2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins

[cluciano63]

Yes, I am curious in Sylar's case too, why they jumped so quickly to presume he is dead. I think it due to his age (that he probably did not wander off, or they would have found him) and also his scent being tracked only a short distance.

 

[Billylee]

LE doesn't need to name her a suspect. Being formally named a suspect isn't a mandatory part of the criminal legal process.

It might make us feel better to hear it but LE doesn't owe the public anything. The only person they owe anything to can't be found. They only need to answer to little missing Kyron. That's first and foremost their primary concern. I doubt they give a hoot that the public wants to know if Terri is officially a suspect.

You are right of course. Just seems silly to me at this point to keep saying "she is NOT a suspect". Though, I think it's been awhile since we heard them say that.

 

[JSR]

In most California courthouses you are not allowed backpacks. Unless you have a pretty good darn reason (it, you're an attorney). I saw this while on Jury Duty.

My opinion only --

Mel

Yeah they're pretty strict in CA courthouses. You're not allowed to bring in any electronics into the courthouse without the Court's permission. At least that's the way it is in Federal Courthouses.

 

[gitana1]

I have never been in a courtroom where they allow backpacks (minus liquid oxygen and other medical devices, etc) either.
Briefcases with paperwork and laptops, that sort of thing? Yes.
Backpacks, usually no.

Must've just been bottled water, snacks, a comfort item....and maybe stuff to write with.

Makes me incredibly sad to think of, for some reason.

Arghh!! They allow backpacks into some of the courtrooms I go to and it is a royal pain if such a person gets in line at the scanner ahead of me. Most courtrooms have special lines for attorneys and staff but sometimes if it's a short one they allow the public to go through as well and the backpack people drive me nuts because they usually have a ton of other stuff in pockets, on their wrists, around their waist and for some reason they wait until they are right at the scanner to divest themselves of all their junk, while a huge line begins to form behind them. Irritating!!!

 

[Calliope]

If that were enough reason to discount someone's testimony, then parents, friends and family members would never be asked to give information about their missing loved ones. Fortunately for missing persons everywhere, even biased family members with information are encouraged to share it.

Anyway, he's not a witness in the prosecution of Terri Horman (yet), he's giving information to a group assembled to question people and gain information.

If they discounted anyone who was emotionally distressed over Kyron's disappearance, they'd have to recuse the investigating officers, every one of the detectives, the other parents of children, every family member and most of the police force.

I don't think you hit on the point he was making.

Tony can surely testify as the step-father of the missing child. He should not be testifying as an "expert" or professional witness in his capacity as a police detective. Primarily because (as he and Desiree have stated) he is not part of or assisting in the investigation, nor receiving inside information from LE. But also because he is the step-father for the same reasons any professional would refuse to be involved to that degree.

 

[Calliope]

Can a grand jury target offer evidence of his or her own?
For the most part, the subject of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify unless subpoenaed, nor any right to compel the grand jury to hear certain witnesses or evidence. Often, however, if a target requests an opportunity to testify, he or she will be permitted by the prosecutor to do so but without a grant of immunity.
The prosecutor may refuse to present evidence submitted by a target. In federal grand juries, exculpatory evidence need not be presented, although in many states exculpatory evidence must be submitted for the grand jury's consideration. Prosecutors have the right in federal grand juries to introduce hearsay and to otherwise utilize evidence that would not be admissible in a regular trial
from http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

As I've noted before ONLY the prosecutor presents evidence. A defense attorney may not offer evidence or cross examine any witnesses.

bbm

This is where I find it a bit confusing. If the target testifies, is that considered offering 'evidence'? I mean, other than getting on the stand and stating "I didn't do it", what's the point? And the purpose of the grand jury is for the prosecutor to make his case for an indictment. So why would either the defense or prosecution want the target to appear???

 

[ami]

I don't think you hit on the point he was making.

Tony can surely testify as the step-father of the missing child. He should not be testifying as an "expert" or professional witness in his capacity as a police detective. Primarily because (as he and Desiree have stated) he is not part of or assisting in the investigation, nor receiving inside information from LE. But also because he is the step-father for the same reasons any professional would refuse to be involved to that degree.

I understood the point he was making. As far as I know he's never been asked to perform in the role of LE in this case, nor should he be, so it has never been an issue anyway.

 

[Dee10]

Yes, I am curious in Sylar's case too, why they jumped so quickly to presume he is dead. I think it due to his age (that he probably did not wander off, or they would have found him) and also his scent being tracked only a short distance.

Kind of the same though with Kyron, they did say he could only survive xx days on his own (can't remember the number of days though, but it was brought up in the pressers). Kyron's case was determined a criminal investigation as well. Dogs didn't track with Kyron that IIRC...I think this case is very similar really. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Unfortunately there are no happy endings sometimes & it is so unfair!

 

[Calliope]

Arghh!! They allow backpacks into some of the courtrooms I go to and it is a royal pain if such a person gets in line at the scanner ahead of me. Most courtrooms have special lines for attorneys and staff but sometimes if it's a short one they allow the public to go through as well and the backpack people drive me nuts because they usually have a ton of other stuff in pockets, on their wrists, around their waist and for some reason they wait until they are right at the scanner to divest themselves of all their junk, while a huge line begins to form behind them. Irritating!!!

Whoops.

Last time I was in court, I had left directly from work and just dumped my pockets into my purse. I ended up being pulled aside and questioned while those behind me became quite irritated. [Note to self: next time leave hemostats, scissors, penlight, and syringe holders in locker.] But even more irritating for all of us... the deputy manning the scanner held me back while he tried to get the scoop on job openings at the hospital for his girlfriend, and boy did she study hard and she was scheduled to take her boards and blah blah blah... it was getting later and later and I just kept smiling and reminding myself he was the one with the taser and handcuffs.

 

[Calliope]

I understood the point he was making. As far as I know he's never been asked to perform in the role of LE in this case, nor should he be, so it has never been an issue anyway.

Ah ok. Thanks. I thought you were arguing otherwise. My mistake, sorry.

 

[cluciano63]

Kind of the same though with Kyron, they did say he could only survive xx days on his own (can't remember the number of days though, but it was brought up in the pressers). Kyron's case was determined a criminal investigation as well. Dogs didn't track with Kyron that IIRC...I think this case is very similar really. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Unfortunately there are no happy endings sometimes & it is so unfair!

Yet in this case LE has never indicated they thought Kyron was dead, in fact they claim to believe the opposite. And poor Sylar is presumed dead by LE already...Not sure why they don't think he could have been taken away alive and "stashed" as well... Not that I believe either child is stashed and being kept alive.

 

[Chablis]

Yet in this case LE has never indicated they thought Kyron was dead, in fact they claim to believe the opposite. And poor Sylar is presumed dead by LE already...Not sure why they don't think he could have been taken away alive and "stashed" as well... Not that I believe either child is stashed and being kept alive.

Police have to think positive unless they cant, see the Casey Anthony case. They hadn't found a body, but the smell of the car, and the missing child, hope becomes lost, after that they were not looking for a live child. Everyone has to hold out hope. Its not fathomable a 2 year old is still alive in the hot Arizona wilderness with the heat and animals, a two year old does not have the skill to take care of themselves.

 

[Billylee]

bbm

This is where I find it a bit confusing. If the target testifies, is that considered offering 'evidence'? I mean, other than getting on the stand and stating "I didn't do it", what's the point? And the purpose of the grand jury is for the prosecutor to make his case for an indictment. So why would either the defense or prosecution want the target to appear???

I'm not sure, but I think neither attorney defense or prosecution would want the "target" to testify at the GJ. In the one case that we heard where one did, even though that person had an attorney, they were not there, so I'm guessing, they weren't allowed. I don't know. But it's a darn good question as to why it's allowed, I'm guessing it's "the target's" right. ???? Good question for our legaleeze thread!

 

[Calliope]

When did I say planting reasonable doubt was awful? I said the lawyer would be awful if he used such a flimsy argument to suggest reasonable doubt. I'm sure her lawyer is not stupid and will therefore come up with a much better argument for her, should it come to trial.

On it's own, it would be flimsy (but who knows what the jury will think). I didn't mean to say that would be the only thing he'd argue.

 

[BeanE]

Yet in this case LE has never indicated they thought Kyron was dead, in fact they claim to believe the opposite. And poor Sylar is presumed dead by LE already...Not sure why they don't think he could have been taken away alive and "stashed" as well... Not that I believe either child is stashed and being kept alive.

I don't know, C. I noticed the other day:

Answering emailed questions, the Multnomah County Sheriff said he has no information leading him to believe that missing 7-year-old Kyron Horman is still alive.

At Tuesday's news conference, the sheriff's spokesman never once referred to the missing boy as being alive - and never did they say they hoped to bring Kyron home alive, a phrase they've used previously.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/n...-Kyron-Horman/Dz4uMChK60KCWjy3W5FG4Q.cspx?p=2

 

[Dee10]

Police have to think positive unless they cant, see the Casey Anthony case. They hadn't found a body, but the smell of the car, and the missing child, hope becomes lost, after that they were not looking for a live child. Everyone has to hold out hope. Its not fathomable a 2 year old is still alive in the hot Arizona wilderness with the heat and animals, a two year old does not have the skill to take care of themselves.

A similar thing was said about Kyron if he was lost. This would be around the time the searches were scaled back to "only searching if there were new tips" timeline. I am working & cking in, but I will see where they gave the definitive point if Kyron wondered away & got lost...

 

[Calliope]

I'm not sure, but I think neither attorney defense or prosecution would want the "target" to testify at the GJ. In the one case that we heard where one did, even though that person had an attorney, they were not there, so I'm guessing, they weren't allowed. I don't know. But it's a darn good question as to why it's allowed, I'm guessing it's "the target's" right. ???? Good question for our legaleeze thread!

From the link cluciano provided:

Can a grand jury target offer evidence of his or her own?

For the most part, the subject of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify unless subpoenaed, nor any right to compel the grand jury to hear certain witnesses or evidence. Often, however, if a target requests an opportunity to testify, he or she will be permitted by the prosecutor to do so but without a grant of immunity.

The prosecutor may refuse to present evidence submitted by a target. In federal grand juries, exculpatory evidence need not be presented, although in many states exculpatory evidence must be submitted for the grand jury's consideration. Prosecutors have the right in federal grand juries to introduce hearsay and to otherwise utilize evidence that would not be admissible in a regular trial.



What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?

None. The target's only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony



I just don't see where it would be to either side's advantage for her to appear. I'd also like to know if a target DOES appear and testify, would their testimony be allowed in trial or would it provide a basis for appeal in some way (because the attorney isn't allowed to be in the courtroom, present evidence or cross-examine)?

 

[Billylee]

I don't know, C. I noticed the other day:

Answering emailed questions, the Multnomah County Sheriff said he has no information leading him to believe that missing 7-year-old Kyron Horman is still alive.

At Tuesday's news conference, the sheriff's spokesman never once referred to the missing boy as being alive - and never did they say they hoped to bring Kyron home alive, a phrase they've used previously.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/n...-Kyron-Horman/Dz4uMChK60KCWjy3W5FG4Q.cspx?p=2

I hadn't seen that before. Thank you BeanE. No wonder DY starting looking less hopeful.

 

[nurseratchett]

Yet in this case LE has never indicated they thought Kyron was dead, in fact they claim to believe the opposite. And poor Sylar is presumed dead by LE already...Not sure why they don't think he could have been taken away alive and "stashed" as well... Not that I believe either child is stashed and being kept alive.

Hate to seem crass and blunt, but seems as if it's often about the "money". And by that, I mean socio-economic status of victims in this country. Not that there are not anomalies, but "money" seems to purchase (figuratively, sometimes literally) believability, publicity, sympathy, useful contacts, etc. JMO

 

[Calliope]

But how does it work in Terri's defense to remind the jury that the people who know her think she's a liar? Doesn't her lawyer want them to think she's a good person who is telling the truth when she says she is innocent?

I think a good attorney could finesse that to his advantage. I know that hearing them go on about how Terri is a chronic, habitual liar then say that their information is coming from Terri makes me wonder who the hell I'm supposed to believe.