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

[lonetraveler]

Good morning everyone!

The Judge doesn't have a clue how long it will take to get the qualifying jurors in this case. It could take a month or even longer. I imagine many when questioned will say they have already formed an firm opinion about the case or they have hardship reasons for not serving.

It takes much longer to get a sequestered jury since they will be away from home all during the time the trial is being held including the sentencing phase if Adams is convicted. A lot of people just cant be gone from their family/work or business for that long.

The selected jurors are not required to know nothing about any case. If selected then they have convinced the attorneys and the presiding Judge that they have the ability to set all aside what they have heard outside of the courtroom, and only consider the evidence entered from the witness stand to come to their determination. Someone would have to live in a cave to not know about this case.

Being I have been a juror five times on criminal cases, I have found jurors do take their oath very seriously, and will and do abide by all of the rules the Judge sets forth. Once someone is a selected juror IMO it changes everything, and most all jurors want to honor their oath, and strictly abide by the rules.

When I served on a high profile death penalty case I never did anything I wasn't allowed to do even though I knew the case was being covered on our local news on a daily basis. I knew my responsibilities to be true to my oath was very serious and not something I take lightly. Not once would I have ever gone against what I had sworn I would do. Usually a person's word means everything to them, and they make sure they are true to their promise they have made as a juror.

IMO

Hi friend. I too have served on death penalty jury, not sequestered though. It was very difficult avoiding media, TV and "helpful" people wanting to offer their opinion. I took my oath very seriously too. I hope the jury has plenty of alternates, this trial may need them.
During jury selection I responded that I knew about the case and earlier trial. I was chosen anyway. I was told after the trial that I was chosen for my honesty and determination to listen to evidence and to go in with no predetermined opinion.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

"Isn't that kinda risky choosing a jury now and having them wait until July for the trial?" and "How can they sequester a jury in April until the trial in July?"

As I understand it, they won't. From what I understand from afar (I may be wrong, but I don't think I am) is that jury selection is being done in 2 steps
1 in April, narrow down a massive pool of prospects into a narrower group of about 50 who will then show up at trial time and from whom the jury will be selected. They will need to be people who can generally be available for the extended time of a trial in the summer, one in which jurors are going to be taken away from their lives. I expect at this time they'll also weed out the major bias re the defendant or attorneys (can you be fair? no ...okay you can go) and the death penalty bias (can you administer the law including the death penalty, if the facts warrant? no ...okay you can go). I don't think they will sequester all 50 at that point due to the expense and inconvenience and toll it would take on lives. But the 50 will be told to go home, not form any opinions, and come back right before trial.
2 The 50 will come back at beginning of trial process itself, more specific voir dire will be done, and a jury with alternates will be seated and sequestered from there.

"anyone know "how" SA died?"

He went to FLA, may have even relocated kinda permanently to get away from the notoriety of having said he had knowledge about the case in some way. Was in a hotel room and killed himself. Investigated and no sign of foul play, no sign of involvement by defendants or anyone else other than SA himself. His attorney may have more inside info on the motivation, but afaik it has not been made public other than to say it was truly a suicide.

 

[tinytena]

Since SA's not on trial, and won't testify, not sure why they'd mention him in the trial. There's no evidence we know of that says he had any role whatsoever in this crime.

SA's statement seeking "immunity" said explicitly he had NOTHING to do with the crime, with his attempt at immunity mostly being about unrelated drug charges, plus covering the knowledge of what he shared. His assertions about HB included, and may have been limited to (1) a claim that he was TOLD by the perps that they were holding HB and he could come have a turn at raping her, and (2) a claim that he knew where they disposed of her body. But from what we have seen and from inferences drawn, it appears he never did ANYTHING related to HB before her death, never acted on their offer, and his location was wrong (which made them decide he had just made it all up).

None of what he said can be used anyhow, I wouldn't think, since he's not available to testify and be cross-examined on that testimony. But LE has already declared him to be a liar, specifically in relation to what he told them, so the deposition is worthless on that basis too.

along the SA lawyer thing, is it possible that ZA's lawyer wants SA's lawyer to join the defense team so they then could be questioned on the stand(does this remove the client confidentiality). SA's lawyers testimony might be addmisable and help the defense in this situation.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

"Isn't that kinda risky choosing a jury now and having them wait until July for the trial?" and "How can they sequester a jury in April until the trial in July?"

As I understand it, they won't. From what I understand from afar (I may be wrong, but I don't think I am) is that jury selection is being done in 2 steps
1 in April, narrow down a massive pool of prospects into a narrower group of about 50 who will then show up at trial time and from whom the jury will be selected. They will need to be people who can generally be available for the extended time of a trial in the summer, one in which jurors are going to be taken away from their lives. I expect at this time they'll also weed out the major bias re the defendant or attorneys (can you be fair? no ...okay you can go) and the death penalty bias (can you administer the law including the death penalty, if the facts warrant? no ...okay you can go). I don't think they will sequester all 50 at that point due to the expense and inconvenience and toll it would take on lives. But the 50 will be told to go home, not form any opinions, and come back right before trial.
2 The 50 will come back at beginning of trial process itself, more specific voir dire will be done, and a jury with alternates will be seated and sequestered from there.

"anyone know "how" SA died?"

He went to FLA, may have even relocated kinda permanently to get away from the notoriety of having said he had knowledge about the case in some way. Was in a hotel room and killed himself. Investigated and no sign of foul play, no sign of involvement by defendants or anyone else other than SA himself. His attorney may have more inside info on the motivation, but afaik it has not been made public other than to say it was truly a suicide.

That is the way I also interpret it too.

I have never seen a jury be sequestered before the actual trial has begun even if they are selected a couple of months before trial. I am of the understanding once the 12 jurors and alternates have been selected they will be sequestered during the trial which will include two phases if ZA is found guilty of course.

As far as avoiding the media about the case there really hasn't been that much divulged concerning the actual evidence the state/TBI has... which is common. Its the same way in my home state of Georgia when the GBI is involved. Very little is known about the particulars of any case until it goes to trial.

The potential jury pool may already know that JA plans to testify in Adams' case but even knowing that will not affect the trial since no one knows exactly what he is going to testify about.

I agree, it is probably going to take quite awhile to get down to those who are actually chosen to be jurors and alternates in this case. I think many will be excused for either hardship reasons or honestly telling the court they have already formed a firm opinion about his guilt. I think finding a death qualified jury in TN wont be all that hard to do but we will see. Those three reasons are usually the most paramount in cases such as this one when selecting a jury. 1. Hardships. 2. Predisposed biases. 3.Against the death penalty.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

along the SA lawyer thing, is it possible that ZA's lawyer wants SA's lawyer to join the defense team so they then could be questioned on the stand(does this remove the client confidentiality). SA's lawyers testimony might be addmisable and help the defense in this situation.

Did the presiding Judge ever grant that request? I haven't seen any article where her request was granted, but I could have overlooked it.

imo

 

[jggordo]

That is the way I also interpret it too.

I have never seen a jury be sequestered before the actual trial has begun even if they are selected a couple of months before trial. I am of the understanding once the 12 jurors and alternates have been selected they will be sequestered during the trial which will include two phases if ZA is found guilty of course.

As far as avoiding the media about the case there really hasn't been that much divulged concerning the actual evidence the state/TBI has... which is common. Its the same way in my home state of Georgia when the GBI is involved. Very little is known about the particulars of any case until it goes to trial.

The potential jury pool may already know that JA plans to testify in Adams' case but even knowing that will not affect the trial since no one knows exactly what he is going to testify about.

I agree, it is probably going to take quite awhile to get down to those who are actually chosen to be jurors and alternates in this case. I think many will be excused for either hardship reasons or honestly telling the court they have already formed a firm opinion about his guilt. I think finding a death qualified jury in TN wont be all that hard to do but we will see. Those three reasons are usually the most paramount in cases such as this one when selecting a jury. 1. Hardships. 2. Predisposed biases. 3.Against the death penalty.

IMO

It is my understanding that this time is only to narrow down the pool to around 50 jurors. Then in July the actual Jury will be selected then THOSE jurors once selected will be sequestered.

JMO

 

[Tuffgong]

I am shocked that the prosecution did not turn any of the accused. You would think "let's make a deal" was offered, apparently nobody took it. Not a good sign for the prosecution. It will be a tough prosecution, but the jury will want to hold someone responsible, so they really probably get the conviction and droves of people will question it for years.

 

[SouthernCutie]

I am shocked that the prosecution did not turn any of the accused. You would think "let's make a deal" was offered, apparently nobody took it. Not a good sign for the prosecution. It will be a tough prosecution, but the jury will want to hold someone responsible, so they really probably get the conviction and droves of people will question it for years.

I'll have to dig up the article but one of the players was offered a plea and his trial was canceled leading the some to believe he did take a deal

Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk

 

[Steleheart]

I'll have to dig up the article but one of the players was offered a plea and his trial was canceled leading the some to believe he did take a deal

Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk

AM I lost again? I thought it was pretty clear that Jason Autry took a plea deal and confessed.

"News 2 also learned Jason Autry, who faces the same charges, will probably not go to trial.
During court Wednesday, the judge didn’t elaborate on why. However, News 2 obtained a new motion filed by Zach Adams’ attorney that lays out the details.
According to the filing, Autry confessed on Jan. 20 this year to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo. Autry reportedly gave a statement to the state of Tennessee detailing his involvement.
As Zach Adams’ attorney points out, the confession came after years of Autry claiming to be innocent."

http://wkrn.com/2017/03/01/holly-bobo-trial-now-to-begin-in-july/

 

[Tugela]

AM I lost again? I thought it was pretty clear that Jason Autry took a plea deal and confessed.

"News 2 also learned Jason Autry, who faces the same charges, will probably not go to trial.
During court Wednesday, the judge didn’t elaborate on why. However, News 2 obtained a new motion filed by Zach Adams’ attorney that lays out the details.
According to the filing, Autry confessed on Jan. 20 this year to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo. Autry reportedly gave a statement to the state of Tennessee detailing his involvement.
As Zach Adams’ attorney points out, the confession came after years of Autry claiming to be innocent."

http://wkrn.com/2017/03/01/holly-bobo-trial-now-to-begin-in-july/

It is not clear what exactly he was confessing to though. I doubt he was claiming direct involvement, more likely some peripheral involvement that gave him knowledge of the facts, such as accessory after the fact.

 

[Tugela]

You keep missing the point that the defense would never want the jury to hear that "alternate version" that SA told the state. Paraphrased, SA told the state that: "The defendants TOLD me...
(1) they had kidnapped Holly,
(2) they had her as a prisoner and were using her as a rape object and inviting others to participate, and
(3) later they killed her and dumped the body in the woods by a river."

There's no reasonable doubt created by that story. It's a second story that points to their full and complete guilt of every crime they are charged with.

Except that investigators apparently had reason to question that account to the point they were threatening to revoke the immunity agreement and possibly charge SA himself. Which means that they believed that he was more involved that he claimed. The defence could claim, while presenting an alternative scenario where their clients were not involved, that SA was the guilty one. They don't need to prove it, they just have to establish reasonable doubt to get their clients acquitted, and present a reasonable alternative scenario would do that. Under those circumstances the statements made by SA would be admissible. The fact that he is dead and can't be cross examined is irrelevant, because the bar that the defence has to meet is NOT the same as the bar the prosecution has to meet. The state is not being accused of the crime, so they do not have the right to cross examine a witness. Only the accused has that right.

It is not about the defence proving this or that, as the state has to do. They do not have the burden of proof like the state has. All they have to do is present a plausible alternative to establish reasonable doubt, and whatever SA told LE most certainly can be used for that purpose.

 

[Mightymight]

It is not clear what exactly he was confessing to though. I doubt he was claiming direct involvement, more likely some peripheral involvement that gave him knowledge of the facts, such as accessory after the fact.

It is very clear what he was confessing to. Per the motion filed by Zach Adams attorney, he confessed on January 20th to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo.

http://wkrn.com/2017/03/01/holly-bobo-trial-now-to-begin-in-july/

 

[Mightymight]

Except that investigators apparently had reason to question that account to the point they were threatening to revoke the immunity agreement and possibly charge SA himself. Which means that they believed that he was more involved that he claimed. The defence could claim, while presenting an alternative scenario where their clients were not involved, that SA was the guilty one. They don't need to prove it, they just have to establish reasonable doubt to get their clients acquitted, and present a reasonable alternative scenario would do that. Under those circumstances the statements made by SA would be admissible. The fact that he is dead and can't be cross examined is irrelevant, because the bar that the defence has to meet is NOT the same as the bar the prosecution has to meet. The state is not being accused of the crime, so they do not have the right to cross examine a witness. Only the accused has that right.

It is not about the defence proving this or that, as the state has to do. They do not have the burden of proof like the state has. All they have to do is present a plausible alternative to establish reasonable doubt, and whatever SA told LE most certainly can be used for that purpose.

You are still getting "burden of proof" and "hearsay" mixed up. You are correct that the state has the burden of proof and the defense does not. However, they still have to play by the same hearsay rules.

Anyway, if we forget that this is hearsay and the defense gets it in, why in the world would the defense want to enter SA's statements that incriminate the defendants? I just don't get that. It might establish a plausible alternative to what the state will present, but it will still incriminate the defendants. It's like the defense saying "the state is wrong, they killed her a different way." It just not a logical strategy.

 

[SteveS]

The state is not being accused of the crime, so they do not have the right to cross examine a witness. Only the accused has that right.

What??????

Um, no.

You really need to attend a trial, where you'll quickly see how wrong that idea is.

 

[Dogface]

Hey y'all, I'm sorry, life has been crazy! My grandmother just got diagnosed with liver cancer and then my husbands brother passed away, so I haven't been here much, could anyone catch me up? This case brought me to websleuths and I am hoping we get to see justice for Holly soon!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[terpstra1]

It is not clear what exactly he was confessing to though. I doubt he was claiming direct involvement, more likely some peripheral involvement that gave him knowledge of the facts, such as accessory after the fact.

Nope, no way. I think he told all. He thought long and hard and chose lwop over a potential ds. Otherwise they wouldn't have made a deal. But time will tell. He'll be testifying at the trial.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[goldiegirl]

Is the trial open to the public?

 

[Mindmatters]

Is the trial open to the public?

Trials are always "open" to the public, the real question is whether it will be televised versus trial by tweet.

 

[Hatfield]

Hey y'all, I'm sorry, life has been crazy! My grandmother just got diagnosed with liver cancer and then my husbands brother passed away, so I haven't been here much, could anyone catch me up? This case brought me to websleuths and I am hoping we get to see justice for Holly soon!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry to hear life has been tossing curve balls your way.

I too have been trying to catch up and I just read back just a few pages and it helps to get some of the latest news.

In a nutshell from what I can tell is initial jury pool selection of about 50 people have begun so that when it gets closer to the trial the final pick of the jury can be made from those 50 people.

When it gets closer to starting I do hope they pick plenty of alternates. I think a few are going to be excused for various reasons. I think they need about 8 alternates. LOL

I never have understood why they risk only a few alternates in large expensive trials. Why not 10 or 15 alternates be ready. The cost is so large it is worth inconveniencing extra alternates.
All JMO

 

[Hatfield]

The other interesting news I read was that JA decided to make some sort of plea deal to testify against others in the case.

That is new news to me and should lock up the states case.
Im a little surprised at that happening. I suppose the writing was on the wall for him.


http://www.wsmv.com/story/34400472/suspect-in-holly-bobo-murder-case-plans-on-making-plea-deal