GUILTY MA - Vanessa Marcotte, 27, murdered, Princeton, 7 Aug 2016 #8 *Arrest*

[searunner]

Just a reminder...the human piece of garbage is due back in court for a pre-trial hearing tomorrow. Don't know time or if it was even announced. I wonder if the big brave murderer, who hid out in the adjacent room during his first court appearance, is "scared" (to use his attorney's characterization) again. Pa-lease...

DNA. Eyewitness spotting of him and his vehicle. Cell phone records near crime scene at time of killing despite being off work and living quite a distance away. Angelo is going away for life even if, for some reason, DNA gets thrown out -- unless prosecution messes up.

 

[ForensicMass]

Just a reminder...the human piece of garbage is due back in court for a pre-trial hearing tomorrow. Don't know time or if it was even announced. I wonder if the big brave murderer, who hid out in the adjacent room during his first court appearance, is "scared" (to use his attorney's characterization) again. Pa-lease...

DNA. Eyewitness spotting of him and his vehicle. Cell phone records near crime scene at time of killing despite being off work and living quite a distance away. Angelo is going away for life even if, for some reason, DNA gets thrown out -- unless prosecution messes up.

I can't find anything about this why isn't it in the news?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[searunner]

I can't find anything about this why isn't it in the news?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good question -- I don't know and came here to inquire the same and saw your post. I saw no indication when I googled around a little that the May 24 date was changed -- but maybe we'd not know that.

Anyone? Rocky?

 

[Rockfarmer]

I'm still here too. And wondering what happened to the court date.

 

[Rocky1]

Good question -- I don't know and came here to inquire the same and saw your post. I saw no indication when I googled around a little that the May 24 date was changed -- but maybe we'd not know that.

Anyone? Rocky?

The Pretrial Conference may have been delayed/continued, or waived.
The defendant has a right to a "Speedy Trial" (rule 36)

I can not say if/why the Preliminary Conference was delayed, or waived, but in general, there is a list of reasons... physical/mental health of the defendant, change in attorney representation, defense needing time to prepare, etc.
With the defendant being "held," (not out on bail or bond) his preliminary conference must be held in a timely manner. If not, he could walk. This is why a Judge may/may not grant a continuance.
It in the best interest in most cases for the defense to delay the proceedings. Witnesses forget, evidence gets lost, memories fade, the public moves on, etc.
There are times in a Preliminary Hearing, the Defense lets the Prosecution present it's case, and doesn't respond. That is unless there is evidence in the interest of the defendant (The defendant was out of town at the time of the crime for example)

The two main reasons a Preliminary Conference is waived, would be either the Grand Jury has indicted, or the case is covered heavy in the media, the evidence is overwhelming, and the defense does not want to make the evidence public knowledge.

As far as us knowing what has happened, I think it's fair to say we will know once the court logs are published within the next few days.

Again, I am not sure what happened, but I am leaning towards the hearing being waived rather than continued.
I think if the Hearing took place, then was continued, MSM would have been all over that, and we would have known.
If Cams were not allowed inside the courtroom, rest assured they would have been all over the parking lot, IMO.

Just to add. The court Logs should be posted in the Fitchburg Sentintel and Enterprise ( Leominster District Court) Or the Worcester Telegram (Worcester Superior Court)

 

[searunner]

The Pretrial Conference may have been delayed/continued, or waived.
The defendant has a right to a "Speedy Trial" (rule 36)

I can not say if/why the Preliminary Conference was delayed, or waived, but in general, there is a list of reasons... physical/mental health of the defendant, change in attorney representation, defense needing time to prepare, etc.
With the defendant being "held," (not out on bail or bond) his preliminary conference must be held in a timely manner. If not, he could walk. This is why a Judge may/may not grant a continuance.
It in the best interest in most cases for the defense to delay the proceedings. Witnesses forget, evidence gets lost, memories fade, the public moves on, etc.
There are times in a Preliminary Hearing, the Defense lets the Prosecution present it's case, and doesn't respond. That is unless there is evidence in the interest of the defendant (The defendant was out of town at the time of the crime for example)

The two main reasons a Preliminary Conference is waived, would be either the Grand Jury has indicted, or the case is covered heavy in the media, the evidence is overwhelming, and the defense does not want to make the evidence public knowledge.

As far as us knowing what has happened, I think it's fair to say we will know once the court logs are published within the next few days.

Again, I am not sure what happened, but I am leaning towards the hearing being waived rather than continued.
I think if the Hearing took place, then was continued, MSM would have been all over that, and we would have known.
If Cams were not allowed inside the courtroom, rest assured they would have been all over the parking lot, IMO.

Just to add. The court Logs should be posted in the Fitchburg Sentintel and Enterprise ( Leominster District Court) Or the Worcester Telegram (Worcester Superior Court)

Thanks, Rocky, that was helpful to me and others, I'm sure.

After reading your input and quickly reading what seems a good summary (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-does-sense-waive-the-preliminary-hearing.html) of the reasons why the prelim hearing might be waived, I agree with your take that the defense probably waived it.

We shall see.

 

[Cem75]

Pardon my ignorance but have they already handed him the murder charge of is it still just assault?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[searunner]

Pardon my ignorance but have they already handed him the murder charge of is it still just assault?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No murder charge yet -- and I'm sure that would have to be made public. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- it does happen!)

I'm not sure if I'm reading more into your question than you meant...But if you were wondering whether the lack of the murder charge could have anything to do with why the hearing didn't take place as scheduled, I was wondering the same.

Rocky, is it possible the *prosecution* could have asked for a delay if they're not ready to bring all the charges (murder, possibly other charges related to the attempted abductions) yet? Thanks.

 

[Cem75]

No murder charge yet -- and I'm sure that would have to be made public. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- it does happen!)

I'm not sure if I'm reading more into your question than you meant...But if you were wondering whether the lack of the murder charge could have anything to do with why the hearing didn't take place as scheduled, I was wondering the same.

Rocky, is it possible the *prosecution* could have asked for a delay if they're not ready to bring all the charges (murder, possibly other charges related to the attempted abductions) yet? Thanks.

That is the correct interpretation - if he is going to trial shouldn't he carry both charges or are they separate trials? So I do wonder what is driving the delay in the murder charge. It also makes me wondering if they have found a link to other assaults, but that is pure speculation



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Rocky1]

No murder charge yet -- and I'm sure that would have to be made public. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong -- it does happen!)

I'm not sure if I'm reading more into your question than you meant...But if you were wondering whether the lack of the murder charge could have anything to do with why the hearing didn't take place as scheduled, I was wondering the same.

Rocky, is it possible the *prosecution* could have asked for a delay if they're not ready to bring all the charges (murder, possibly other charges related to the attempted abductions) yet? Thanks.

I will try to answer your last question first.
No. The Prosecution can not get the hearing delayed because he hasn't been charged with murder yet.
The object of the hearing is for the Prosecution to prove to a Judge/Magistrate that there is enough proof the defendant committed the crime he has been accused of through evidence collected, and not to delay the proceedings because they are still trying to dig up more evidence, before he is charged with murder or other crimes they maybe not quite sure about yet.

Does the lack of murder charges have anything to do why the hearing didn't take place?
It very well could have.
The Commonwealth may have used this strategy of holding off charging him with murder, because if the hearing takes place, and it is shown that the evidence points to murder, he may be charged at that time. One reason a Defendant may waive the hearing, especially if the Defense Attorney sees a case going to trail anyway.
Think of it as a trial before the trial, without the Jury, but rather a Judge.
The Prosecution uses Preliminary Hearings to sometimes to get a case dismissed if they feel the police didn't have enough evidence, or to get a plea bargin if they may feel they're case isn't as strong as they may have thought. They also can add additional charges.

I don't want to make this post too long, but I'll add that as slow as the wheels of justice turn, the object of the court is to make the proceedings go as speedy as possible. In the eyes of the law, this man is still innocent until proven otherwise, and the fact that he is not out on bail/bond makes a Judge less apt to grant a continuance. and also less apt to grant a continuance to the Commonwealth, over the Defendant.
They may have not finished vetting this guy yet to see what his true background is yet, but overall, it's not a smart thing for the Prosecution to delay. because the Judge can dismiss the case.

 

[Rocky1]

That is the correct interpretation - if he is going to trial shouldn't he carry both charges or are they separate trials? So I do wonder what is driving the delay in the murder charge. It also makes me wondering if they have found a link to other assaults, but that is pure speculation



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't see this trial being held in two parts.
The Prosecution has a responsibility not only to get a conviction, but justice as well for the victims/victims families, and also to remove a danger from society.
The priority is determined by the seriousness of the crime. For example, a murder trial will be held before someone being tried for stealing a bicycle, as far as the court calendar goes.
The Prosecution also has an ethic responsibility not to conceal any evidence that points to a crime.
I don't see this guy going to trial without being charged with murder. There may be more than one count of murder as well from this one crime.

As far as additional crimes that happened in another place, that would be a separate trial, of a lessor crime.

 

[searunner]

I will try to answer your last question first.
No. The Prosecution can not get the hearing delayed because he hasn't been charged with murder yet.
The object of the hearing is for the Prosecution to prove to a Judge/Magistrate that there is enough proof the defendant committed the crime he has been accused of through evidence collected, and not to delay the proceedings because they are still trying to dig up more evidence, before he is charged with murder or other crimes they maybe not quite sure about yet.

Does the lack of murder charges have anything to do why the hearing didn't take place?
It very well could have.
The Commonwealth may have used this strategy of holding off charging him with murder, because if the hearing takes place, and it is shown that the evidence points to murder, he may be charged at that time. One reason a Defendant may waive the hearing, especially if the Defense Attorney sees a case going to trail anyway.
Think of it as a trial before the trial, without the Jury, but rather a Judge.
The Prosecution uses Preliminary Hearings to sometimes to get a case dismissed if they feel the police didn't have enough evidence, or to get a plea bargin if they may feel they're case isn't as strong as they may have thought. They also can add additional charges.

I don't want to make this post too long, but I'll add that as slow as the wheels of justice turn, the object of the court is to make the proceedings go as speedy as possible. In the eyes of the law, this man is still innocent until proven otherwise, and the fact that he is not out on bail/bond makes a Judge less apt to grant a continuance. and also less apt to grant a continuance to the Commonwealth, over the Defendant.
They may have not finished vetting this guy yet to see what his true background is yet, but overall, it's not a smart thing for the Prosecution to delay. because the Judge can dismiss the case.

Thanks, Rocky. It's very helpful to have someone who is well-versed in court procedures around.

TGIF! Happy long weekend to those of you who have three days off work.

 

[Madeleine74]

The prosecution would not take a case or allow the police to arrest unless there was probable cause. If police didn't have enough evidence the DA would instruct them to continue to investigate the case and they would not advise an arrest until there was enough evidence.

A preliminary hearing is done for a judge to make sure a case can proceed forward to trial and then to bind it for trial, assign the judge that will oversee it and get it into the court schedule. It allows the defense to see the evidence, or some of it anyway, which they would not be privy to if the case went to a Grand Jury instead. Cases either go to a Grand Jury, which is a secret hearing that only the prosecution attends at which time a True Bill for indictment is the outcome if the Grand Jury votes for indictment -or- a case gets a preliminary hearing in front of a judge with both sides attending. Both are not done, it's always one or the other (Grand Jury -or- Preliminary Hearing).

 

[Rocky1]

The prosecution would not take a case or allow the police to arrest unless there was probable cause. If police didn't have enough evidence the DA would instruct them to continue to investigate the case and they would not advise an arrest until there was enough evidence.

A preliminary hearing is done for a judge to make sure a case can proceed forward to trial and then to bind it for trial, assign the judge that will oversee it and get it into the court schedule. It allows the defense to see the evidence, or some of it anyway, which they would not be privy to if the case went to a Grand Jury instead. Cases either go to a Grand Jury, which is a secret hearing that only the prosecution attends at which time a True Bill for indictment is the outcome if the Grand Jury votes for indictment -or- a case gets a preliminary hearing in front of a judge with both sides attending. Both are not done, it's always one or the other (Grand Jury -or- Preliminary Hearing).

Snipped:
The prosecution would not take a case or allow the police to arrest unless there was probable cause. If police didn't have enough evidence the DA would instruct them to continue to investigate the case and they would not advise an arrest until there was enough evidence.

If that was true, a case would never be dismissed at a Preliminary/Probable Cause Hearing, nor would there be any plea bargains.

Snipped:
Both are not done, it's always one or the other (Grand Jury -or- Preliminary Hearing).[/QUOTE]

In regards to a case such as this, (punishable by more than 5 years in prison) in Massachusetts, If a Defendant is arraigned in District Court and the Judge/Magistrate finds probable cause in the Preliminary Hearing, He/she will bind the case over to Superior Court.
In order for a case to be held in Superior Court, there needs to be an indictment by a Grand Jury.
Both will take place unless the Preliminary case is dismissed/waived, ( the Grand Jury Indictment takes place before the Hearing, or the defendant waives.)

Rule 3 section f.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/rules-of-court/criminal-procedure/crim3.html

 

[weepingangel]

http://www.telegram.com/news/20170610/foundation-takes-up-vanessa-marcottes-goal-better-world


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rocky1]

http://www.wcvb.com/article/trooper...est-in-vanessa-marcotte-case-honored/10007862

 

[searunner]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...rcotte-case/tFE305AhJeUdpaZZmhXklJ/story.html

According to this Boston Globe article, the animal is due back in court on June 28 (a Wed.): "He is scheduled to next appear in Leominster District Court on June 28."

Finally we have some coverage about court dates.

Thank you Andrew Grant of the Globe -- this is what people want to know!

 

[Cem75]

http://www.telegram.com/news/20170610/foundation-takes-up-vanessa-marcottes-goal-better-world


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wow this is incredible. I am a grown man but I was welling up with no shame. Thanks for sharing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Rocky1]

http://www.fox25boston.com/news/family-holds-5k-race-on-vanessa-marcottes-birthday/535052040

 

[Kickoff61]

http://www.wcvb.com/article/trooper-who-found-vehicle-leading-to-arrest-in-vanessa-marcotte-case-honored/10007862

Sorry ,but I think it is 100 percent inappropriate for award to be given for catching a killer PRIOR to trial and publicized. Accused are innocent until PROVEN guilty and this also taints a jury and interferes with any actions to review trooper's actions , etc