then, the Court requests a status hearing regarding discovery conducted every third Wednesday beginning on July 17. MOO
 
Cool Cats said:
I see no connection. The only time kids can't leave the state is when it hurts the other parent's shared custody or visitstion. Children are not denied the best legal guardians simply because the guardians live in a different place.

The other exception is when the state has custody, then the children reside in that state while permanent custody is found.

2 Cents
Click to expand...
Most of the time, it takes several months of court meetings to allow a child in CPS custody to cross state lines, if they do at al

Most of the time, when they do....it is, sadly, not because it is in the best interest of the child, but because it is in the best interests of the state.

The states primary goal, always, is to spend as little as possible, while gaining as much federal dollars as they can. This is how CPS is. It is not about the kids. It's about the money.

When I became kinship provider for my nephews, it was because I was the only one in our state who could pass a backround check, and all the other family was a few miles away in another state. They tried, but they were refused custody. The kids stayed with me, then real foster parents, until they aged out.

None of them were allowed to cross state lines. And they had 17 kids in three states from one family. The answer was always Hell No.
 
AislingGray18 said:
Most of the time, it takes several months of court meetings to allow a child in CPS custody to cross state lines, if they do at al

Most of the time, when they do....it is, sadly, not because it is in the best interest of the child, but because it is in the best interests of the state.

The states primary goal, always, is to spend as little as possible, while gaining as much federal dollars as they can. This is how CPS is. It is not about the kids. It's about the money.

When I became kinship provider for my nephews, it was because I was the only one in our state who could pass a backround check, and all the other family was a few miles away in another state. They tried, but they were refused custody. The kids stayed with me, then real foster parents, until they aged out.

None of them were allowed to cross state lines. And they had 17 kids in three states from one family. The answer was always Hell No.
Click to expand...

Children who are Wards of the State with the State paying for them, are always placed in foster care in their home State.

But when family or close friends petition for them, because they want them and will support them, then they can go across State lines. Social services usually will recommend this if it is in the best interest of the child.

2 Cents
 
JUN 19, 2024
www.newschannel10.com

Texas County double murder case suspects appear in court for discovery status hearing

All five suspects charged with the murders of Veronica Butler and Jilian Kelley are appearing in court today for a discovery status hearing.
www.newschannel10.com www.newschannel10.com
[...]

Judge Jett listened to arguments on motions filed by the defendants, including a request for Tad Cullum to access law materials provided by the defense counsel.

The judge ruled that ‘”The Sheriff of Texas County, Oklahoma may, in his sole and sound direction, and in the interests of justice continue to accommodate the requests of attorney Joi Miskel to allow her client access to ‘law material’ provided to Mr. Cullum by Ms. Miskel.’”

[...]

At this time, the Medical Examiner’s Report has not been released to anyone. The state believes it should be available in two to three weeks.

Until the discovery phase is over there will be status hearings the third Wednesday of each month.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 17 at 9 a.m.

Judge Jett also asked all attorneys to start comparing calendars to find a date for October or November for the pretrial. He also asked them to discuss if the defendants should be tried separately or all together.
 
Rixey said:
www.newsnationnow.com

Medical examiner’s report still missing in Kansas moms case

The killings allegedly stemmed from a custody dispute between one of the women and her children’s grandmother.
www.newsnationnow.com www.newsnationnow.com


"At one point, nine deputies, seven defense attorneys and three prosecutors were present in the courtroom. All five defendants were also present..."

I wonder if this is the first time any of the 5 has actually seen their fellow misfits since being arrested?
Click to expand...
According to this article, "It was the first time all five were in the same room together since their arrests."

 

Oklahoma Preliminary Hearing Discovery​

After the arraignment, defense counsel can request preliminary hearing discovery from the district attorney's office. The discovery a defendant is entitled to receive prior to the Preliminary Hearing is significantly less than the discovery a defendant receives prior to trial. Technically a defendant is not entitled to any discovery prior to the preliminary hearing. However, if the state does not make the law enforcement reports available for inspection at least 5 days prior to the preliminary hearing, than the magistrate can not stop the preliminary hearing once a determination has been made that probable cause exists. (See Oklahoma Statutes Title 22 Section 258 paragraph 6).

In practice every district attorney that I am aware of provides copies of the police reports prior to the preliminary hearing, for a price. Sometimes district attorneys will provide copies of photographs and interviews to a defendant prior to the preliminary hearing, but they are not required to do so.

Preliminary Hearing Discovery

Describes Discovery a Criminal Defendant is Entitled to before the preliminary hearing.
www.oklahomacriminallaw.com

I'm finding much of this very interesting: OK Statute does not require the Prosecution to provide copies of Discovery to the defense for the preliminary hearing, but only provides for the Prosecution to "make discovery available" for inspection by defense counsel, hence for a price noted above!

Also finding the provision that Discovery for the prelim does not include any physical evidence which may exist at the time, extremely unique to OK. For example, in addition to written or recorded statements of the accused, I generally find most states will call for any evidence that exists to be discovered to the defense as soon as practicable, but not later than a defined number of calendar days (i.e., such as 21 days), after the defendant’s first appearance, at the time of or following the filing of charges.

In other words, it appears that other than making the law enforcement reports available for inspection at least 5 days prior to the preliminary hearing, OK is satisfied with the prosecution handing over only up to what is necessary to establish probable cause--and just sit on the rest!
Perhaps the intent here is to save the evidence for trial and prevent any more evidence than necessary to exist in the hands and minds of the public while the defendant awaits trial.

Given the parties have nine (9) months from the initial appearance of the defendant to set the preliminary hearing, perhaps this preserves the defendants right to a panel of impartial jurors. Nonetheless, I hope we don't have to wait 9 months to learn of the details surrounding the murder of our victims. MOO

law.justia.com

2023 Oklahoma Statutes :: Title 22. Criminal Procedure :: §22-258. Preliminary examinations and proceedings thereon.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes
law.justia.com law.justia.com
 
PommyMommy said:
According to this article, "It was the first time all five were in the same room together since their arrests."

Click to expand...
I should have been more clear. I knew that all five hadn't been together in one room since the arrests, but I was wondering if any of them had seen any of the others before now. Have the Twombly's seen each other before now? or Cora and TA? or are they all still being kept completely isolated from the others?
 
Rixey said:
I should have been more clear. I knew that all five hadn't been together in one room since the arrests, but I was wondering if any of them had seen any of the others before now. Have the Twombly's seen each other before now? or Cora and TA? or are they all still being kept completely isolated from the others?
Click to expand...
Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'd say it's doubtful they've seen each other while incarcerated unless simply in passing, but that's just MOO. :)
 
PommyMommy said:
JUN 19, 2024
www.newschannel10.com

Texas County double murder case suspects appear in court for discovery status hearing

All five suspects charged with the murders of Veronica Butler and Jilian Kelley are appearing in court today for a discovery status hearing.
www.newschannel10.com www.newschannel10.com
[...]

Judge Jett listened to arguments on motions filed by the defendants, including a request for Tad Cullum to access law materials provided by the defense counsel.

The judge ruled that ‘”The Sheriff of Texas County, Oklahoma may, in his sole and sound direction, and in the interests of justice continue to accommodate the requests of attorney Joi Miskel to allow her client access to ‘law material’ provided to Mr. Cullum by Ms. Miskel.’”

[...]

At this time, the Medical Examiner’s Report has not been released to anyone. The state believes it should be available in two to three weeks.

Until the discovery phase is over there will be status hearings the third Wednesday of each month.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 17 at 9 a.m.

Judge Jett also asked all attorneys to start comparing calendars to find a date for October or November for the pretrial. He also asked them to discuss if the defendants should be tried separately or all together.
Click to expand...
"Judge Jett ... also asked them to discuss if the defendants should be tried separately or all together."

I would think that the prosecution will want them tried together, but that at least one of the defendants would want to go separately so they can lay the blame on the others.

Of course TA's attorneys might also be more inclined to want them to be tried together because otherwise everyone would likely just blame her while painting themselves as gullible little lambs who just got brainwashed by the big bad granny from hell.
 
Rixey said:
I should have been more clear. I knew that all five hadn't been together in one room since the arrests, but I was wondering if any of them had seen any of the others before now. Have the Twombly's seen each other before now? or Cora and TA? or are they all still being kept completely isolated from the others?
Click to expand...
Sorry, just reread your post. This is redundant. Early on there was information saying they were kept apart. As I recall there were enough different groups or "pods" that the men were simply separated. However, going on memory here again, one of the women was in with a group and the other kept separate and to herself. Because of the hairdos, once someone suggested another inmate had done TA's hair for her court appearance, I speculated that Cora was the one with her own room/cell.
 
Last edited:
Seattle1 said:
I'm already not liking this!

It's hard enough to research the criminal rules of procedure for each respective State/County jurisdiction to keep tabs on the case's judicial timeline, and already we have a disagreement about procedure between the parties where it seems the defense Motioned the Court for discovery using language unacceptable to the State.

Although it appears the Prosecution brought this tweaked defense Motion to the attention of the Court timely, and the Court granted the state’s motion to change the paragraph regarding evidence to be less broad (specifically changed it so the state of Oklahoma shall use its best efforts to not consume all physical or DNA evidence during testing), I worry the Prosecution will be unable to keep up with overly broad defense Motions and where they end up on the other side arguing defense Motions for Sanctions for Discovery violations, pursuant to a (broad) technicality rather than a statutory procedure.

These defendants have their lives at stake and it's always a concern when unprecedented criminal events land at the feet of Prosecution teams from small districts with lean judicial budgets.

Seems the Judge is being firm about no preliminary hearing until the time of discovery where evidence is estimated at the size of four terabytes, and two terabytes should be available to the defense before preliminary hearings.

Until then, the Court requests a status hearing regarding discovery conducted every third Wednesday beginning on July 17. MOO
Click to expand...

Exhausting information. This case's complexities are going to be screaming at is for years.
 
Seattle1 said:

Oklahoma Preliminary Hearing Discovery​

After the arraignment, defense counsel can request preliminary hearing discovery from the district attorney's office. The discovery a defendant is entitled to receive prior to the Preliminary Hearing is significantly less than the discovery a defendant receives prior to trial. Technically a defendant is not entitled to any discovery prior to the preliminary hearing. However, if the state does not make the law enforcement reports available for inspection at least 5 days prior to the preliminary hearing, than the magistrate can not stop the preliminary hearing once a determination has been made that probable cause exists. (See Oklahoma Statutes Title 22 Section 258 paragraph 6).

In practice every district attorney that I am aware of provides copies of the police reports prior to the preliminary hearing, for a price. Sometimes district attorneys will provide copies of photographs and interviews to a defendant prior to the preliminary hearing, but they are not required to do so.

Preliminary Hearing Discovery

Describes Discovery a Criminal Defendant is Entitled to before the preliminary hearing.
www.oklahomacriminallaw.com

I'm finding much of this very interesting: OK Statute does not require the Prosecution to provide copies of Discovery to the defense for the preliminary hearing, but only provides for the Prosecution to "make discovery available" for inspection by defense counsel, hence for a price noted above!

Also finding the provision that Discovery for the prelim does not include any physical evidence which may exist at the time, extremely unique to OK. For example, in addition to written or recorded statements of the accused, I generally find most states will call for any evidence that exists to be discovered to the defense as soon as practicable, but not later than a defined number of calendar days (i.e., such as 21 days), after the defendant’s first appearance, at the time of or following the filing of charges.

In other words, it appears that other than making the law enforcement reports available for inspection at least 5 days prior to the preliminary hearing, OK is satisfied with the prosecution handing over only up to what is necessary to establish probable cause--and just sit on the rest!
Perhaps the intent here is to save the evidence for trial and prevent any more evidence than necessary to exist in the hands and minds of the public while the defendant awaits trial.

Given the parties have nine (9) months from the initial appearance of the defendant to set the preliminary hearing, perhaps this preserves the defendants right to a panel of impartial jurors. Nonetheless, I hope we don't have to wait 9 months to learn of the details surrounding the murder of our victims. MOO

law.justia.com

2023 Oklahoma Statutes :: Title 22. Criminal Procedure :: §22-258. Preliminary examinations and proceedings thereon.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes
law.justia.com law.justia.com
Click to expand...
The reasoning for the limitation on discovery evidence has to do with the Confrontation Clause of the U.S./Oklahoma constitutions. Should you be more interested, here is a good law review article on the issue:


When researching Oklahoma law, I recommend using oscn.net, as it is the official website of the state, and has helpful links to other cases addressing similar issues. For instance, 22 O.S. 258 at oscn has multiple cases mentioned at the bottom to further research the issues regarding the statute:


Hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 685 (members: 157, guests: 528)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
528
Total visitors
685
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,449
Messages
18,239,602
Members
234,373
Latest member
SourTreat
Back
Top