MO - Elizabeth Olten, 9, St Martin's, 21 Oct 2009 #13

[ynotdivein]

Lets look at this. Do you think there will be a change of venue to move the trial somewhere else? Bring a jury in from another county or use a cole county jury?

If AB has decent representation I would expect them to move for a change of venue. High profile case, small community, and the right of the defendant to a fair trial all support this possible motion.

That said, I don't know where they would try to move it... typically they aim for a jury that would be similar to the one that likely would have been drawn from the local area, just with geographical remoteness and perhaps less familiarity with the case and the players. Locals, your thoughts here?

 

[Csquare]

I think the defense will try to push for a change... simply because of the type of case this is. Whether the judge will grant it or not.. that's another story.

I see either it being moved or a jury brought in from another county. I am pretty sure this trial will be handled with kid gloves as not to take a chance on an appeal. MOO

 

[mominjc]

Lets look at this. Do you think there will be a change of venue to move the trial somewhere else? Bring a jury in from another county or use a cole county jury?

Now didn't someone mention before on a previous thread that there was some special RSMo about just Cole County and change of venue? I can't even really remember what is was exactly. Sorry but my memory just isn't so good anymore :waitasec:

 

[Csquare]

If AB has decent representation I would expect them to move for a change of venue. High profile case, small community, and the right of the defendant to a fair trial all support this possible motion.

That said, I don't know where they would try to move it... typically they aim for a jury that would be similar to the one that likely would have been drawn from the local area, just with geographical remoteness and perhaps less familiarity with the case and the players. Locals, your thoughts here?

That is a really good question. I could see maybe around the Springfield area or maybe north around Warrensburg or Independence. Just a guess.

 

[lawlady84]

WHEW, finally done catching up. Just in time to see pictures of Nancy Grace's children eat their FIRST ICECREAM CONES!!!!!

:banghead: I'd really appreciate if NG & JVM try to feature at least one actual crime victim per show rather than discuss Tiger Wood's alleged maybe-maybe-not girlfriend for 45 minutes.

 

[JLMcKenna83]

I see either it being moved or a jury brought in from another county. I am pretty sure this trial will be handled with kid gloves as not to take a chance on an appeal. MOO

I think it will be appealed regardless.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I am NOT a lawyer. But doesn't the Miranda warning come AFTER you are arrested, not before?

Why would AB need a lawyer when the police were just questioning her?

She needed a lawyer because of what she did, but LE did not know that, theoretically at the time. (that she had done it).

The police could come to your house and question you about a burglary in the neighborhood, for instance , as they are gathering facts.

Do you get a lawyer ? Well, if you want to, I suppose.

LE theoretically had no reason to arrest her at that time because it could have been a prank, for all they knew.

They were questioning witnesses or whatever, they thought.

There are two things, police CUSTODY and ARREST, both require Miranda. Custodial situation is not an arrest but you are not free to leave. They cannot interrogate you unless you are declared in custody meaning you cant leave but you are not under arrested, or if youre under arrest. Both require Miranda to be read. When they first took her in she was likely not under arrest but she was in police custody and therefore needed to be read her rights and have an attorney present.

 

[human]

do we know she was in police custody or was she just being questioned like lots of other people probably were?

 

[Csquare]

Now didn't someone mention before on a previous thread that there was some special RSMo about just Cole County and change of venue? I can't even really remember what is was exactly. Sorry but my memory just isn't so good anymore :waitasec:

I don't remember that. I will look and see if I can find something

 

[Csquare]

do we know she was in police custody or was she just being questioned like lots of other people probably were?

From everything I have read and heard they went there Fri to QUESTION her which DOES NOT require the Miranda rights to be read. MOO.

 

[danni]

there are two things, police custody and arrest, both require miranda. Custodial situation is not an arrest but you are not free to leave. They cannot interrogate you unless you are declared in custody meaning you cant leave but you are not under arrested, or if youre under arrest. Both require miranda to be read. When they first took her in she was likely not under arrest but she was in police custody and therefore needed to be read her rights and have an attorney present.

if she wanted!

 

[ynotdivein]

There are two things, police CUSTODY and ARREST, both require Miranda. Custodial situation is not an arrest but you are not free to leave. They cannot interrogate you unless you are declared in custody meaning you cant leave but you are not under arrested, or if youre under arrest. Both require Miranda to be read. When they first took her in she was likely not under arrest but she was in police custody and therefore needed to be read her rights and have an attorney present.

PAX, I'm glad you posted this. I do not want to ther_beatingA_Dead: but do want to think this out, and appreciate you bearing with me.

First, the only truly safe thing to do when questioned about ANYTHING by LE is to INVOKE YOUR RIGHTS. "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?" Let's say LE says, no no no, not detained, just want to get your input. So you start answering questions because you trust LE.

At some point as you answer questions, you become a POI in LE's mind. They absolutely DO NOT have to tell you when that happens. They do not have to say "This random questioning is now an 'interrogation'." In fact, they will do everything they can to keep you talking.

So let's say at some point in the "discussion" you ask again, "Can I go now?" If the answer is anything other than a clear and unambiguous "Yes, here's the door, have a good night," then you are being detained.

They don't have to tell you you are being detained even if you ask directly, and they can make detention as comfortable/unobtrusive as they deem necessary to get more information. But if LE doesn't immediately show you the door after asking "am I being detained," then the best response to them is, "I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer," and then STOP TALKING. If you ask for a cup of water after invoking your rights, you ask this way: "I want a cup of water, and I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer."

Given what's been posted about Miranda and fruit of the poisoned tree arguments, this is not going to be a problem in AB's case. AB and her guardians probably did not understand these rights and how they work, and in this case, that's fine by me. But IMO every citizen needs to understand these rules and how they work both for and against investigators.

 

[Csquare]

PAX, I'm glad you posted this. I do not want to ther_beatingA_Dead: but do want to think this out, and appreciate you bearing with me.

First, the only truly safe thing to do when questioned about ANYTHING by LE is to INVOKE YOUR RIGHTS. "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?" Let's say LE says, no no no, not detained, just want to get your input. So you start answering questions because you trust LE.

At some point as you answer questions, you become a POI in LE's mind. They absolutely DO NOT have to tell you when that happens. They do not have to say "This random questioning is now an 'interrogation'." In fact, they will do everything they can to keep you talking.

So let's say at some point in the "discussion" you ask again, "Can I go now?" If the answer is anything other than a clear and unambiguous "Yes, here's the door, have a good night," then you are being detained.

They don't have to tell you you are being detained even if you ask directly, and they can make detention as comfortable/unobtrusive as they deem necessary to get more information. But if LE doesn't immediately show you the door after asking "am I being detained," then the best response to them is, "I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer," and then STOP TALKING. If you ask for a cup of water after invoking your rights, you ask this way: "I want a cup of water, and I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer."

Given what's been posted about Miranda and fruit of the poisoned tree arguments, this is not going to be a problem in AB's case. AB and her guardians probably did not understand these rights and how they work, and in this case, that's fine by me. But IMO every citizen needs to understand these rules and how they work both for and against investigators.

You leave me no choice but to notify PETA in regards to you beating that poor animal. You are cruel. lol AB's GP's have had to deal with LE before and I am sure they knew how it worked. They may have encouraged her to come clean and let EO's family get closure. JMHO

 

[lawlady84]

I forgot who posted it earlier, but the cases currently before the Supreme Court that argue LWOP for minors is cruel and unusual punishment only concern non-lethal crimes.

LWOP for minors convicted of a form of murder is not being challenged.

 

[Csquare]

I forgot who posted it earlier, but the cases currently before the Supreme Court that argue LWOP for minors is cruel and unusual punishment only concern non-lethal crimes.

LWOP for minors convicted of a form of murder is not being challenged.

thanks. I hadn't had a chance to look that up but didn't sound right. IF she was going to tried as an adult she deserves adult punishment. Do they have to announce they are going for Dual Jurisdiction or is that automatic in MO?

 

[lawlady84]

I agree so far with everything recently posted about custody/arrest/interrogation. There are "standards" but its pretty fact dependent.

Miranda warnings need to be given whenever there is "custodial interrogation." Custody has come to mean arrest or the functional equivalent. For example, traffic stops are not considered to be "custody" even though they are considered "seizures" for 4th Amendment purposes.

For "custody" questions, the intent of the officer is irrelevant. So even if LE really thought AB was the girl, if she was just brought in for routine questioning like other children in the area and was actually free to go - then she wasn't "in custody."


IMO, LE knew they were dealing with (1) a minor (2) who has a history of mental illness- I would bet they were extra careful about following proper procedure.

 

[ynotdivein]

You leave me no choice but to notify PETA in regards to you beating that poor animal. You are cruel. lol AB's GP's have had to deal with LE before and I am sure they knew how it worked. They may have encouraged her to come clean and let EO's family get closure. JMHO

LOL! I'll have you know, that horse bequeathed itself to the advancement of internet emoticons. :crazy:

Good point about the gp's... and I hope you're right.

(Checking status of PETA membership now...)

 

[Csquare]

I agree so far with everything recently posted about custody/arrest/interrogation. There are "standards" but its pretty fact dependent.

Miranda warnings need to be given whenever there is "custodial interrogation." Custody has come to mean arrest or the functional equivalent. For example, traffic stops are not considered to be "custody" even though they are considered "seizures" for 4th Amendment purposes.

For "custody" questions, the intent of the officer is irrelevant. So even if LE really thought AB was the girl, if she was just brought in for routine questioning like other children in the area and was actually free to go - then she wasn't "in custody."


IMO, LE knew they were dealing with (1) a minor (2) who has a history of mental illness- I would bet they were extra careful about following proper procedure.

That is the point I tried to make earlier. They knew the situation and handeled it properly if not even taking greater precautions to ensure doing it properly.

 

[Csquare]

LOL! I'll have you know, that horse bequeathed itself to the advancement of internet emoticons. :crazy:

Good point about the gp's... and I hope you're right.

(Checking status of PETA membership now...)

Big words will get you nowhere with me. LOL

 

[danni]

again kinda like beating a dead horse, but was reading about when did she become a poi, and ran across this online.

"Physical evidence and written evidence led police to develop a person of interest. Police interviewed the person of interest, a older teen, who then led police to Elizabeth's body."

http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=367027

Does anyone know where to find a link to the 3:00 PC? I wonder if this info was stated by Sheriff White at that time?