Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #8

[oceanblueeyes]

My guess is that this gun is the supposed evidence that SA provided to investigators. It turned out not to have any provable direct link to the case, and that is why they wanted to renege on the immunity deal he had, to try to pressure him into giving something else instead. Only he didn't have anything else because he didn't really know anything - it was just something he offered them to get them to drop other unrelated charges against him.

If that is the case then it might not be all that useful. The prosecutors are probably going to try to introduce it as "possibly" the gun that killed Bobo, but without anything to actually support that. Basically as a prop, just as they apparently want to have Bobo's physical remains on display even though it is not necessary. The purpose of all of that is to create an emotive response in the jury without any actual evidence so they can get a conviction that way rather than through evidence.

I suspect that there will be little or no evidence introduced implicating the accused, outside of any deal they might make with one of the accused to testify against the other two. The prosecution have a lot of investigative reports and associated testimony, but the problem will be that little or none of it is going to directly implicate the accused....hence all of the shady tactics they have been employing leading up to the trial, which otherwise seems counterproductive if they were not clutching at straws. They will be able to show that Bobo was murdered, but the question of who did it might not be so clear.

I believe like in most cases the person giving up the location of the firearm will testify in the trial.

I expect the state experts will also say the firearm found is consistent with the bullet hole found in Holly's skull. TBI may have even gone back to the Adams property and found bullet casings matching this firearm. Criminals like ZA often shoot their firearms on their land, and then leave the casings where they fall.

I don't think anyone expected that forensic evidence would be found on a firearm that had been in the water/muck for 6 years. All the forensic evidence that may have been there at one time would be lost due to the time duration of where it was located. For all we know there may be several witnesses testifying that saw ZA in possession of a gun just like this one or even witnesses he may have told what gun he used and where he tossed it. Or someone may testify about giving or selling ZA a gun just like the one that was not found anywhere in the searches until the tip came in on MD of this year giving up the location.

Many Judges over the years have expressed to jurors just how important circumstantial evidence is. It has stood up in court in countless appeals. It can be just as weighty or more so than direct evidence. Most criminal cases are circumstantial evidence cases. No longer does there have to be a smoking gun for the state to gain a conviction. CE cases are tried, and won every day across our nation, and have been for decades. No one should ever be dismissive of how strong CE cases truly are.

I think there will be a shocking amount of witnesses called to testify that will implicate the suspect in this case. I believe ZA bragged in great detail about what he and the others had done to Holly. Now those he told will come back to haunt him, rightly so.

As far as one of the co-defendants testifying in this case is not unusual and in all of the cases I have seen/read their testimony was believed by the jurors. In the Rabbi Neulander murder case of his wife the two hit men he paid to murder his wife testified for the state. They did get plea deals which Autry hasn't, and received shorter sentences than the main co-conspirator. Iirc, both received 20 years. They were even brought in to testify in their orange jumpsuits but their testimony was riveting and very believable. The Rabbi received LWOP even though one of his son's wanted the death penalty for his father.

Judges do not allow the state to bring in a 'prop' and then call it evidence. If the Judge has ruled the weapon comes in at trial then he is assured there is a relevant link to this gun and to Holly's murder. We will learn all of the particulars about the tip the TBI got about the location of the weapon and it is very likely the one who finally disclosed the location will be a witness in this trial.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Nobody testifies implicating themselves in a crime in the hopes of maybe betting a plea deal. Either they have one or they don't.

It is more likely that if JA testifies he will claim that he was not involved but was aware of what happened in some way. If the prosecution accepts that he is being truthful by using him to testify in ZA's trial, they will have to drop the charges against him. They won't be able to use him, then later charge him with the same crime and claim he was lying when he testified in the first trial, because that would result in any conviction against ZA being overturned on appeal if JA's testimony played a role. The prosecution will have to choose one or the other. So, they may use JA in the trial as a witness even without a plea deal, but they would have to drop the charges against him to do that. He would walk out of court a free man. There would be no LWOP, no nothing.

It is one of the quirks of the legal system that even if you are aware of a crime you are not required to intervene unless you have some sort of statutory obligation (such as a teacher or police officer might have). The only time you would get into trouble would be if you actively tried to help the perp conceal his/her involvement or tried to obstruct the investigation in some way. I suspect that JA is going to make some claim along those lines, say that he was aware of ZA doing this or that, perhaps even personally witnessed it, but chose not to get involved.

Well, JA doesn't have a plea deal. He was given immunity and anything he testifies to cannot be used to convict him. However; he can still be tried for these crimes, because I am positive they already have the evidence they need to convict him, and he knows that very well. That is why he and his lawyer wanted immunity for his testimony showing him being involved as much as the other two. If they had nothing against his personal involvement he would have no incentive to testify against ZA or asking for immunity.

JA was up to his eyeballs in these horrific crimes. He wasn't some innocent bystander just like all the other countless co-defendants weren't who have testified for the state in other cases. He was a full participant along with the other two vile human beings. That is why his testimony is going to be riveting just like it has been in every case I have seen when one of the co-conspirators takes the jury through what happened, step by step when they testified.

If he was just a bystander he wouldn't still be charged with all the crimes the other two are charged with. That has not changed.

They can still prosecute him, but most likely he will plead guilty after the trial for ZA and DA are over with and will be spared the death penalty for testifying. If he agrees to plead guilty I believe he will be given LWOP. I have no doubt the ADA has clearly told him, and his attorney if he does not testify truthfully they already have the evidence to convict him, and will do so if he is not forthcoming about what all he did, and what the others did.

Every co-conspirator I have seen testify didn't try to sugarcoat anything concerning their own involvement, and I don't believe JA will do so either. The jury will be told that JA has been granted immunity in order to testify in this trial. They will know that before he starts. I think most in our society now are very aware that in order to get justice for the victim/s the state has to sometimes make deals with the devil.

This is why my heartbreaks for Holly's family. He is going to tell the jury all of what happened in great detail including what he did, but I am sure they would rather know the truth even with all of its brutality rather than not know what happened to their beautiful daughter/sister.

IMO

 

[Mightymight]

My guess is that this gun is the supposed evidence that SA provided to investigators. It turned out not to have any provable direct link to the case, and that is why they wanted to renege on the immunity deal he had, to try to pressure him into giving something else instead. Only he didn't have anything else because he didn't really know anything - it was just something he offered them to get them to drop other unrelated charges against him.

---snip---

The factual timeline does not support this claim. SA has been dead since February 2015. The gun was discovered over the Memorial Day weekend 2017 (May 26-29). SA could not have provided this information to investigators in 2015 and they decided it did not have any provable direct link to the case because it was not discovered for >2 years after his suicide.

 

[Indy Anna]

As I posted earlier JA HAS NOT been given a plea deal.

Jason Autry, 3 Others Given Immunity In Bobo Murder Trial
News of the agreement came days after Zach Adams' trial was delayed Thursday until September after the state introduced new evidence in the case.

The agreement will protect Autry by keeping his testimony from being used against him. Autry could still be prosecuted for his alleged role in Holly's death, but not for anything he may testify about against Zach Adams.

He has been given immunity...........for his testimony in this case, and not a plea deal.

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/jason-autry-3-others-given-immunity-in-bobo-murder-trial

My apologies. I was the one who initially referred to it as a plea deal. I knew they said he would have immunity to testify, but was confused because the charges against him weren't dropped and assumed he would automatically get LWOP. But, your posts explain the difference well, especially your last post. Thank you OBE for all of your informative and well-thought-out posts!

Yes, if JA were innocent or felt the prosecution had insufficient evidence, there would be no reason for him to accept an immunity deal in which he would testify to having first-hand knowledge of Holly's abduction and murder. IMO

 

[everybodhi]

Thanks for all the links! I have a lot of catching up to do, it's been so long, I don't even remember who any of these people are anymore, just a vague familiarity of the names. Except Autry, I mean.

Autry is one of four people who have received immunity agreements, including Victor Dinsmore, Michael Alexander, and Jason Kilzer.

ZA put some meat on his bones, I guess he's not getting much meth in prison.
He still looks like the boogie man, though.

 

[Steleheart]

Well, JA doesn't have a plea deal. He was given immunity and anything he testifies to cannot be used to convict him. However; he can still be tried for these crimes, because I am positive they already have the evidence they need to convict him, and he knows that very well. That is why he and his lawyer wanted immunity for his testimony showing him being involved as much as the other two. If they had nothing against his personal involvement he would have no incentive to testify against ZA or asking for immunity.

JA was up to his eyeballs in these horrific crimes. He wasn't some innocent bystander just like all the other countless co-defendants weren't who have testified for the state in other cases. He was a full participant along with the other two vile human beings. That is why his testimony is going to be riveting just like it has been in every case I have seen when one of the co-conspirators takes the jury through what happened, step by step when they testified.

If he was just a bystander he wouldn't still be charged with all the crimes the other two are charged with. That has not changed.

They can still prosecute him, but most likely he will plead guilty after the trial for ZA and DA are over with and will be spared the death penalty for testifying. If he agrees to plead guilty I believe he will be given LWOP. I have no doubt the ADA has clearly told him, and his attorney if he does not testify truthfully they already have the evidence to convict him, and will do so if he is not forthcoming about what all he did, and what the others did.

Every co-conspirator I have seen testify didn't try to sugarcoat anything concerning their own involvement, and I don't believe JA will do so either. The jury will be told that JA has been granted immunity in order to testify in this trial. They will know that before he starts. I think most in our society now are very aware that in order to get justice for the victim/s the state has to sometimes make deals with the devil.

This is why my heartbreaks for Holly's family. He is going to tell the jury all of what happened in great detail including what he did, but I am sure they would rather know the truth even with all of its brutality rather than not know what happened to their beautiful daughter/sister.

IMO

BBM;
Does this mean he could still get the DP? That would be a difficult case if so. What would be a defendant's incentive for an immunity agreement if the DP is still oin the table.

Forgive me - there are some things I do not know - I just don't know what they are. :biggrin:

 

[pearl]

I'm pretty sure that he is planning to testify against ZA to get the death penalty off the table for himself.

 

[terpstra1]

I'm pretty sure that he is planning to testify against ZA to get the death penalty off the table for himself.

Those were my thoughts too.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Tugela]

As I posted earlier JA HAS NOT been given a plea deal.

Jason Autry, 3 Others Given Immunity In Bobo Murder Trial

News of the agreement came days after Zach Adams' trial was delayed Thursday until September after the state introduced new evidence in the case.

The agreement will protect Autry by keeping his testimony from being used against him. Autry could still be prosecuted for his alleged role in Holly's death, but not for anything he may testify about against Zach Adams.

He has been given immunity...........for his testimony in this case, and not a plea deal.

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/jason-autry-3-others-given-immunity-in-bobo-murder-trial

If he has been granted immunity then he is not going to be charged with anything. Immunity stems not just from what is said in trial, it includes everything disclosed to investigators and/or the DA as well. Usually in that sort of arrangement the person making the agreement makes full disclosure, and nothing in that disclosure can be used against them, even if it is not used in trial. The only way he could be charged then is if he does not make full disclosure, or makes provably false statements.

That was the problem with SA. He had such an agreement, along with immunity on other charges, but whatever he provided did not meet the prosecutions expectations, which is why they were threatening to renege on the deal.

 

[Tugela]

Well, JA doesn't have a plea deal. He was given immunity and anything he testifies to cannot be used to convict him. However; he can still be tried for these crimes, because I am positive they already have the evidence they need to convict him, and he knows that very well. That is why he and his lawyer wanted immunity for his testimony showing him being involved as much as the other two. If they had nothing against his personal involvement he would have no incentive to testify against ZA or asking for immunity.

JA was up to his eyeballs in these horrific crimes. He wasn't some innocent bystander just like all the other countless co-defendants weren't who have testified for the state in other cases. He was a full participant along with the other two vile human beings. That is why his testimony is going to be riveting just like it has been in every case I have seen when one of the co-conspirators takes the jury through what happened, step by step when they testified.

If he was just a bystander he wouldn't still be charged with all the crimes the other two are charged with. That has not changed.

They can still prosecute him, but most likely he will plead guilty after the trial for ZA and DA are over with and will be spared the death penalty for testifying. If he agrees to plead guilty I believe he will be given LWOP. I have no doubt the ADA has clearly told him, and his attorney if he does not testify truthfully they already have the evidence to convict him, and will do so if he is not forthcoming about what all he did, and what the others did.

Every co-conspirator I have seen testify didn't try to sugarcoat anything concerning their own involvement, and I don't believe JA will do so either. The jury will be told that JA has been granted immunity in order to testify in this trial. They will know that before he starts. I think most in our society now are very aware that in order to get justice for the victim/s the state has to sometimes make deals with the devil.

This is why my heartbreaks for Holly's family. He is going to tell the jury all of what happened in great detail including what he did, but I am sure they would rather know the truth even with all of its brutality rather than not know what happened to their beautiful daughter/sister.

IMO

No, if he has been given immunity he will make full disclosure and they will not be able to prosecute him for anything. He will walk free after the trial.

If he was directly involved and was given immunity it means that the prosecution believes that they would not otherwise get a conviction based on the evidence they have.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

No, if he has been given immunity he will make full disclosure and they will not be able to prosecute him for anything. He will walk free after the trial.

If he was directly involved and was given immunity it means that the prosecution believes that they would not otherwise get a conviction based on the evidence they have.

Respectfully, I believe your are incorrect. Perhaps it would behoove you to read the articles where the media has seen the actual documents concerning JAs federal immunity and what the state said about the federal immunity agreement which is the opposite of what you believe. The ADA trying this case has made no such deal with JA. No plea deal nor any immunity agreement.

Even his attorney knows he will NOT walk free. All they can hope for is reduced time or the death penalty taken off the table. They will never let one of the main co-conspirators of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Holly walk out the door free as a bird. That is just absurd and illogical thinking imo. I really don't understand why you keep insisting JA was just a bystander when there is absolutely nothing factual to support that repeated assumption.

The state has clearly stated JA is as guilty of these crimes as the other two who have the same charges against them like JA still has. He is not charged with after the fact crimes or simply being there or being a bystander. They have made it totally clear he is as involved as the other two.

Here are the actual facts listed below about him being granted federal immunity. It is the feds who have agreed to give him immunity to what he testifies to in the state case, and not the ADA who is trying the state case. I don't know how much clearer it can be, and why its so hard to understand.

Would you please cite a case where one of the main conspirators in any kidnapping, rape, and murder case walked away scott free even if they testified in a trial? TIA

FACTS:

The names were listed in notices of immunity filed in Hardin County in June which FOX13 reviewed Thursday.

Autry is Adams’ accomplice according to investigators. They’re two of three men charged with murder for their suspected roles in Bobo’s death. Zachary Adams’ brother, Dylan Adams, is the third suspect.

According to court records, Autry was given Federal immunity. His attorney also arranged an agreement with prosecutors where Autry’s charges may be reduced after he testifies against Adams. (This is exactly what I posted that would take place.)

“The state does not have an immunity agreement with Mr. Autry,” Prosecutor Jennifer Nichols wrote in the Notice of Immunity.

“The state and counsel for Mr. Autry agreed to discuss reduced charges against Mr. Autry after the trial against [Adams] and Mr. Autry’s truthful testimony.”

http://www.fox13memphis.com/top-sto...immunity-in-holly-bobo-murder-trial/551901195

Evidently the Feds are planning on charging him with crimes as well or he has federal charges already pending. The feds have brought charges against suspects before who have been convicted in the state court system. As one example, it happened in Joseph Duncan's case after he was found guilty in Idaho of murdering three family members in the Greone family and then he was tried by the Feds for kidnapping, raping, torturing, and murdering Dylan Groene who was 11 years old at the time. He was convicted on all federal charges and on the state charges as well.

They do not charge them with murder but do charge them with violating the civil rights of the victim/s they murdered, and can bring charges for firearm violations concerning the same cases or other federal violations. So JA has both the feds and the state breathing down his neck at the same time. JA knows he is in deep-s--- and that is the reason he is willing to testify without even having an immunity agreement from the ADA in this case.

As I have said, three times now or more, JA does not have a plea deal concerning the state trial, nor has he been granted any immunity deal by the state ADA in this case either.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

There's a lot of semantics and hair-splitting here going on about JA's deal. I think the bottom line is being missed (or misconstrued) a bit as a result.

First of all, as has already been mentioned, state and federal are two different jurisdictions. And this trial is over violations of state law.

The things being said in the reports do NOT indicate that JA will end up with "immunity" regarding the state charges, if he testifies. To be clear, "immunity" would mean he would be walking free, and absolved of his actions. He is not being offered any such thing by the state.

But at the same time, neither is the state saying, "Let's see you testify, and then we will decide what we will offer if anything." There would indeed already be a negotiated (aka a "plea") deal in place with the state.

As with virtually every such deal that involves testifying, it would be a conditional deal - but those conditions are going to be fairly standard and mundane. Since what he is offering is testimony, he has to (a) testify, and (b) testify truthfully. In addition, he will have already submitted a "proffer," which is more or less a statement of what he knows and will be willing to testify about, in exchange for the negotiated deal, and the terms of the proffer will be that, NO MATTER WHAT, they can't use his testimony against him. His testimony can certainly extend farther than anticipated, but if it doesn't align with the proffer, then the "truthfulness" on the stand can become a question.

And the state will have already specified what he gets for his testimony, assuming it is given and is truthful.

As is often done, the state is also playing a bit of a semantics game of their own here. Since the conditions have not yet been completed, they do not yet have to disclose that a deal is being given. (But it is easy to recognize one will happen, and will almost certainly come out in testimony anyhow.)

As far as the immunity that is indeed being provided by the feds, my educated guess is that it has to do with something specific that violates federal law, within the proffer and proposed testimony. It is likely an admission to something previously unknown that violates federal law, because these charges he's facing aren't federal. I'd wager it has to do with drugs or guns, although such a tie-in could also lead to fed charges in other areas so that JA simply needs to make sure resulting fed charges of any kind don't happen. And in the immunity he is getting an assurance that, regardless of the outcome here, he won't have to worry that his self-incrimination on those other items - or things that might flow from them - can ever blow back on him. This too is kinda standard procedure.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM;
Does this mean he could still get the DP? That would be a difficult case if so. What would be a defendant's incentive for an immunity agreement if the DP is still oin the table.

Forgive me - there are some things I do not know - I just don't know what they are. :biggrin:

Hi there, Steleheart!

The only way the federal immunity agreement may help him is with a federal case they evidently are bringing against JA. It is the Feds who have agreed to give him immunity, and whatever case they are going to charge him with or have already charged him with they have agreed they will not use his testimony he gives in the state murder case as evidence against him.

I even wonder if this is how the location of the gun came about. If JA was the one who had this weapon, and if it was a stolen firearm then it seems like he would ask for federal immunity before disclosing its whereabouts. He would be charged by the feds for having an illegally obtained weapon but doesn't he already have felonies on his record? That also could get him sentenced to more time by the Feds. Also this same firearm may be connected to other crimes that could involve JA. There is just so much we dont know that is happening behind the scene and the feds are always mum and do not publicly announce their intentions. He sure seems to be fearful of the Feds though.

I honestly really don't know. The federal charges could be much more serious than that but something sure is up when it comes to the Feds and JA. He seems to be very worried about the charges the Feds may plan to bring against him or they have already told him and his lawyer what he is going to be charged with as soon as the state case is over with.

The problem he has though is very rarely does the Feds need the testimony of a defendant to have the evidence needed to get a conviction anyway. He is on a very slippery slope having two different law enforcement agencies against him when they can individually bring charges against him.

As far as the ADA agreeing to sit down with his attorney after the trial is over and possibly consider reducing charges I think the death penalty will be taken off of the table if as the ADA says, he testifies truthfully. By now they know everything he said he would testify to and they are expecting him to do so. So even though she has refused to give him any plea deal or state immunity the best he can hope for if he testifies to everything that happened she will take the DP off the table. I have a feeling though even if she does agree it is far from over for JA. I doubt he will ever see the light of day again whether he is in a state prison or a federal prison.

JMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This part of the above linked article is also very interesting. We had discussed previously whether SAs statements to the TBI would come in or not.

Austin, who was also granted immunity, was a person of interest in the case before he committed suicide in 2015.

During a court hearing in February, Nichols said Austin provided written testimony about Adams to the TBI before he killed himself.

“Do you recall Shayne Austin writing in his own hand writing that Zach said ‘I put her by the "T" in the river,’” Nichols read from a document in court in February, quoting Austin’s testimony about Zach.

“They’ll never find her there,” she continued, reading from the testimony.

The testimony is expected to be presented as evidence when Adams’ trial begins in September.

 

[SteveS]

As far as the ADA agreeing to sit down with his attorney after the trial is over and possibly consider reducing charges ...

Respectfully, "we'll think about it later" is NOT how the "plea process for testimony against co-perp" regularly works, so I can't imagine JA has decided to be the guinea pig to be an exception to the norm and the protections provided there. The content of the testimony itself will have been discussed, and the terms of such a deal will be negotiated in advance, well before the testimony.

The idea that there's any wait-and-see on what he's getting, or whether he'll get it (except for the broad parameters of having to testify to what he has proffered, and having it prove to be truthful testimony), just doesn't make any sense, because it leaves his neck in a noose along with extra info to hang him. It simply isn't what they do. Rest assured that if he's testifying for the state, then there's a deal that has already been made, whether we know what it is or not.

 

[jggordo]

I noticed that JA's supervision status is listed as "pending" and nothing in the areas of location, sentence begin or end. Nothing in the areas of probation or parole dates as well. Looks like to me he's just in limbo.

JMO

https://apps.tn.gov/foil-app/results.jsp

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Respectfully, "we'll think about it later" is NOT how the "plea process for testimony against co-perp" regularly works, so I can't imagine JA has decided to be the guinea pig to be an exception to the norm and the protections provided there. The content of the testimony itself will have been discussed, and the terms of such a deal will be negotiated in advance, well before the testimony.

The idea that there's any wait-and-see on what he's getting, or whether he'll get it (except for the broad parameters of having to testify to what he has proffered, and having it prove to be truthful testimony), just doesn't make any sense, because it leaves his neck in a noose along with extra info to hang him. It simply isn't what they do. Rest assured that if he's testifying for the state, then there's a deal that has already been made, whether we know what it is or not.

I can only go by what the Prosecutor in this case has entered into the court record. I have no reason nor any evidence to believe she is lying. I have never seen any DA deny a plea or immunity deal, and they are the first one to tell the jury that a plea deal or immunity was given to a certain witness in exchange for their testimony. I don't see any reason why she would deny it if it had been already officially settled. If official she has to be the first one to advise the jurors of that fact before the defense. Plea deals and immunity agreements happen often in many criminal cases so I don't even see why she would deny even if it was true. She isn't denying giving immunity to other witnesses is she?

“The state does not have an immunity agreement with Mr. Autry,”
Prosecutor Jennifer Nichols wrote in the Notice of Immunity.

I imagine she will inform the jury before his testimony begins by asking JA if he has been given a plea deal or immunity from the state for his testimony. That is pretty much SOP when a defendant without a plea deal or state immunity testifies.

I think it is just as she stated. She has agreed to discuss a reduction in charges once he has testified in ZAs trial. I do believe in the end a plea deal will be given, but may only entail removing the DP if he pleads guilty. I do not have any reason at this time to believe the ADA has signed an official document agreement. I don't think she would enter the opposite position into the court records if that was truly the case.

This isn't that uncommon. I have seen other defendants who testified tell the jurors they did not have a plea deal or an immunity agreement to testify but were told if they testified truthfully the DA or ADA would possibly consider reducing time or would consider lesser charges or would possibly take the death penalty off the table if it was that kind of case.

I believe the ADA will stress to the jury that JA does not have any written binding agreement with the state in exchange for his testimony. It will actually add to his credibility, imo. I doubt the jury will be told he has been given federal immunity, since it isn't really relevant to the state case. If there is actually an official signed agreement ZAs attorney will make that known very quickly to the jury.

So we will see.

 

[SteveS]

OBE, The law and lawyers are precise in their terminology, especially in pre-trial issues. You yourself note the distinction between an "immunity" agreement and a plea deal.

Everything you have mentioned has all been about "immunity" agreements and whether those exist. You've mentioned reports that say the feds have given immunity, and the state has not, and I wouldn't argue that at all. I believe they mean exactly what they say. And only what they say.

But none of that speaks to the existence of a plea deal, because a plea is a negotiated sentence, not immunity from charges and prosecution. So whether or not someone has been given "immunity" doesn't address the issue at all of whether a deal of some sort has been negotiated. I think you'll eventually come to see that there's at least one in this case, because from past experience, I can't believe JA would be telling what he knows without a deal already hammered out and in writing. It's a deal-making system and I'm sure he's well aware.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

OBE, The law and lawyers are precise in their terminology, especially in pre-trial issues. You yourself note the distinction between an "immunity" agreement and a plea deal.

Everything you have mentioned has all been about "immunity" agreements and whether those exist. You've mentioned reports that say the feds have given immunity, and the state has not, and I wouldn't argue that at all. I believe they mean exactly what they say. And only what they say.

But none of that speaks to the existence of a plea deal, because a plea is a negotiated sentence, not immunity from charges and prosecution. So whether or not someone has been given "immunity" doesn't address the issue at all of whether a deal of some sort has been negotiated. I think you'll eventually come to see that there's at least one in this case, because from past experience, I can't believe JA would be telling what he knows without a deal already hammered out and in writing. It's a deal-making system and I'm sure he's well aware.

Okay. So you think she purposefully lied to the court when she said this?

“The state and counsel for Mr. Autry agreed to discuss reduced charges against Mr. Autry after the trial against [Adams] and Mr. Autry’s truthful testimony.”

If the plea deal is already in place, signed, and in writing then why would she say on the record the only thing she has agreed to is to 'discuss' possibly reducing charges after JA testifies? I don't understand why she wouldn't state they have already agreed to a plea deal in exchange for JAs testimony? Some type of plea deal for a co-defendant is usually given if they testify for the prosecution, and stated upfront to the jury before they testify. So having a plea deal is really no biggie and often done.

I think it would be silly to put on the record that she has only agreed to discuss the matter after the trial is over with with her already knowing the plea is a done deal. Her own words imply she has not even discussed any possible reduced charges with JAs attorney. If it was a done deal signed plea then why put this on the record implying she hasn't even discussed reducing charges at the present time? That would certainly be discussed for a plea deal to have happened.

If a legal documented plea deal has already been rendered then ZAs attorney is probably aware of it and will bring it to the forefront in the trial. I just cant see a reason why she said she has only agreed to discuss the issue after the trial has been held. Its not like plea deals have to be hidden. They are very common when there is more than one perpetrator and one rolls over on the others.

I have seen several cases over the years where a co-defendant got a plea deal. In the case I mentioned earlier, both hit men were given plea deals to testify against the mastermind. Them having plea deals didn't faze the jurors when they were told about them by the prosecutor, and instead found both hit men credible convicting the Rabbi of Murder 1.

So the part I question is what she said in the court documents when it implies she only plans to discuss this with JA and his attorney after he testifies. Why not be upfront now about the written plea deal since its given in cases like this especially those which involved more than one defendant? Why deny it and state she will only discuss it after the trial? She knows if its already done that will come out in court.

I do agree totally about JA being given a plea deal after the trial is over. I am positive he will if he testifies truthfully. However; I have seen one or two defendants who did testify and told the jury they had no binding agreement with the state for doing so.

If there is already a signed plea deal in place we will know it shortly after the trial begins, imo.

 

[lonetraveler]

What is the new court start date now?