Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramsey’s death

[BOESP]

lawstudent said: I just don't have much faith that the GJ's interpretation of whatever they saw that we don'et have.

This sounds like an ad hominem effort to discredit the Grand Jury.

 

[CorallaroC]

Just on a side note - I snipped this quote from the Univ of Dayton School of Law - explains in simple language the reasons why GJ proceedings are kept secret.

"Many years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court explained why grand jury proceedings are secret. According to the Court, which was relying on earlier common law, there are four reasons why grand jury proceedings are secret. Secrecy prevents those who are being investigated from interfering with witnesses and otherwise tampering with the investigation. It encourages witnesses who might be reluctant to testify if their comments were made public to be speak freely when they are brought before the grand jury. It decreases the likelihood that one who is about to be indicted by a grand jury will flee and thereby avoid being brought to trial on those charges. And, finally, it protects innocent persons whose names may be implicated in a grand jury investigation but who will never be indicted."

snipped from this link: http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq7.htm

I had been trying to find out if there could ever be a chance that the court would release more information about the GJ proceedings re: JBR's case.

 

[BBB167893]

AH may well have been a very weak prosecutor. I don't really get the significance of that, though.

You don't?? Try this:

When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCh evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad.
He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode. None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.

Have you read V's Fosterama? It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?

When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!
2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?

COME ON, HOW MANY!?

That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail! When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.
3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.
4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer?
Is that good enough for anyone?

An arrest was never a question in this case.
Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."
FBI: "Arrest them."
Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."
And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.

But less than 10% of cases in the US ever go to trial - I think the average is over 90% involve a deal of some sort. Those are not astounding statistics. Trials almost never happen. That's not to say one shouldn't have happened in this case, but that's not odd at all. And also very different from not even prosecuting the case.

I don't necessarily think that a trial needed to happen in this case, lawstudent. But Ah took the coward's way out.

Again, I'm not saying the DA did a great job here or didn't hinder the investigation. I just don't see how it matters.

Hope I helped.

 

[Mama2JML]

The Colorado Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct; rule 3.8, "Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor", stipulates the responsibility prosecutors have to:

Refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.​

​

http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/22193

 

[lawstudent]

lawstudent said: I just don't have much faith that the GJ's interpretation of whatever they saw that we don'et have.

This sounds like an ad hominem effort to discredit the Grand Jury.

Ad hominem is picking on the person rather than on his/her position.

My whole point is that their position as expressed in the indictment does make me question their credibility. I have absolutely no information on which to attack any member or all members personally. Not sure at all how I could be discrediting or making an ad hominem attack against an anonymous group of people...

However, that sentence makes no sense, which is my fault. I must have changed my thought halfway through. I still don't know what exactly I was trying to write, but bottom line was that I can't read much into how the GJ interpreted the situation because of the strange indictment.

 

[BOESP]

When one doesn't have faith in one or more people's ability to make a judgement on what they have been told in court it looks like one is calling those people either ignorant or stupid (imo). It's hard to get more ad hominem than that.

I also think you short-skirted the definition of ad hominem but I won't go there.

 

[otg]

The Colorado Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct; rule 3.8, "Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor", stipulates the responsibility prosecutors have to:

Refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.​

http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/22193

That's why a Grand Jury is convened. If the DA doesn't feel he has enough evidence to file charges, he sends it to a GJ for the investigative powers they have that police do not. Their purpose is to determine probable cause for the DA. Once the GJ has determined there is probable cause (if he has chosen that route), it is the DA's responsibility to prosecute the case -- especially if the True Bills returned are charges for which the Statutes of Limitations will expire within three months.

 

[otg]

Ad hominem is picking on the person rather than on his/her position.

My whole point is that their position as expressed in the indictment does make me question their credibility. I have absolutely no information on which to attack any member or all members personally. Not sure at all how I could be discrediting or making an ad hominem attack against an anonymous group of people...

However, that sentence makes no sense, which is my fault. I must have changed my thought halfway through. I still don't know what exactly I was trying to write, but bottom line was that I can't read much into how the GJ interpreted the situation because of the strange indictment.

It's only a "strange indictment" to those who refuse to see it for what it is. It makes perfect sense to me. It made the same sense to my lawyer friend I asked about it. He was already very familiar with the case, so it wasn't that he was influenced by my thoughts in what he wrote to me. If you go back and read his logic about why he came to the conclusion he did, maybe it will make more sense to you.

And I have to tell you, lawstudent, it truly bothers me that a member of the legal profession would have such little confidence (it seems) in the GJ system and the individual members' ability to process the evidence they saw.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

The Colorado Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct; rule 3.8, "Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor", stipulates the responsibility prosecutors have to:

Refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.​

​

http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/22193

BBM

Ahhhhh, but IDI has been arguing that the grand jury had found probable cause but not beyond a reasonable doubt, so that doesn't apply here. Unless you are now saying the grand jury didn't find probable cause and signed the bill anyway. If so: proof?

 

[CorallaroC]

very good point Detective! very good point.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

very good point Detective! very good point.

Actually otg made the same point but I didn't see it till after. So thank you but I was pipped at the post, as it were. Nice post otg.

 

[lawstudent]

When one doesn't have faith in one or more people's ability to make a judgement on what they have been told in court it looks like one is calling those people either ignorant or stupid (imo). It's hard to get more ad hominem than that.

I also think you short-skirted the definition of ad hominem but I won't go there.

I actually looked up the definition because I didn't understand how it related to my post.

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

I have an issue with the content of the argument. The charges of accessory do not make sense without the principal charge unless the murderer wasn't one of the parents (and I'm not counting a child too young to be charged). And I think most agree that is not what the GJ thinking, since that third person would have surfaced, although we have no way of knowing for sure. Anyone with legal/criminal training would find that odd. It doesn't mean they think the GJ is dumb or put no thought into it or think nothing can be drawn from it. The average person, and even many attorneys, tends to screw up these nuances. Oftentimes court battles end up hung up on some ambiguous or contradictory argument made by a party. It then gets corrected, hopefully. Because this never went further, we didn't get the clarification. I have faith in the fact that the GJ thought the Ramseys were involved or at least there was suspicion that they were. I just have no idea what scenarios they were contemplating based on the evidence or who they thought did what. So I'm left with the same suspicion that the case creates against the family, but I'm still not convinced the GJ had any great evidence that allowed them to figure out much more than that the story didn't add up and it seemed to be an inside job.

 

[lawstudent]

It's only a "strange indictment" to those who refuse to see it for what it is. It makes perfect sense to me. It made the same sense to my lawyer friend I asked about it. He was already very familiar with the case, so it wasn't that he was influenced by my thoughts in what he wrote to me. If you go back and read his logic about why he came to the conclusion he did, maybe it will make more sense to you.

And I have to tell you, lawstudent, it truly bothers me that a member of the legal profession would have such little confidence (it seems) in the GJ system and the individual members' ability to process the evidence they saw.

I would appreciate a link to the post with your friend's analysis, as I am interested in his interpretation.

No system is perfect, but I do not have any particular issue with the GJ process etc. Also, most lawyers, including me, are not involved in the criminal justice system. If I were, I would have no issues with respecting the process and doing my job in accordance with it. Of course members of the legal profession are allowed to personally take issue with how certain cases turn out, even where process was followed. Its not a perfect world. And I can also say that I have faith in the grand jury process in the sense that I respect that they found probable cause, which is their job. But a prosecutor can get a determination of probable cause from the GJ and still not feel he has enough evidence to convict. Those are 2 different issues.

He can respect their judgement and still not believe the case is worth bringing, even though he wouldn't be wrong to move forward. You only get one shot. It can be irresponsible to go forward if you think the story isn't coming together well, which a confusing True Bill might indicate. Again, I can respect the jury's finding of probable cause, but still find the facts of the case too confusing to prosecute before a jury on a reasonable doubt standard. I'm guessing that most of the charges did not expire within 3 months, but I don't know which ones did. If the ones that did were relatively minor, it would make more sense to just let those go and preserve the others. You can't just file charges and let them hang. You have to move forward within a period of time.

 

[lawstudent]

I tried to find the discussion @otg, but did not yet find the one you are talking about . I did find stuff from early debates we had.

It makes “absolutely no sense” unless you consider who that third person might have been. That is why even some attorneys and other talking heads keep saying they don’t understand what the GJ was thinking (they just "don't want to go there, Pal.")

I didn't get your "its only strange to those who refuse to see it for what it is" comment until I saw this. I would reword that as "it is strange, which makes attorneys/people infer things that would explain it." I certainly agree with that. I certainly agree that is why so many people have decided who the third person is - it explains the strangeness. But it also seems to make the inference that the GJ didn't understand that the accessory charges were still IMO untenable without the child's requisite intent. Murder is defined by that intent.

I know then we got into the whole well a minor can still violate the law - only an infant doesn't have the intent. But I still can't figure out if violating the law means they had the requisite intent. The court is not very clear, but says the legislature was only trying to talk about who was responsible for the crime - is responsibility intent? They note there is no responsibility, but the violation still happened. I am not sure if that was an imprecise way of saying that the physical acts required happened, absent the intent, which wouldn't be a crime. The physical act of taking the CD out of the store - the physical act of hurting/killing someone. Is there really anything that says minors aren't presumed to be unable to commit a crime?

 

[tovarisch]

I tried to find the discussion @otg, but did not yet find the one you are talking about . I did find stuff from early debates we had.



I didn't get your "its only strange to those who refuse to see it for what it is" comment until I saw this. I would reword that as "it is strange, which makes attorneys/people infer things that would explain it." I certainly agree with that. I certainly agree that is why so many people have decided who the third person is - it explains the strangeness. But it also seems to make the inference that the GJ didn't understand that the accessory charges were still IMO untenable without the child's requisite intent. Murder is defined by that intent.

I know then we got into the whole well a minor can still violate the law - only an infant doesn't have the intent. But I still can't figure out if violating the law means they had the requisite intent. The court is not very clear, but says the legislature was only trying to talk about who was responsible for the crime - is responsibility intent? They note there is no responsibility, but the violation still happened. I am not sure if that was an imprecise way of saying that the physical acts required happened, absent the intent, which wouldn't be a crime. The physical act of taking the CD out of the store - the physical act of hurting/killing someone. Is there really anything that says minors aren't presumed to be unable to commit a crime?

Hello, lawstudent, how you are doing. I remember you were greeting me couple years ago when I first stated posting. I`m still here, my brain`s beyond recovery with this "obsession".

I want to ask you as a law professional. If GJ indicted someone`s child for homicide and his parent as an accessory without scientific evidence to support, and parent knows it`s all untrue and frivolous accusation , what right does child/parent have against GJ members? How far these people, GJ members (bus drivers, teachers, hair dressers and so on...) can go with abusing their power without paying consequences ? Does their temporary duty protects them under the law for accusing "ham sandwich" if they desire so?

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM

Ahhhhh, but IDI has been arguing that the grand jury had found probable cause but not beyond a reasonable doubt, so that doesn't apply here. Unless you are now saying the grand jury didn't find probable cause and signed the bill anyway. If so: proof?

"Refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause."

The GJ & the DA are separate entities.

 

[questfortrue]

There are two ways a prosecutor may take a case to court. One is through the GJ, when they turn in a True Bill of probable cause. The second mechanism (and the route most frequently utilized in taking a case to court) is through the DA’s office which determines from the evidence gathered by the police (and without engaging a GJ) that probable cause exists to go to court. It is my understanding that the guidance from COBAR primarily references the second situation in which a GJ is not utilized.

However, if a GJ does not issue a True Bill, and the DA decides to go to court anyway, this is also against the Rules of Professional Conduct (rule 3.8) stipulated as a prosecutor’s responsibility, unless he discovers new evidence justifying taking it to court.

AH’s decision not to take the case to court is not a denial of the GJ’s probable cause. As communicated publicly on several occasions, including to Henry Lee, he stated that he did not believe he had the evidence to charge anyone and prove anyone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That was his explanation for not going any further. It was also his right as a prosecutor to go no further. (He, of course, left out the bit as far as how the GJ voted.)

Also to note, the GJ system is infrequently utilized in Colorado.

 

[lawstudent]

Hello, lawstudent, how you are doing. I remember you were greeting me couple years ago when I first stated posting. I`m still here, my brain`s beyond recovery with this "obsession".

I want to ask you as a law professional. If GJ indicted someone`s child for homicide and his parent as an accessory without scientific evidence to support, and parent knows it`s all untrue and frivolous accusation , what right does child/parent have against GJ members? How far these people, GJ members (bus drivers, teachers, hair dressers and so on...) can go with abusing their power without paying consequences ? Does their temporary duty protects them under the law for accusing "ham sandwich" if they desire so?

Just want to clarify nothing I say is legal advice and I have no special expertise in Colorado law etc. But I don't think there is any recourse. The "ham sandwich" comment doesn't necessarily mean people think they abused their power or did it intentionally - this isn't a conviction, so the idea is if they are wrong, the investigation or prosecution will fail. It's just a comment that people in general tend to think "where there's smoke, there's fire", and the nature of the proceeding is pretty one-sided, so it makes sense people will go along with what the police present. There's a system of, I guess, checks and balances in place that are considered the way to address it. If the GJ is corrupt, the prosecutor, judge, trial jury, appellate court, or some other entity will hopefully correct it.

 

[CherCher]

Just want to clarify nothing I say is legal advice and I have no special expertise in Colorado law etc. But I don't think there is any recourse. The "ham sandwich" comment doesn't necessarily mean people think they abused their power or did it intentionally - this isn't a conviction, so the idea is if they are wrong, the investigation or prosecution will fail. It's just a comment that people in general tend to think "where there's smoke, there's fire", and the nature of the proceeding is pretty one-sided, so it makes sense people will go along with what the police present. There's a system of, I guess, checks and balances in place that are considered the way to address it. If the GJ is corrupt, the prosecutor, judge, trial jury, appellate court, or some other entity will hopefully correct it.

Good answer lawstudent. I also "guess" there's a system of checks and balances. Some balances are dishonest balances. Hope you remember that as you go along in your law career.

 

[BBB167893]

Hello, lawstudent, how you are doing. I remember you were greeting me couple years ago when I first stated posting. I`m still here, my brain`s beyond recovery with this "obsession".

I want to ask you as a law professional. If GJ indicted someone`s child for homicide and his parent as an accessory without scientific evidence to support, and parent knows it`s all untrue and frivolous accusation , what right does child/parent have against GJ members? How far these people, GJ members (bus drivers, teachers, hair dressers and so on...) can go with abusing their power without paying consequences ? Does their temporary duty protects them under the law for accusing "ham sandwich" if they desire so?

I'd like to know, as well.