MI MI - Julia Niswender, 23, EMU student, Ypsilanti, 10 Dec 2012 - #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
[h=3]http://www.lectlaw.com/mjl/cl017.htm

Mistrial[/h] Mistrial is declared in criminal law trials when a case is dismissed prior to its normal conclusion. A mistrial has no legal force and is considered null. The judge usually awards a retrial on the same subject, with an important exception in the United States: the provision of double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment prohibits retrial for the same offense if a mistrial is declared erroneously, if mistrial is declared against the defendant's wishes, or if it is declared because of prosecutorial or judicial misconduct.

The most common event that leads to a mistrial is when a jury cannot reach consensus on a verdict. In this case, the jury is said to be "hung" and if no agreement can be reached even after repeated attempts, then the court may declare a mistrial.


There are many other events that can lead to a mistrial, most of which involve some gross procedural error or professional misconduct. Misconduct by a party to the trial, or a juror, or some outside actor such as an audience member can sometimes be so disruptive as to warrant the declaration of a mistrial. In the event that a juror is disqualified, and if no replacement can be found and the litigants can't agree to proceed with the remaining jurors, then an impasse is reached and mistrial may be declared. Sometimes, in the middle of a trial, the court may determine that it has no jurisdiction over the case, in which case a mistrial is declared. If it is discovered that members of the jury have discussed the case in violation of court instructions, or that a sequestered jury has had access to biased media coverage of court proceedings, a mistrial may be declared. And the sudden death of an attorney or other party to the trial can also be cause to declare a mistrial.
 
Spellbound said:
[h=3]http://www.lectlaw.com/mjl/cl017.htm

Mistrial[/h] Mistrial is declared in criminal law trials when a case is dismissed prior to its normal conclusion. A mistrial has no legal force and is considered null. The judge usually awards a retrial on the same subject, with an important exception in the United States: the provision of double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment prohibits retrial for the same offense if a mistrial is declared erroneously, if mistrial is declared against the defendant's wishes, or if it is declared because of prosecutorial or judicial misconduct.

The most common event that leads to a mistrial is when a jury cannot reach consensus on a verdict. In this case, the jury is said to be "hung" and if no agreement can be reached even after repeated attempts, then the court may declare a mistrial.


There are many other events that can lead to a mistrial, most of which involve some gross procedural error or professional misconduct. Misconduct by a party to the trial, or a juror, or some outside actor such as an audience member can sometimes be so disruptive as to warrant the declaration of a mistrial. In the event that a juror is disqualified, and if no replacement can be found and the litigants can't agree to proceed with the remaining jurors, then an impasse is reached and mistrial may be declared. Sometimes, in the middle of a trial, the court may determine that it has no jurisdiction over the case, in which case a mistrial is declared. If it is discovered that members of the jury have discussed the case in violation of court instructions, or that a sequestered jury has had access to biased media coverage of court proceedings, a mistrial may be declared. And the sudden death of an attorney or other party to the trial can also be cause to declare a mistrial.
Click to expand...

Could the mistrial be connected to the family member's outburst that Trojan mentioned?
 
The mistrial had nothing to do with the outbursts I mentioned earlier. The outbursts may have taken place in the hallway and not the courtroom as I mentioned earlier. There is another pretrial scheduled for August 14th. Evidently there are some legal "issues" that have to be worked out before a trial. I have been told that the judge is becoming frustrated that the time for this trial is taking so long to get started. I hope this does finally go to trial but when it will actually start, I don't know yet.
 
Thanks again, Trojan. I am sorry for the delay. I hope everyone gets their bottoms in gear and move this along. Maybe with the judge getting peeved, they will be more motivated to quit stalling. Seems they have had a lot or pretrials already, that they should have been prepared -- both sides!

:waiting:
 
http://www.monroenews.com/news/2015/aug/03/mistrial-declared-turnquist-case/


Judge granted mistrial motion made by defense attorney Paul J. Stablein after Ypsilanti police refused to hand over search warrant and police report documents.


The jury was seated, opening remarks were made and two Ypsilanti police detectives testified .

Clearly irritated at the events, the judge said he had no choice but to suddenly end the trial, which barely got under way today. A jury was seated, opening remarks were made and two witnesses, both Ypsilanti police detectives, testified before the trial came to abrupt end.


Although two Ypsilanti detectives took the stand, both offered testimony of little substance. One detective said she could not remember filing a search affidavit and another said he did not bring any of the requested documents with him to court.

Judge said he was perplexed by this testimony.


Speculation that the documents were not turned over for fear of interfering with the murder investigation.


A pretrial is set for Friday (this week or next?) to determine a new trial date.


Mr. Stablein said he probably will petition the court before then to force YPD to hand over the documents.

Expecting a comment from Ypsi police


 
http://www.freep.com/story/news/2015/08/03/james-turnquist-emu/31065651/


Two Ypsilanti Police detectives, Annette Coppock and Robert Peto, were called to the witness stand to testify Monday. White questioned Coppock's testimony after she said she had no recollection of signing the search warrant in question, when in fact she did.

"I obviously expressed my irritation at how we could not know the existence of these documents, not to point the finger at the prosecution because they weren’t in possession of it," he said. "However, I think the defense is entitled to it.Today on the morning of trial they received one search warrant, however, the basis for that search warrant was a 12-page search warrant that Coppock wasn’t sure she even signed. I was perplexed by her testimony and for all of those reasons, I'm going to grant a mistrial."

White ordered the defense and prosecution to return to court next week to begin a new pre-trial. White also told Stablein to prepare a motion asking Ypsilanti Police to turn over the search warrant along with any pertinent police reports.

 
Disappointing. Is Detective Coppock the first Detective? The one close to KT and family?
 
The initial detective in Ypsi. in regards to Julia's murder was Yuhas
 
As I understand this, JT and lawyer have no intentions of talking to Ypsilanti detectives regarding his whereabouts ofvthe night of Julia's murder. Yet, they want search warrant for the computer that was taken regarding the murder. Do I have this?
 
georgiasblu said:
As I understand this, JT and lawyer have no intentions of talking to Ypsilanti detectives regarding his whereabouts ofvthe night of Julia's murder. Yet, they want search warrant for the computer that was taken regarding the murder. Do I have this?
Click to expand...

That sums it up nicely, GB. That's the same way I see it. But legally they are entitled to all evidence, and are not legally bound to speak.
 
They are entitled to all information, the murder as well as the *advertiser censored* case? The *advertiser censored* I understand don't get why they should be allowed to freely see murder info since it's an active homocide investigation. DA was not on the ball.
 
Technically the two cases are unrelated in the eyes of the court. With statements made by the judge, it appears he is going to force the issue of compliance by Ypsi PD. Is there another reason he would instruct the defense to present this motion at the next pre-trial?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2015/08/03/james-turnquist-emu/31065651/

"White ordered the defense and prosecution to return to court next week to begin a new pre-trial. White also told Stablein to prepare a motion asking Ypsilanti police to turn over the search warrant and any pertinent police reports."

With what was reported regarding the testimony of Ypsi PD, I can't help but wonder what games they have been playing all along. We have been lead to believe that JT has not been cooperative with them, but would/could they testify to that under oath at this point?
 
georgiasblu said:
They are entitled to all information, the murder as well as the *advertiser censored* case? The *advertiser censored* I understand don't get why they should be allowed to freely see murder info since it's an active homocide investigation. DA was not on the ball.
Click to expand...

I don't know, GB. I would think they are separate, thus the murder investigation warrants would not be needed for this case. But they overlap, since their warrant led to the *advertiser censored* charge, so ...... ? We need a lawyer to explain this one.
 
I am not a legal expert. But I think that if the prosecution cannot show the validity of the search warrant,
then the material found on the computer cannot be used as proof in court, and the case will most likely
be thrown out. The defense has the right to question the search warrant, and in order to do so they should be able to see any affidavit on which the search warrant is based.

I wonder why the Ypsi police didn't give the information that the defense has a legal right to. Is it because they are protecting their murder investigation, or, is the Ypsi police protecting themselves from embarrassment if it turns out that the search warrant wasn't based on solid grounds?
 
georgiasblu said:
As I understand this, JT and lawyer have no intentions of talking to Ypsilanti detectives regarding his whereabouts ofvthe night of Julia's murder. Yet, they want search warrant for the computer that was taken regarding the murder. Do I have this?
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Looks like JT's lawyer may be trying to get JT off on some technicalities plus get some information concerning the murder investigation. I don't like the smell of this!
 
I think because the search warrant was related to a murder investigation, Ypsi PD believes it should not be a part of the child *advertiser censored* case. That would make sense to me. However, if child *advertiser censored* was found, they were obligated to report it to the proper LE. In this case, that was a completely different county. This is where a "problem" may come from and good legal advice is needed. By turning over a search warrant related to a murder, would that jeopardize the murder case? I can imagine it would, since this defense team would bring out details of the warrant/murder-investigation during this trial.

The chain of evidence here would seem to me to start with the discovery of child *advertiser censored* on a computer, not with the search warrant related to a murder investigation. Would they not be required to report that, and the appropriate department would take it from that point for investigation and possible pursuit of an arrest/trial?

JMO
 
I have tried to find the rules/law on using a search warrant for a second case or jurisdiction. I did find a case that may be a similar, from Grand Rapids area in 2011. I do not know if I am interpreting this correctly, but possibly Monroe would need a separate search warrant to inspect the computer in question for JT case. In this case, the appeals court ruled the computer was seized without permission or a warrant.



http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ds-child-*advertiser censored*-case/18956373/

He was charged in 2011 after Best Buy employees fixing his laptop saw suspicious file names and called police. A sheriff's deputy says he found child *advertiser censored* on the hard drive. The hard drive and accessories were seized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 99 more.
Total: 323 (members: 100, guests: 223)

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
223
Total visitors
323
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,576
Messages
18,255,749
Members
234,695
Latest member
jko80
Back
Top