2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
What detailed info do D&K seem to have? They say Terri told them about the LD tests and they have admitted that they are speculating on everything else pertaining to Terri. I don't think they have any insider knowledge and that lack of info is part of what makes this so difficult for them.
 
Here is another explanation from AZ about those who testify before the GJ. Those who testify can speak about their appearance and GJ members are sworn to secrecy. That's how it was in the Drew Peterson GJ hearing.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5477686&postcount=130"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*[/ame]
 
Just wondering...if a GJ is already sitting when they take on a case like this one...that means they are likely to have heard and read all about it and may have formed their own opinions. Are they sworn in separately for each case? Not sure if I am being clear on this, but just not sure how a GJ could be nuetral and unbiased on all cases that happen to come their way.
 
Just wondering...if a GJ is already sitting when they take on a case like this one...that means they are likely to have heard and read all about it and may have formed their own opinions. Are they sworn in separately for each case? Not sure if I am being clear on this, but just not sure how a GJ could be nuetral and unbiased on all cases that happen to come their way.

Would their opinions matter in a GJ setting? They are not deciding guilt or innocence, just if there is enough evidence to go to trial, right?
 
I know. I was just pondering that myself. I wish we at least knew approx what time they spoke. If it was 6 or 8 in the evening, and Terri didn't say anything about Kyron missing, it would mean something different than if it was 1:30 or 2 in the afternoon.

The wording suggests that it was before Kyron was reported missing.
 
If it was before Kyron was supposed to get off the school bus I guess they'd just ask about Terri's behavior and demeanor, or if she mentioned anything she'd done that day.

Incidentally (and a trifle o/t) - reporters can really make me cringe sometimes. Did you hear them pleading with her through the closed car window? "Pleeeeeeease defend yourself Terri... Pleeeease." And, "Terri, do you know where Kyron is?" I mean I know they're not looking for an answer, just some new footage or a clip they can put on the news. But still. Yeesh, what a job.
 
A second friend of Kyron Horman’s stepmother, Terri Horman, has been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. KPTV reports that Chelsea Aleshire will appear before the grand jury on Thursday, August 5, 2010. Yesterday, Kaine Horman and Desiree Young testified before the grand jury but it is unclear whether the testimony is regarding the alleged murder-for-hire plot or Kyron’s June 4th disappearance.

http://primewriter.com/news-1246-headlines/?p=8652
 
I noticed that Kaine is only saying he appeared, not that he testified. This new woman is saying she was subpoenaed only. Maybe you can say if you're subpoenaed?

Dede didn't say a word - it was her attorney who said, e.g., that she wasn't asked any questions, but that was about what the prosecutor said (or rather didn't say), vs something Dede said.

I don't know. I'm not clear on it.

I have no idea on the legalities of the GJ either and what is allowed to be reported but It was reported that Kaine testified for 3hrs, desiree left just after her testimony and i believe stated that it was unclear if Tony was called to testify. None of them spoke with the press when leaving. I'm thinking Kaine must have had a lot to say in that 3hrs:eek: especially when compared to Dede's :silenced: I just wish the testimony didn't have to be secret but on the other hand glad it is for Kyrons sake . :)

http://www.katu.com/news/99801789.html
http://primewriter.com/news-1246-headlines/?p=8599
 
All I am clear on BeanE is that you cannot say a word about your testimony or appearance due to the secrecy of the GJ.
I am really surprised to hear this woman tell anyone she was subpoenaed. :waitasec:
I bet we do not hear a peep once she has appeared.

jmho

Actually this is incorrect - for federal courts, and most GJ's follow suit. I'll provide reference for federal courts. If anyone knows why this GJ would not follow suit, please advise.

The witness can say anything they want about their GJ appearrance to anyone.
:D That's good news for Websleuthers. :D

The hearings are held in secret, no one else, not even witness' counsel is allowed in the testimony. The GJ is bound by secrecy as is the prosecutor.

However the witnesses are not. They can keep their testimony a secret, or talk about it with anyone they like, even the press.

I'll be back with my reference in a bit. This has actually been discussed before.

Goofy little nuance in the law, but important to note.

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html
Why can a grand jury witness talk about his or her testimony?

In the federal courts, the witness is not sworn to secrecy, and may disclose whatever he or she wishes to whomever he or she wishes. The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable, and in part to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony. There is a basic revulsion in the United States about secret testimony.


Are there any other exceptions to grand jury secrecy?

At one time, the defendant in a criminal trial was never given access to the grand jury testimony that resulted in the indictment. By the 1980s, in most jurisdictions, if a witness who testified before the grand jury was called to testify at the eventual trial, the defendant was given a copy of that witness's grand jury testimony to use for possible impeachment. Some jurisdictions also give the defendant a list of everyone who testified before the grand jury, and several give the defendant a full transcript of all relevant grand jury testimony. In the federal system, no such list is provided, and the grand jury transcripts of only those persons who testify on behalf of the prosecutor at trial are given to the defendant.

Who must testify before a grand jury?

A prosecutor can obtain a subpoena to compel anyone to testify before a grand jury, without showing probable cause and, in most jurisdictions, without even showing that the person subpoenaed is likely to have relevant information. In the federal system the prosecutor is not required to demonstrate any relevance. The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination.

Can a lawyer be called to testify about his or her client?

A lawyer might be called; but the lawyer/client privilege shields him or her from being compelled to testify about a conversation with a client unless the conversation related to an ongoing or future crime or fraud of the client.

Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?

In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.

What is a grant of immunity?

A grant of immunity to a grand jury witness overcomes the witness's privilege against self-incrimination, and the witness is then required to testify. The prosecutor is prohibited from using that testimony or leads from it to bring charges against the witness. If a subsequent prosecution is brought, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that all of its evidence was obtained independent of the immunized testimony. In practice, it is difficult to successfully prosecute someone for criminal activity they discussed in immunized testimony unless the prosecution had a fully prepared case before immunity was granted.

Many states grant the witness "transactional immunity," barring prosecution for a transaction discussed in the immunized testimony regardless of whether there are independent sources of evidence.

Question on the table is in bold. Other questions included because they are so interesting & applicable here.
 
Why are people who are subpeoned telling anyone about it, isn't it supposed to be secret?

Well, some of us may think that there are ALWAYS leaks around Grand Juries
and may be surprised it took this long. Plus, there probably reporters and dudes working for lawyers hanging around, observing the comings and the goings, then passing the info about who shows up at that building along to people with more than a passing curiosity about who shows up and with whom.

Thus...eventually we will hear more about what's going on in the room--my opinion. Usually, IMO, someone will benefit from a leak.
 
Just wondering...if a GJ is already sitting when they take on a case like this one...that means they are likely to have heard and read all about it and may have formed their own opinions. Are they sworn in separately for each case? Not sure if I am being clear on this, but just not sure how a GJ could be nuetral and unbiased on all cases that happen to come their way.


I don't think a GJ has to be neutral and unbiased - they aren't determining guilt. They are simply deciding IF enough evidence exists to have the person stand trial. Like they decide a big - yeah, maybe this person did do it, so let them go to trial. The state doesn't have to put ALL the evidence out there, just enough. And I also believe (could be wrong) that the GJ doesn't have to be unanimous but rather a majority.
 
the parents have said that comments they have made to the media have been what they heard/observe from Terri herself other than their own personal observations.

the sexts, and other information that has been in court documents were directly related to the safety of another human being, namely Kaine and his daughter pertaining to the restraining order.

I highly doubt the DA has subpoenaed two friends of terri moulton horman, 200 documents, KH and DY to find out about "leaks" to the media... but that is just my opinion:twocents:

I sort of just kind of thought the "leaks" to the media were put out their for a specific reason, possibly to add some pressure to TH (or whomever) to let out just a bit of information (or appear that way anyway). However, wouldn't they give KH/DY/TY a heads-up before doing this? Just my opinion.

Since learning of the GJ, my gut tells me that things are coming together, though not as quickly as we would like, of course, like on a one-hour show that wraps it all up neat and tidy.

What detailed info do D&K seem to have? They say Terri told them about the LD tests and they have admitted that they are speculating on everything else pertaining to Terri. I don't think they have any insider knowledge and that lack of info is part of what makes this so difficult for them.

I think I said before, sounds like TH was quite the talker and/or complainer and eager to blame someone else when things weren't going quite her way. (We all probably know a couple people like this.) I can only imagine what's going on at her parents' home about now. (I know for sure that MY parents would NOT let me move back in with them if I even seemingly got into something like this.)

Hubs was on a GJ a few years back (they met every Thu, white collar crime case). He said there were about 23-25 people on the jury, not quite as formal as he thought -- meaning after the first Thu, not one single person dressed up, unusual for where we live. Prosecution professional but kept legal-speak easy for a lay person to understand. GJ was encouraged to speak up and ask questions, take notes but left them there and given back the following Thu. Only one witness at a time, was recorded, no one there for the defense was ever present. Said there was a judge but he didn't really do or say much.

Some of the witness had no clue what was going on and seemed very confused as to why they were even there (fishing?). Hub's instinct told him that the people the prosecution were "going after" (his words) didn't have a clue. His GJ term, like all of them in our state, lasted 6 months or until the DA was done; two weeks before the 6 month term ended, they all showed up and were sent home -- Prosecution had changed their mind "for now" (again, his words).

The next day, he got the newspaper, business section, read the whole article to me OUT LOUD. Really annoyed he was. I just had to laugh since I had never seen him take anything like that so hard. I guess the whole lot of them were really, really mad -- and then he ended by saying something about (all of them) didn't even get lunch! Actually, that's the part where I started laughing. I tried to explain: "It's the Feds, what DID you expect, a limo ride home?" He was mad at the wasted funds, of course. (He's no lawyer, but he wants FACTS, bottom-line type person.)

I DO NOT think that's the case here, nor do I think it would happen again around here. I cannot even imagine what Monday was like for KH, DY, and TY. I am just thinking how hard it must of been for the Grand Jurors, too. I really hope they have some emotional support.

Come to think of it, I don't think I would make a good person on a jury since I'm not a person who trusts easily. And there's that part of me that just can't stop watching people and their behavior. I used to love to watch the dynamics at the Board Meetings where I worked. I found it amusing and disgusting all at the same time. Shifty-eye time outs with benefits ($$) -- all a political back-scratching game. I am a tainted person so I would be a horrible person on a jury, any jury. Especially one like this.
 
Well, some of us may think that there are ALWAYS leaks around Grand Juries and may be surprised it took this long. Plus, there probably reporters and dudes working for lawyers hanging around, observing the comings and the goings, then passing the info about who shows up at that building along to people with more than a passing curiosity about who shows up and with whom.

Thus...eventually we will hear more about what's going on in the room--my opinion. Usually, IMO, someone will benefit from a leak.
Exactly - you wrote what I was thinking. It's always like this around a GJ. Reporters and onlookers wait outside to see who is going in. In the Peterson case the witnesses were followed down the street as they went in and as they came out. Happens everywhere in every case.

The only thing reporters can't find out usually is what questions were asked by the Grand Jurors themselves because they are sworn to secrecy. But you can kind of figure out the questions by what the witnesses themselves say.
 
FOUND THIS DEF IN "FINDLAW"


.
The Grand Jury's Role
Grand juries are similar to regular juries (also known as "petit juries", except that a grand jury's job is simply to decide whether or not charges should be brought in the first place rather than deciding the guilt or innocence of a person at trial. A prosecutor presents evidence to the grand jury, and the grand jury returns its verdict on whether or not charges should be brought and what charges those should be. Here are some of the other primary differences between a grand jury and a regular jury.

•Grand juries view evidence to decide whether to file charges, but don't decide guilt like a regular jury.
•Grand juries generally have more jury members than a regular jury, with some grand juries having as many as 23 members. Regular juries generally have between 6 and 12 members.
•Grand juries don't require a unanimous decision and sometimes only require a simple majority. Regular juries require a unanimous decision.
•Grand juries meet secretly, whereas regular juries serve in public trials.
How Grand Juries Work
Unlike regular juries, grand juries do a lot behind closed doors. This means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.

If the grand jury indicts a defendant based on the evidence presented, it returns a "true bill". If the grand jury decides not to indict, it returns a "no bill". However, even if a grand jury does not indict, the prosecutor can return to the same grand jury and present additional evidence, get a new grand jury, or even file criminal charges regardless.

Thank you for finding and posting this. It is exactly how it is. (See my earlier posts on my OR GJ duty) Our GJ was comprised of 7 people and (with alternates avail if someone was sick). And yes it does not require a unanimous vote to recommend indicting, just a majority. It can be quite a grueling task, going over all the evidence, etc. And you USUALLY never get to hear the defense side, so as I indicated earlier, in your listening and questioning, you are almost taking on the defense side, just trying to figure out whether the offense makes sense. (I hope I'm making sense.?) Another thing I might add is that if a person appears before us and we might somehow know them or otherwise be biased because of that sort of thing, you are asked to remove yourself and you will be replaced by an alternate. And this actually happened on one case we were on. I have to say that EVERYONE on the GJ I was on took it very seriously and what was interesting to me was that even though we were all different backgrounds, race, etc.,, the unanimous votes were astounding.
 
TYVM AZlawyer :applause:

Is it common practice for witnesses to come out yapping?
I just do not recall seeing that but of course could have missed it.

I do apologize for my obvious ignorance on GJ. :blushing:

jmho

sorry, but that made me lol
 
Chelsea Aleshire, who identified herself as a close friend to Terri Horman, said she will appear in court Thursday. Aleshire spoke to Terri Horman on the day Kyron disappeared from Skyline School, but at the time they spoke, Aleshire was not aware that Kyron was missing, she said.

She has not spoken to Terri Horman since then, she said.

http://www.kptv.com/news/24499150/detail.html

I find this a bit strange. Not that she identified herself as a close friend or that she will appear in court or that they spoke on that Friday but that they haven't spoken since then. If they're close friends I'd have expected at least one "OMG I heard Kyron is missing I'm so sorry is there anything I can do?" call. Didn't Terri want to talk to her? Did CA think early on that Terri might be fingered for it and didn't want to get involved? Did they talk on one of the batphones that LE hasn't caught on yet? Were they just both too busy to have a chat? (We know that Terri had a lot of phonetime otherwise...)
 
http://www.kptv.com/news/24499150/detail.html

I find this a bit strange. Not that she identified herself as a close friend or that she will appear in court or that they spoke on that Friday but that they haven't spoken since then. If they're close friends I'd have expected at least one "OMG I heard Kyron is missing I'm so sorry is there anything I can do?" call. Didn't Terri want to talk to her? Did CA think early on that Terri might be fingered for it and didn't want to get involved? Did they talk on one of the batphones that LE hasn't caught on yet? Were they just both too busy to have a chat? (We know that Terri had a lot of phonetime otherwise...)

Chelsea is, apparently, a very young girl, too. Like 22-23. Babysiiter?
 
I thought this was face to face not on the phone.
Maybe old Boz is going :crosseyed: reading.

jmho
 
Do not bring FB from other blogs here please. That blog link is not allowed! Terri's FB is set to private and private means private here at WS.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
2,462
Total visitors
2,559

Forum statistics

Threads
599,730
Messages
18,098,786
Members
230,917
Latest member
CP95
Back
Top