Legal and Law Questions - * No Discussion *

[jenny1976]

So that's good news, right? Can the judge order EJ to produce Gabriel because it is a civil case?

 

[AZlawyer]

So that's good news, right? Can the judge order EJ to produce Gabriel because it is a civil case?

Sure, but how can the judge enforce that order? Threaten to throw her in jail for contempt?

 

[danisisa]

Why has EJ not been charged with Felony child neglect/endangerment??? She has completely abandoned G.

 

[AZlawyer]

Why has EJ not been charged with Felony child neglect/endangerment??? She has completely abandoned G.

I believe she is charged with kidnapping, child abuse and custodial interference--all felonies. Charging her with neglect at this point would be like tacking on a charge for littering, especially considering that she has already admitted to acts sufficient to prove the kidnapping and custodial interference charges. And any sentences imposed for charges that arise out of the same set of facts would run concurrently (together) instead of consecutively (one at a time) anyway.

 

[artsy1]

I have a "what if" legal question.

What if this is what the couple who have Gabriel were told by the "trusted 3rd party":

"I have a young friend who is in fear for her life and her baby's life from an abusive man. Since it might be easier to track my friend down if she and the baby were together, can my friend leave her baby with you while she finds a place in hiding to settle down? Once she's settled, I'll come get the baby and take him back to his mother, so I'll be the only person who knows where they are."

The couple agree, because the woman has been involved in a violent relationship herself in the past, and so has extra sympathy for EJ. The handoff will be made in a public park, using a code word, so that identities remain secret, except to the "trusted 3rd party".

After Gabe is handed off to the couple, they are happy in thinking they are doing the right thing by helping someone in trouble. As far as they have been told, EJ had legal custody so they are not doing anything illegal.

Time goes by, the case gathers international attention, EJ and (presumably) the "trusted 3rd party" are all arrested and charged in connection with Gabe's disappearance, and the couple thinks "oh cr*p, what did we get ourselves into"? Because of their ties to the "trusted 3rd party", they are afraid they will also be charged if they come forward and are at a loss of what to do that would not cause them legal woes.

Given this scenario, what do you, AZlawyer, or any other lawyers out there, think that the couple could be charged with?

I know LE are saying they aren't thinking about that NOW, but if the couple's identity comes out, the threat of charges will be hanging over their heads. (Jump to thread about returning Gabe anonymously for their "out".)

So what does anyone think they will face?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a "what if" legal question.

What if this is what the couple who have Gabriel were told by the "trusted 3rd party":

"I have a young friend who is in fear for her life and her baby's life from an abusive man. Since it might be easier to track my friend down if she and the baby were together, can my friend leave her baby with you while she finds a place in hiding to settle down? Once she's settled, I'll come get the baby and take him back to his mother, so I'll be the only person who knows where they are."

The couple agree, because the woman has been involved in a violent relationship herself in the past, and so has extra sympathy for EJ. The handoff will be made in a public park, using a code word, so that identities remain secret, except to the "trusted 3rd party".

After Gabe is handed off to the couple, they are happy in thinking they are doing the right thing by helping someone in trouble. As far as they have been told, EJ had legal custody so they are not doing anything illegal.

Time goes by, the case gathers international attention, EJ and (presumably) the "trusted 3rd party" are all arrested and charged in connection with Gabe's disappearance, and the couple thinks "oh cr*p, what did we get ourselves into"? Because of their ties to the "trusted 3rd party", they are afraid they will also be charged if they come forward and are at a loss of what to do that would not cause them legal woes.

Given this scenario, what do you, AZlawyer, or any other lawyers out there, think that the couple could be charged with?

I know LE are saying they aren't thinking about that NOW, but if the couple's identity comes out, the threat of charges will be hanging over their heads. (Jump to thread about returning Gabe anonymously for their "out".)

So what does anyone think they will face?

Sounds like a great defense--up until the point where they learn that Gabriel is a missing child and begin being willing participants in a custodial interference, accessory to kidnapping, etc.

 

[kissdegirl]

Can TS face any charges in TX? If she is found guilty of the custodial interference/conspiracy, and SAPD brings homicide charges against EJ...can TS face any further charges at all in AZ or TX? Does a charge/conviction of homicide "change the game" so to speak and open up any further prosecution opportunities against TPS?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can TS face any charges in TX? If she is found guilty of the custodial interference/conspiracy, and SAPD brings homicide charges against EJ...can TS face any further charges at all in AZ or TX? Does a charge/conviction of homicide "change the game" so to speak and open up any further prosecution opportunities against TPS?

It all depends on what TS's involvement was. Based on what we know so far, I don't see any additional charges against her. If there really was a homicide, I believe TS's involvement would be less, not more. IMO there's no way TS wanted or anticipated that result.

 

[BeanE]

It all depends on what TS's involvement was. Based on what we know so far, I don't see any additional charges against her. If there really was a homicide, I believe TS's involvement would be less, not more. IMO there's no way TS wanted or anticipated that result.

Hi, AZ. :blowkiss:

If Elizabeth is charged with homicide, what about accessory after the fact kind of charges for Tammi for covering it up or attempting to cover it up. Specifically, for example, in the eyes of the prosecutor/law, that she lied to make it appear that Gabe was still alive by

- implying that she heard Gabe on the phone 'babbling' after Elizabeth texted/called Logan saying she had killed Gabe on Dec 27. (Tammi later said multiple times she had actually never again spoken on the phone with Elizabeth on or after Dec 27.)

- stating that Elizabeth texted her "immediately" after texting Logan saying she had not killed Gabe. (Elizabeth's text to Tammi did not say she had not killed Gabe, "me and Gabriel are fine", and did not take place until Dec 29 - see link below for for message.)

- whereas she did apparently send messages to Elizabeth encouraging her to show herself and Gabe to a police officer, she also sent messages that appear to encourage Elizabeth to run, and to encourage Elizabeth, if she had indeed killed Gabe, to pretend she had not or to manufacture a false alibi ("You're one of millions of mothers that leave the state to keep her child safe from the horrible father. It's NOT kidnapping! You have every right to take your own child." - see link below for for message.)

Messages between Tammi and Elizabeth:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5081458"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Important Links, Documents, Phone Numbers, Addresses **NO DISCUSSION**[/ame]

Thanks!
BeanE

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi, AZ. :blowkiss:

If Elizabeth is charged with homicide, what about accessory after the fact kind of charges for Tammi for covering it up or attempting to cover it up. Specifically, for example, in the eyes of the prosecutor/law, that she lied to make it appear that Gabe was still alive by

- implying that she heard Gabe on the phone 'babbling' after Elizabeth texted/called Logan saying she had killed Gabe on Dec 27. (Tammi later said multiple times she had actually never again spoken on the phone with Elizabeth on or after Dec 27.)

- stating that Elizabeth texted her "immediately" after texting Logan saying she had not killed Gabe. (Elizabeth's text to Tammi did not say she had not killed Gabe, "me and Gabriel are fine", and did not take place until Dec 29 - see link below for for message.)

- whereas she did apparently send messages to Elizabeth encouraging her to show herself and Gabe to a police officer, she also sent messages that appear to encourage Elizabeth to run, and to encourage Elizabeth, if she had indeed killed Gabe, to pretend she had not or to manufacture a false alibi ("You're one of millions of mothers that leave the state to keep her child safe from the horrible father. It's NOT kidnapping! You have every right to take your own child." - see link below for for message.)

Messages between Tammi and Elizabeth:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Important Links, Documents, Phone Numbers, Addresses **NO DISCUSSION**

Thanks!
BeanE

Oh, sure, if Tammi knew anything about Gabriel being dead. IMO she did not, or she would have been angry with Elizabeth, not trying to help her cover it up.

 

[noopy]

Thanks AZ in advance for sharing your many insights... I do have a question, how long can EJ and TS's lawyers keep postponing their cases? Seems they have done this a few times already... Can they postpone again in 30 days (from 4/23's request)? In a prev post, you said the whole thing is likely to take 1 yr, it's been 4 mos and neither have even been in court yet for their criminal cases?

I haven't followed Caylee's case closely, but it seems it is taking Casey Anthony 2 yrs before she even appears in court for killing Caylee (and they have a body and everything)? Could it take THAT LONG for EJ and TS to even stand trial??

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZ in advance for sharing your many insights... I do have a question, how long can EJ and TS's lawyers keep postponing their cases? Seems they have done this a few times already... Can they postpone again in 30 days (from 4/23's request)? In a prev post, you said the whole thing is likely to take 1 yr, it's been 4 mos and neither have even been in court yet for their criminal cases?

I haven't followed Caylee's case closely, but it seems it is taking Casey Anthony 2 yrs before she even appears in court for killing Caylee (and they have a body and everything)? Could it take THAT LONG for EJ and TS to even stand trial??

To me, it doesn't seem like any of these cases are taking a long time at all, but maybe I'm just used to the glacial pace of our court systems.

The first few extension requests are pretty routinely granted.

 

[noopy]

AZ, how come EJ seems to have the freedom to decide whether or not she appears in court? Is that standard? How come she seems to have power over the judge and the entire system? I never knew that criminals could 'refuse' to attend court depending on their mood on that day... but she has done this a few times already?
Is it possible that she keeps delaying it, and after her lawyers deem her "not healthy enough to stand trial" she just gets out FREE due to her mental health? I am very worried about that?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ, how come EJ seems to have the freedom to decide whether or not she appears in court? Is that standard? How come she seems to have power over the judge and the entire system? I never knew that criminals could 'refuse' to attend court depending on their mood on that day... but she has done this a few times already?
Is it possible that she keeps delaying it, and after her lawyers deem her "not healthy enough to stand trial" she just gets out FREE due to her mental health? I am very worried about that?

Normally, a judge does not require a criminal defendant to attend all hearings. However, if a judge has ordered a defendant to attend, the defendant is not "free" to decide not to attend. On the other hand, if the defendant starts kicking, screaming, biting, etc. when the transporting officers arrive, the officers might report back that the defendant "refused" to attend rather than using force. Then the judge can order that force be used if necessary.

She will never get out based on her lawyers' opinion about her mental health. If she's found incompetent to stand trial, she could be given mental health treatment until she's well enough to understand and participate in the process. If she's found incompetent to stand trial and also not "restorable" (i.e., she's crazy and we can't make her better in the near future), she may end up committed to a mental facility, at which point her charges would be dismissed.

Unless something has changed drastically since her court appearances, in which she spoke to the judge coherently and with an apparent understanding of the legal process she's facing, I don't think she'll be found incompetent. That NutraLoaf looks like it has worms in it to me, too, and I'm not crazy...well, not too crazy to stand trial. :crazy:

 

[noopy]

/snipped/ If she's found incompetent to stand trial and also not "restorable" (i.e., she's crazy and we can't make her better in the near future), she may end up committed to a mental facility, at which point her charges would be dismissed.

Thanks much AZ! So, let's just say she starts to play the crazy card, and pretends to be incoherent, and ends up in mental facility, would she be there for life? Or just till she's better? If her charges are dismissed upon her entering a mental facility, and say she "becomes coherent" (ie stops faking it) again in 6 months, then does she walk FREE (since charges were dismissed)??? Or would the charges get slapped back on since she's been "restored"?

If she walks free, I will be abhorred :furious:, and I guess what's to stop every murderer in America to pretend to have mental probs, and then just 'recover' after they're dismissed?

 

[noopy]

and i hope you're right... that she won't be found incompetent. she looks more than just competent to me, IMO she's been playing the system to her advantage better than i can!!
she's such a <unusual person> for complaining about the nutraloaf, i've never heard about the loaf till now and i'm sure they've been serving it awhile... just the other prisoners can't get away with it or having made such a big fuss over it. what's wrong with worms? they've got protein!

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks much AZ! So, let's just say she starts to play the crazy card, and pretends to be incoherent, and ends up in mental facility, would she be there for life? Or just till she's better? If her charges are dismissed upon her entering a mental facility, and say she "becomes coherent" (ie stops faking it) again in 6 months, then does she walk FREE (since charges were dismissed)??? Or would the charges get slapped back on since she's been "restored"?

If she walks free, I will be abhorred :furious:, and I guess what's to stop every murderer in America to pretend to have mental probs, and then just 'recover' after they're dismissed?

Just 'til she's better. :banghead: If the statute of limitations hadn't passed, I suppose they could refile the charges at that point.

For murder, maybe that's what prevents the scenario you suggested--the lack of a statute of limitations.

 

[BeanE]

Just 'til she's better. :banghead: If the statute of limitations hadn't passed, I suppose they could refile the charges at that point.

For murder, maybe that's what prevents the scenario you suggested--the lack of a statute of limitations.

So she could be treated and recover, and then have homicide charges filed against her even 10 or 20 years from now?

 

[AZlawyer]

So she could be treated and recover, and then have homicide charges filed against her even 10 or 20 years from now?

Yes. But we're getting ahead of ourselves, because I don't think there's much chance of her being found incompetent to stand trial AND being found not restorable AND being charged with homicide, considering that the only evidence really of homicide is her admission in a text message--the admission of a person who we would, at that point, have declared crazy.

 

[kappy50]

AZ...what are the libel laws in regards to news outlet's.? Don't they have to have their own legal team review it before they air ?? In this case if TPS's attorrney did not like what he heard, can he have it pulled ??? I am sure I am not asking this properly, so please bear with me.