Grand Jury Indictment 3/20/14

[leighmarker]

In colorado the county I am in has a pool of 12 people that are sworn in to serve for six months. We were scheduled to meet every Monday afternoon. Some weeks we didn't meet, just depended if we were needed or not. The DA's office usually had the same ADA there, pursuing indictments. Sometimes he was very pushy, IMO went over the line. I was only 18 when I served. It was very interesting to say the least. Just my two cents.

 

[nosysw]

I hope a jury that follows the rules from the judge and the law will be found. It scares me when I read the criteria that some individuals would require of one side or the other that are simply not a burden to meet under the law. If a jury member simply can't or won't follow the judge's instructions then I hope that person is tossed during voir dire.

This is what worries me. I was on a jury last year, and it became clear that some jurors will completely ignore the judges directions if they feel they know the guilt or innocence of a person. Some, straight up say it- in the jury room of course- obviously they told the judge they would follow them or they wouldn't have been sitting there.

It went the right way, in the end, (meaning it followed the judge's directions) but I was shocked that some of the jurors who wanted to follow the directions were swayed by realizing that others didn't, and would begin negotiating with them- Like, 'we're never going to all agree on that one, so how about if we give in on this one, and you go with us on that one'. I actually was losing sleep and thinking I was going to have to call this out to the judge (thank goodness I didn't). It is really a lot of pressure. My sister actually did have to when she was on a jury who were doing the same thing. A lot of the jurors are retired, not working etc. The ones with jobs, who start really getting affected if the trial goes long, start getting a little crazy, IMO. Like thinking they didn't sign on for this. Etc, etc. I get stressed thinking about it. Some of the jurors who I originally thought would completely stick to their guns started wavering. Then they started looking at me, like I was being unreasonable for saying we had to follow the judge's directions. Like I was naive and 'this is real life, you have to have some give and take'. There's an old joke that asks would you want to be judged by a group of 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty? Well, that's just sad, but, guess what? A lot of these people shouldn't be on a jury. I hope it's better in SC and sorry for the rant.

 

[magnolia]

The grand jury doesn't "usually come before charges". Procedure followed in this case is normal : probable cause to issue warrant determined by a magistrate or judge (depending on state); arrest; bond hearing if bond not set or is higher than defendant can post; probable cause or preliminary hearing or grand jury; then trial.

BBM--

It has always been my understanding, a grand jury determines whether criminal charges should be brought against a person. A hearing before a grand jury usually comes before charges are filed.

 

[Hatfield]

I am still hoping SM confesses. Sitting in jail 24/7 with no freedom will hopefully break him down.

I also hope he will fess up and tell where Heather is.

However, since she is not found yet I think I may know why he never will.

All things are pointing to him being involved almost as much as TM is (if not more). If that is the case then there is no benefit for him to fess up because he cant really bargain much for any kind of benefit except maybe life without parole instead of death penalty.

Because I dont think the DA would want to ever give him anything less than life in prison as a bargaining tool. The public would have a huge outcry if some kind of deal was made that gave him X number of years and we find out he is as guilty as she is with luring Heather to her demise.

So IMO all things are pointing to him not going to ever fess up. Because it doesnt help him get any kind of bargain.

I hope I am wrong and if I am wrong then what kind of bargain can the DA offer him to tell where Heather is? Maybe give him money on his commissary or maybe offer him a single cell so he cant be killed by other prisoners. I am struggling with what kind of offer they could bargain with him if he is as culpable as TM is.

Threatening the Death Penalty and keeping that on the table is one bargaining tool the DA should seriously consider. Early on they made a mistake in my opinion about saying something about not being death penalty case. They should not have said that as that may be 1 way they could get info out of SM.

 

[Hatfield]

This is what worries me. I was on a jury last year, and it became clear that some jurors will completely ignore the judges directions if they feel they know the guilt or innocence of a person. Some, straight up say it- in the jury room of course- obviously they tell the judge they will follow them or they wouldn't have been sitting there.

It went the right way, in the end, (meaning it followed the judge's directions) but I was shocked that some of the jurors who wanted to follow the directions were swayed by realizing that others didn't, and would begin negotiating with them- Like, 'we're never going to all agree on that one, so how about if we give in on this one, and you go with us on that one'. I actually was losing sleep and thinking I was going to have to call this out to the judge (thank goodness I didn't). It is really a lot of pressure. My sister actually did have to when she was on a jury who were doing the same thing. A lot of the jurors are retired, not working etc. The ones with jobs, who start really getting affected if the trial goes long, start getting a little crazy, IMO. Like thinking they didn't sign on for this. Etc, etc. I get stressed thinking about it. Some of the jurors who I originally thought would completely stick to their guns started wavering. Then they started looking at me, like I was being unreasonable for saying we had to follow the judge's directions. Like I was naive and 'this is real life, you have to have some give and take'. There's an old joke that asks would you want to be judged by a group of 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty? Well, that's just sad, but, guess what? A lot of these people shouldn't be on a jury. I hope it's better in SC and sorry for the rant.

You are absolutely right IMO and I love this post.

People here at WS should watch the very old classic movie "12 Angry Men" if they have not already.

It was a great movie that showed how 12 different people on a jury go through deliberations and all the issues that get brought up. The dynamics in a jury room are just incredibly fascinating and very scary like you mentioned.

For me personally, I always thought I would make a good jury person but the more I thought about it I have too many personal strong feelings that I think would get in the way. Luckily I have never been called to serve and if I ever do in future I will do the best I can.

One of the things I worry about the most about servicing on a jury is the part about not letting others in the room change my verdict. If I really think the person is innocent due to evidence and 11 others are trying to convince me otherwise I really fear that I would be swayed and I am sure that is a common issue in juries.

 

[SStarr33]

If I was on that GJ, I would want to blab the evidence all over the place

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/03/21/3339711/horry-county-grand-jury-indicts.html#storylink=cpy

Good luck trying to go back and request a bond again. His best bet is a speedy trial.

I find this statement nothing more than defense posturing and factually it is a lie.

We are hoping to get a trial in a reasonable about of time. If we don’t then we will go back and request a bond.”

You are absolutely correct, every citizen in this country has a right to a speedy trial. It is up to the defendant and no one else to exercise that constitutional right.

So if the defense attorney wants to speed things up then there is a simple way he can do it by having his client opt for a speedy trial.

We will see if that really happens. I have my doubts.

But hey, if his client wants to go to trial quickly, then I am all for it.:floorlaugh:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If I was on that GJ, I would want to blab the evidence all over the place

I just think you think you would.

But when you have taken an oath to sworn secrecy, I do think you would take that oath very seriously, and abide by it.

I was a grand juror once. Never told a soul about what was revealed in the cases. Not even to my adorable hubby who I share everything with. He knew not to ask me anything though, and he didn't.

 

[SStarr33]

I just think you think you would.

But when you have taken an oath to sworn secrecy, I do think you would take that oath very seriously, and abide by it.

I was a grand juror once. Never told a soul about what was revealed in the cases. Not even to my adorable hubby who I share everything with. He knew not to ask me anything though, and he didn't.

Yup, I would take it seriously. I keep lots of secrets even without an oath

But I can't wait for everyone to know what happened.

 

[Hatfield]

I find this statement nothing more than defense posturing and factually it is a lie.

We are hoping to get a trial in a reasonable about of time. If we don’t then we will go back and request a bond.”

You are absolutely correct, every citizen in this country has a right to a speedy trial. It is up to the defendant and no one else to exercise that constitutional right.

So if the defense attorney wants to speed things up then there is a simple way he can do it but having his client opt for a speedy trial.

We will see if that really happens. I have my doubts.

But hey, if his client wants to go to trial quickly, then I am all for it.:floorlaugh:

I have seen in lots of cases that the defense waives their right to a speedy trial because the defense itself needs more time to prepare the defense.

When being charged with a very serious crime like murder the defense usually needs lots of time to prepare and so would waive their right to a speedy trial.

The only advantage to not waiving that right is to force prosecuters to prepare their case as rapidly as possible. But if they do that they had better have a good defense already prepared themselves. Since the prosecuters pretty much admitted that their investigation is ongoing it would have been a good tactic for the defense not to waive their right and to get the case to trial as soon as possible.

I think the reason the defense will waive their right is they have defendents that are guilty and they need all the time they can get to try to defend them.

The question I have is when exactly is the prosecution required to turn over all their evidence to the defense? When is the deadline for them to begin turning over documents?

If I remember right in the CA case, the prosecution trickled out their evidence over a long period of time. I am confused about the rules about this.

 

[Oreolover]

BBM--

It has always been my understanding, a grand jury determines whether criminal charges should be brought against a person. A hearing before a grand jury usually comes before charges are filed.

In general the process begins with LE seeking a warrant from either a magistrate (in my state) or a judge (as in SC). If the magistrate or judge finds probable cause, then a warrant is issued (ie charges are filed). The grand jury comes later and determines whether the case continues to trial. Grand juries are used to "bind over" felonies for trial.

 

[Madeleine74]

The question I have is when exactly is the prosecution required to turn over all their evidence to the defense? When is the deadline for them to begin turning over documents?

http://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/southcarolinacriminalruleswithrule106change.pdf

Discovery rules start on page 22

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I have seen in lots of cases that the defense waives their right to a speedy trial because the defense itself needs more time to prepare the defense.

When being charged with a very serious crime like murder the defense usually needs lots of time to prepare and so would waive their right to a speedy trial.

The only advantage to not waiving that right is to force prosecuters to prepare their case as rapidly as possible. But if they do that they had better have a good defense already prepared themselves. Since the prosecuters pretty much admitted that their investigation is ongoing it would have been a good tactic for the defense not to waive their right and to get the case to trial as soon as possible.

I think the reason the defense will waive their right is they have defendents that are guilty and they need all the time they can get to try to defend them.

The question I have is when exactly is the prosecution required to turn over all their evidence to the defense? When is the deadline for them to begin turning over documents?

If I remember right in the CA case, the prosecution trickled out their evidence over a long period of time. I am confused about the rules about this.

You are correct Hatfield. Also many defense attorneys and clients prefer to have the delay rather than opting for a speedy trial for two other reasons. 1. Being housed in jail awaiting trial is far better than being sent to prison in a much more structured environment. 2. They are hoping that the emotions and passions will die down some before a jury is selected.

It is interesting though because usually when a defendant is willing to sit a year or years in jail at the trial they are usually found guilty. Imo, no truly innocent person would ever agree to waste years of their lives sitting in a jail cell when they have the right to a speedy trial.

That convinced me among many other things that CA was guilty, knew it, and never expected to be found NG by the clueless jurors. Imo, that is why she was content to spend years in jail.

I believe it is close to trial time that all discovery must be turned over to the DT. Usually there will be several status hearings and the Judge will see what has been turned over and what is left to be turned over. In my state of Georgia all evidence has to be turned over 30 days before trial begins.

I remember in the NC- Lauren murder trial the DNA results on the weapon he used against ML wasn't turned over to the defense until 17 days before trial began.

The DA usually has a strategy and will turn over his best evidence last.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yup, I would take it seriously. I keep lots of secrets even without an oath

But I can't wait for everyone to know what happened.

Seeee? I knew you would.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Since both are equally guilty under the law (or not) I think the state will present it as such all along, reminding the jurors that both are guilty if they are convinced they were present, in any way involved, etc...jmo

What will be interesting to me to see if the DA decides to try them together or try them separately.

 

[Hatfield]

You are correct Hatfield. Also many defense attorneys and clients prefer to have the delay rather than opting for a speedy trial for two other reasons. 1. Being housed in jail awaiting trial is far better than being sent to prison in a much more structured environment. 2. They are hoping that the emotions and passions will die down some before a jury is selected.

It is interesting though because usually when a defendant is willing to sit a year or years in jail at the trial they are usually found guilty. Imo, no truly innocent person would ever agree to waste years of their lives sitting in a jail cell when they have the right to a speedy trial.

That convinced me among many other things that CA was guilty, knew it, and never expected to be found NG by the clueless jurors. Imo, that is why she was content to spend years in jail.

I believe it is close to trial time that all discovery must be turned over to the DT. Usually there will be several status hearings and the Judge will see what has been turned over and what is left to be turned over. In my state of Georgia all evidence has to be turned over 30 days before trial begins.

I remember in the NC- Lauren murder trial the DNA results on the weapon he used against ML wasn't turned over to the defense until 17 days before trial began.

The DA usually has a strategy and will turn over his best evidence last.

Thanks so much for the reply.

That is in line with what I recall about cases. The prosecuters seem to turn over their evidence right before trial. Which has always floored me. Because how can a defense prepare their strategy at the very end. It seems they would want to tailor their strategy based on what the prosecuters have. I have always felt the defense should be given much more time AFTER they get all the prosecuters evidence.

That part is really strange to me and I have never understood that.

 

[Madeleine74]

Evidence gets turned over continually throughout. Some evidence takes longer than other evidence. Various reports come from all over (LE, interviews, tip lines, lab results, etc.). Think of it like a water stream, albeit perhaps a slower one. We'll often hear about many thousands of pages of discovery in a typical murder case.

 

[Hatfield]

http://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/southcarolinacriminalruleswithrule106change.pdf

Discovery rules start on page 22

A great link to save which I just saved. It is interesting it says 30 days from a formal motion filed for request of disclosure. And it mentions throughout the case so I bet the prosecuters can wait till right before trial by consistently telling the defense it still has not prepared all its discovery. They probably "bend the rules" by always claiming their discovery is not quite ready yet.

(d) Time and Manner of Disclosure.

(1) The State and defense shall disclose all discoverable material either in their possession or available to them within thirty (30) days of the receipt of any motion or request for disclosure.

(2) Any party subject to the disclosure of material under these provisions shall be under a continuing duty to disclose any and all discoverable material that is obtained during the entire course of proceedings associated

 

[Hatfield]

Evidence gets turned over continually throughout. Some evidence takes longer than other evidence. Various reports come from all over (LE, interviews, tip lines, lab results, etc.). Think of it like a water stream, albeit perhaps a slower one. We'll often hear about many thousands of pages of discovery in a typical murder case.

Yes the CA trial was a good example of the trickle of evidence getting turned over. Many different times the defense kept getting more and more from the prosecuters.

That link was great info.

I just saw a case on TV last night where the defense for a lady that was in prison for murder found some evidence in a huge file that the prosecuters had and they couldnt remove any but could request photocopies. They found an inciminating part where the main witness admitted to lying on the stand. So the defense hid that document in the middle of other documents and asked for copies.

The prosecuters missed it and it allowed an appeal based on that 1 document and she got out of prison because of it.

It is very interesting the "games" played between prosecuters and defense attorneys.

ETA---That case about the lady was interesting. IMO she really was guilty but got out of prison because the main witness lied on stand. Cant remember her name. The show was interviewing her and she seemed she was guilty to me.

It showed me that prosecuters need to play by the rules and not try to cheat. They worked with the witness to lie on the stand and it allowed the lady to get out of prison. Sad.

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

This may be a silly question but who is the grand jury made up of? Is this procedure like a closed court where evidence is shown and then a decision is made if it will go to trial?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not a silly question at all! I for one, am so glad you asked because I have learned a whole lot from it! I'm not familiar with the court system in the USA and although some states differ from others, I now at least, have a fair idea how things work.

Thanks to all for the very informative posts! :thumb:

*Just want to add that I've never been called for Jury Duty so it was a real eye opener for me, when reading what actually can and does, go on behind the scenes! It's quite frightening really!* :scared: