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

[Seattle1]

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:

https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=tlr

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:

Preliminary Examinations and Proceedings Thereon

Hope this helps.

Brilliant. Big thank you, @AugustWest.

 

[cujenn81]

"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.

I didn’t know the judge could say “now y’all get together and decide if you want to be tried as a group or separately, okay?” That just seems kinda crazy, no? Do judges in OK make any decisions?

 

[scapa]

"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.

Not gonna lie -- I'm diggin' Judge Jett. Hopefully the good judge loves rock n' roll, looks to be a capable steward of this very ugly case.

 

[Inthedetails]

I didn’t know the judge could say “now y’all get together and decide if you want to be tried as a group or separately, okay?” That just seems kinda crazy, no? Do judges in OK make any decisions?

I think defendants do have a say in that decision, at least sometimes. I followed the Daybell case, and the married couple was originally going to be tried at the same time, but one defendant decided to sever. I don't think it works that way in EVERY case, but I don't think it's a dereliction of duty of the judge in this case.

jmo

 

[AugustWest]

I didn’t know the judge could say “now y’all get together and decide if you want to be tried as a group or separately, okay?” That just seems kinda crazy, no? Do judges in OK make any decisions?

Combining a trial is what attorneys call joinder. Here is a Justia article on the issue:

Joint Trials for Criminal Defendants & Legal Considerations

A judge can combine the trials of defendants who have been charged based on the same facts, if it does not violate a defendant's right to a fair trial.

www.justia.com

What the judge is telling the several attorneys in this case is simply a less formal way of saying "Do any of you guys/gals have any objection to a joinder?" The judge is essentially asking the attorneys to get together and determine whether any will have fair trial issues should all be tried at once. The attorneys know what the judge is getting at, and should an issue arise, the judge absolutely will make a decision about it, likely for joinder, as it cuts down on the number of resources the State will have to invest in the process (e.g. less juries, lower cost for State).

 

[Sundog]

I didn’t know the judge could say “now y’all get together and decide if you want to be tried as a group or separately, okay?” That just seems kinda crazy, no? Do judges in OK make any decisions?

I think the judge will ultimately make that decision, but he will review any motions submitted by the defendants that request to be separate. That's my understanding.

 

[VeraVa]

Combining a trial is what attorneys call joinder. Here is a Justia article on the issue:

Joint Trials for Criminal Defendants & Legal Considerations

A judge can combine the trials of defendants who have been charged based on the same facts, if it does not violate a defendant's right to a fair trial.

www.justia.com

What the judge is telling the several attorneys in this case is simply a less formal way of saying "Do any of you guys/gals have any objection to a joinder?" The judge is essentially asking the attorneys to get together and determine whether any will have fair trial issues should all be tried at once. The attorneys know what the judge is getting at, and should an issue arise, the judge absolutely will make a decision about it, likely for joinder, as it cuts down on the number of resources the State will have to invest in the process (e.g. less juries, lower cost for State).

Trying all 5 separately would be a significant challenge. Getting an impartial jury assembled for one defendant is going to be a chore. Multiply that by 5? That is a monumental task in a sparsely populated county. If the details of the murders (COD) come out prior to the jury selection, they would never be able to find enough impartial people.

 

[Cool Cats]

I didn’t know the judge could say “now y’all get together and decide if you want to be tried as a group or separately, okay?” That just seems kinda crazy, no? Do judges in OK make any decisions?

Normal.

Say you and 2 co-defendants committed murder.

You have a right to be tried separately from your 2 co-defendants.

This is very important and a good defense attorney will know if this is best.

They will be advised by their counsel and decide accordingly.

2 Cents

 

[AugustWest]

Normal.

Say you and 2 co-defendants committed murder.

You have a right to be tried separately from your 2 co-defendants.

This is very important and a good defense attorney will know if this is best.

They will be advised by their counsel and decide accordingly.

2 Cents

Although I agree that it is likely some or all of these defendants will be tried separately, it is not a right.

See: Relief from Prejudicial Joinder

Also: Joint Trials for Criminal Defendants & Legal Considerations

 

[cujenn81]

Combining a trial is what attorneys call joinder. Here is a Justia article on the issue:

Joint Trials for Criminal Defendants & Legal Considerations

A judge can combine the trials of defendants who have been charged based on the same facts, if it does not violate a defendant's right to a fair trial.

www.justia.com

What the judge is telling the several attorneys in this case is simply a less formal way of saying "Do any of you guys/gals have any objection to a joinder?" The judge is essentially asking the attorneys to get together and determine whether any will have fair trial issues should all be tried at once. The attorneys know what the judge is getting at, and should an issue arise, the judge absolutely will make a decision about it, likely for joinder, as it cuts down on the number of resources the State will have to invest in the process (e.g. less juries, lower cost for State).

Gotcha! Makes sense now.

 

[AugustWest]

Gotcha! Makes sense now.

I should qualify what I said in the post you quoted...the judge will likely join some of the defendants' trials. If they all turn on each other, this may not be possible.

 

[cujenn81]

I should qualify what I said in the post you quoted...the judge will likely join some of the defendants' trials. If they all turn on each other, this may not be possible.

Thank you for clarifying. I think I understand the general process… I just initially misunderstood the context of the judge’s quote. For some reason it didn’t compute that the judge was merely telling the attorneys to decide if they would be arguing for or against separate trials. IOW, my brain farted.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

JUN 19, 2024

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

[...]

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.

Thank you for posting this PommyMommy….

I also note in that article particular mention that prosecution efforts are not to consume in its entirety a certain biological sample when conducting DNA testing. Wonder what that sample pertains too? MOO

 

[Knox]

There are a lot of Rickmans around those woods!!! Lots of varied stories.
I kindof think that TA might have pushed her younger son, to get the Adams name. I think she liked getting "Adams"to be a more branded name in her world.
Her daughter is Adams. (Father not Rickman, though she was married to Rickman at the time she was born)

Who knows.... maybe she was even thinking of the grandkids to be Adams eventually. Wouldn't surprise me.

And oh how I wonder how those kids are doing....

Daughter also legally changed her name. Its in the court records.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Daughter also legally changed her name. Its in the court records.

She was not a born Wrangler, however....
moo

 

[Knox]

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

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

DBM- question answered as I read forward.

 

[Knox]

She was not a born Wrangler, however....
moo

Yes, but the larger point is both her children changed their names to Adams. Were both family names tainted? Or was TA the driving force behind both? IMO, this demonstrates more of her controlling manipulation and narcissism. Further, it’s the motive behind the murders. She knows best and no one will stand in her way.

 

[Knox]

Thank you for posting this PommyMommy….

I also note in that article particular mention that prosecution efforts are not to consume in its entirety a certain biological sample when conducting DNA testing. Wonder what that sample pertains too? MOO

The article did not state a certain DNA sample. JMO, that was a general reference to all evidence. They want to reserve the right to retest if the need arises. Pretty standard, seen this in other cases.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The article did not state a certain DNA sample. JMO, that was a general reference to all evidence. They want to reserve the right to retest if the need arises. Pretty standard, seen this in other cases.

This is the statement from within that article to which I was referring.

“The motion was also modified to say “The State of Oklahoma shall use best efforts not to consume the entire biological sample when conducting DNA testing without first notifying counsel and obtaining an order from the court.”
IANAL
MOO

 

[Knox]

This is the statement from within that article to which I was referring.

“The motion was also modified to say “The State of Oklahoma shall use best efforts not to consume the entire biological sample when conducting DNA testing without first notifying counsel and obtaining an order from the court.”
IANAL
MOO

Right, that would pertain to all evidence in which DNA testing would be performed. Am I misunderstanding your point? Apologies if so.