GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
noseymosey said:
reading the warrant, the cars were a lot further away from the school and their homes when the first encounter took place. I don't think it would be a big deal to go to the school to lear how to drive and it sounds like it was a little after 10pm when they did, late but not too late for a 15 year old. Could the mom have been picking her up form the school for something school related. I know when my son was in school I picked him up pretty late after ball games. It just does not seem like the path they would take if they were going straight fro the school to their house, unless they had to go somewhere else also......maybe get gas?

Erich only lived a few houses from the park, seems like if he thought someone was after him at the park he would just go home instead of calling a friend and waiting for him to pick him up. So many weird things......
Click to expand...

it was also brother's 20th birthday (he's father of 14 month old).....maybe they were on their way home from party??
 
HokieHi71 said:
... admissibility of statements given while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Just because a defendant was under the influence of drugs or liquor, which may affect his recollection, does not make his declarations inadmissible or incompetent; it simply affects his credibility and the weight to be given to his statements by the jury....
Click to expand...
sbm bbm

^ true for witnesses other than defendants, IIUC,because Miranda rights do not apply.

As for defendant at trial,
question is - whether they knowingly and intelligently waived their rights, when situation required Miranda warning.

".... Essentially this means the prosecution must prove that the suspect had a basic understanding of their rights and
an appreciation of the consequences of foregoing those rights.
"The focus of the analysis is directly on the personal characteristics of the suspect. If the suspect was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or suffered from an emotional or mental condition that substantially impaired their capacity to make rational decisions, the courts may well decide that the suspect's waiver was not knowing and intelligent."

^[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning[/URL]^ and longer excerpt below:

So, alcohol or drug influence = possible defense objection to admitting EN's statements at trial, and ct c/rule in his favor. JM2cts.
Others here suggested he may try to use insanity defense or impaired capacity.

I pity both prosecutor and defense team w this hot mess.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Simply advising the suspect of their rights does not fully comply with the Miranda rule. The suspect must also voluntarily waive their Miranda rights before questioning can proceed.[SUP][60][/SUP] An express waiver is not necessary.[SUP][61][/SUP] However, most law enforcement agencies use written waiver forms. These include questions designed to establish that the suspect expressly waived their rights. Typical waiver questions are
  1. "Do you understand each of these rights?" and
  2. "Understanding each of these rights, do you now wish to speak to the police without a lawyer being present?"

The waiver must be "knowing and intelligent" and it must be "voluntary". These are separate requirements. To satisfy the first requirement the state must show that the suspect generally understood their rights (right to remain silent and right to counsel) and the consequences of forgoing those rights (that anything they said could be used against them in court).

As noted previously, courts traditionally focused on two categories of factors in making this determination: (1) the personal characteristics of the suspect and (2) the circumstances attendant to the waiver. ...
In addition to showing that the waiver was "voluntary", the prosecution must also show that the waiver was "knowing" and "intelligent". Essentially this means the prosecution must prove that the suspect had a basic understanding of their rights and an appreciation of the consequences of foregoing those rights.

The focus of the analysis is directly on the personal characteristics of the suspect. If the suspect was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or suffered from an emotional or mental condition that substantially impaired their capacity to make rational decisions, the courts may well decide that the suspect's waiver was not knowing and intelligent."

 
Sorry,if this has already been answered,but do we know besides pot,what drugs he was taking?
 
what IF

(a) it was just driver that confronted TM ((and EN was not in the car .... at that point.....yet to be picked up))

(b) what if said driver was recognized to be an associate of EN ((and TM recognized that association as did mi

nor daughter))

(c) by the timeTM & BM drove - EN had been picked up in the car.....
 
This doesn't make sense to me in the warrant.

"Nowsch said he thought people in the car were looking for him so he called a friend who owns a silver four door Audi sedan to come to the park and pick him up."

After a shootout, it seems strange to me that he would share the type of car his friend owned when telling the story. Wouldn't you think he'd say the friend's name instead. The type of car he was picked up in is only relevant information in an investigation. It's not relevant information when telling friends a story.

I have a hard time believing that Nowsch literally told Altergott his friend picked him up in a silver four door Audi sedan he owns. Just like Altergott sure didn't share what type of car a friend drove to pick up Nowsch at the casino to come visit his house. This just isn't normal information someone shares when telling a story, especially something as specific as "silver four door Audi sedan." If he mentioned details of a car at all, he would have simply said it was an Audi.

Either Nowsch never told Altergott what type of car picked him up OR he did tell Altergott which friend picked him up at the park, and Altergott told police, who checked DMV records and verified that he drives a silver four door Audi sedan. Sooooooooooooooooo, either Nowsch never shared the driver/car information with Altergott OR the police know the driver's identity and omitted it from the warrant.

The police can't be omitting the driver's name from the warrant to protect Altergott and his girlfriend because the police include "Mikey's" name for selling the gun.
 
Criminal responsibility is a different concept than waiving your constitutional right to remain silent. For one thing, intoxication itself is an element of a crime such as DUI so it can't also be a defense.

Because our system values the rights of the accused, it demands that any waiver of those rights be intelligent and knowing. There is an immense body of case law on this issue as the evaluation required is so fact specific.
If a defendant waives his or her rights and agrees to speak with law enforcement, the validity of the waiver depends on two elements: (1) whether the waiver was voluntary, meaning that it was free from governmental coercion; and (2) whether it was knowingly and intelligently made with full awareness of the nature of the right and the consequences of its abandonment.
Click to expand...

The entire analysis can be quite involved. Here's some excerpts from a fairly recent, 2014 CO case, involving a defendant who alleged his waiver was not knowing and intelligent due to his level of intoxication. In this case, he lost. http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9341&courtid=2.

When evaluating whether a Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) the length of time between the initial Miranda advisement and the interrogation; (2) whether the defendant or the interrogating officer initiated the interview; (3) whether and to what extent the interrogating officer reminded the defendant of his or her rights before the interrogation; (4) the clarity and form of the defendant’s acknowledgment and waiver; (5) the defendant’s background and experience with the criminal justice system; and (6) any language barriers and the defendant’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence....

In addition to these general factors, a defendant’s level of intoxication at the time of the Miranda advisement is relevant to a waiver’s validity. Jewell, 175 P.3d at 106. In People v. Platt, we articulated a set of subfactors to assess a defendant’s competence in cases involving intoxication, based on the competency inquiry developed in cases involving mental impairment or language difficulty. 81 P.3d 1060, 1066 (Colo. 2004). These “Platt factors” include: (1) whether the defendant was oriented to his or her surroundings and situation; (2) whether the defendant’s answers were the responsive product of a rational thought process; (3) whether the defendant was able to appreciate the seriousness of his or her situation and the possibility of incarceration; (4) whether the defendant had the foresight to attempt to deceive the police to avoid prosecution; (5) whether the defendant expressed remorse for his or her actions; and (6) whether the defendant expressly stated that he or she understood his or her rights. Id. The purpose of this inquiry is to examine whether the defendant was so intoxicated that he or she could not have made a knowing and intelligent waiver. Id.
Click to expand...





jjenny said:
Using that logic, you can't consent to driving under the influence either. Yet you are going to be charged with DUI if you drive drunk. That guy who has sex with really drunk girl could be charged with rape even if he is drunk himself. So that argument doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
 
PaperDoll said:
I could understand how the daughter and son wouldn't recognize EN because he was in a car that they may not have ever seen before, but I would think EN would know who the green car belonged to, after all they live close to each other and a older green car would be recognizable.. MOO :)
Click to expand...

Not if we are to believe EN had half of his body sticking up out of the car window, as the family (AKA Bob) told us, and not if the son/daughter/mother/whoever got a good enough look at the purported driver's hairstyle, hair color, eye color, height and weight. At least not IMO.
 
SeeAlice said:
I don't remember which side he supposedly got out on but it is extremely weird that both Brandon & Erich apparently believed and told others that someone was out to hurt their mother and little sister.
Click to expand...

And EN supposedly told friends "I got those kids." And like you said the 6' spiky hair guy said "I'm gonna get you and your mom." So this would mean the silver car occupants (including EN) knew there weren't only kids in the car. So is the EN friend lying about what EN said?

Orrrrr was it really BM who made the "Get your mom and sister" statement and EN really did think there were only kids in the green car? Oh what a tangled web we weave...
 
I wanted to bring forward the map I did, I noticed a few questions about the locations of some places. Click on the link if you want to zoom in and walk around any locations or get more details, but here is a screenshot of the map.

2m2j7ld.png


https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zL0ttOittWuY.k2aOy3VTsvqM

ETA: Revised map
 
PaperDoll said:
I would think so unless he's never been there before and any encounter they had took place at the park and or school?????
Click to expand...

Tammy's husband did say she made EN meals, so unless they were "meals on wheels" (heehee) he would have had to been to their house.
 
Snoods said:
Tammy's husband did say she made EN meals, so unless they were "meals on wheels" (heehee) he would have had to been to their house.
Click to expand...


Sorry I don't believe anything this family says....they have proven they are not credible. It will all depend on defense council that En has to determine if we ever hear the truth. I am afraid he will not get great representation - anxious to see!


TM isn't a nurse!!!
I think drug deal gone bad...hope I am wrong!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 4,188 (members: 148, guests: 4,040)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
4,040
Total visitors
4,188
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,576
Messages
18,173,688
Members
232,682
Latest member
musicmusette
Back
Top