GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #3

[Gin]

If his client was telling him what took place, then he could tell us what his client said happened.

His defense attorney doesn't work for "us". :wink:

 

[Hiandmighty]

Grand juries hand down hundreds if not thousands of indictments throughout our country each and every day.

And the defense attorneys always complain when it happens just like this one has done and gives these same silly reasons such as 'they don't have the evidence.'

The real truth why defense attorneys hate GJs is because they aren't privy to any of the evidence the state has against their client at the time. It keeps them in the dark just like ENs attorney. It makes the attorney continue to guess as he has done because he is out of the loop and will only be handed over the discovery once the Judge tells the DA to start turning over all of the discovery. We are not there yet so he will continue to be in the dark and will have to go on rumors instead of facts in discovery.

So the DA knows ENs attorney will keep guessing about the evidence or lack off that he really knows nothing about from a factual standpoint. Many DAs decide to go with this strategy. That way the defense cant cry and complain that the evidence presented in an open PH has now tainted the clients rights to get a fair trial and has tainted the potential jury pool.

Joseph Duncan, the serial murderer, and pedophile was also indicted by a GJ instead of a Judge in a PH. His indictment was handed down by a GJ like so many others and just like so many others who have been indicted by a GJ it was packed with evidence as we saw when it came to trial.

GJs hand down indictments every day and most all of them end in the defendant being convicted. So saying a GJ can indict a ham sandwich (as if to imply there is no evidence supporting it) is not only humorous but false and nothing but defense lawyer spin. If that was even remotely true then the cases presented to a GJ would not standup at trial and prove the defendant guilty BARD.

Most GJ indictments end in convictions so the 'ham' was the defendant the GJ indicted that was proven to be guilty.

And every day grand juries fail to indict and hand the case back to the DA who then has to gather more evidnece.

 

[sonjay]

Your previous post got me to thinking. I think they usually have the defendant testify in self defense cases. How is EN going to do that without naming the driver?

I imagine a self-defense case would be exceedingly hard to defend without putting the defendant on. So much hinges on what the defendant saw, heard, experienced, and perceived.

I'd guess that EN is not a client that defense attorneys would want to put on the stand, ever. But in the face of what he told his friends that night, I don't see how they can claim anything but self-defense, so they might have to. If it goes to trial. A plea deal wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot that both sides don't want made public. JMO.

 

[jjenny]

I imagine a self-defense case would be exceedingly hard to defend without putting the defendant on. So much hinges on what the defendant saw, heard, experienced, and perceived.

I'd guess that EN is not a client that defense attorneys would want to put on the stand, ever. But in the face of what he told his friends that night, I don't see how they can claim anything but self-defense, so they might have to. If it goes to trial. A plea deal wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot that both sides don't want made public. JMO.

Lawyer certainly hasn't been arguing that police got the wrong guy, so what else is left other than claiming self-defense? But how do you go to trial if client isn't claiming self-defense and isn't talking?

 

[Gin]

I imagine a self-defense case would be exceedingly hard to defend without putting the defendant on. So much hinges on what the defendant saw, heard, experienced, and perceived.

I'd guess that EN is not a client that defense attorneys would want to put on the stand, ever. But in the face of what he told his friends that night, I don't see how they can claim anything but self-defense, so they might have to. If it goes to trial. A plea deal wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot that both sides don't want made public. JMO.

BBM, JMO-ITA. I keep going back to RM marching over to EN's house and banging on the door. My opinion only, I think there probably are some pretty telling text messages that were sent before. I think there is an very unsavory history (probably involving $$$) in that relationship. I see tons of entitlement in the words and actions of RM. He's not the parent, uncle, brother of this kid. Where does the entitlement come from? Can't prove it, won't argue it, but I am watching and seeing how it plays out.

 

[sonjay]

If his client was telling him what took place, then he could tell us what his client said happened.

The defense team might prefer to do some investigation to verify what their client tells them before making any public statements about it.

They might prefer not to say anything publicly, and save their defense for court.

They might not believe what their client is telling them.

They might even now be negotiating with the prosecutors on a plea deal.

They might even now be preparing motions to disallow a lot of the evidence and witness testimony.

Just because the defense attorneys aren't telling us what EN is saying or not saying, that doesn't mean that we can draw any conclusions about that. The only conclusion we can draw is that the defense attorneys are electing not to make public at this point whatever their client might be saying or not saying.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Can't see any reason that EN would ever tell anyone about who was driving.

I'm not so sure. I go back and forth with this. First I thought maybe he'd name him to cut a deal, but at this point I can't think of a reason the prosecution would offer a deal. They are confident EN is guilty. However, I might change my mind again

 

[sonjay]

Lawyer certainly hasn't been arguing that police got the wrong guy, so what else is left other than claiming self-defense? But how do you go to trial if client isn't claiming self-defense and isn't talking?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that the defense team isn't married to any one particular defense strategy at this point. They have only just begun the process of gathering information. Their client hasn't even been indicted yet. They haven't yet seen all of the evidence that has been gathered so far, and there's still more evidence yet to come.

I'm quite sure they're keeping all possible defense strategies on the table at this point.

Maybe they will argue that police got the wrong guy.

They could say the Audi driver did the shooting. Or another, unidentified passenger in the Audi. They could say that EN's "confession" to his friends was just empty bragging. Given that the Meyerses originally claimed that they didn't know who the shooter was, would they have any credibility as witnesses testifying that they saw EN shoot TM? Can it proved that EN was the shooter, and not the driver or another passenger? Can it even be proved that EN was in the silver car that night?

 

[Hiandmighty]

I guess the post with Tammy's akas was deleted because I can't find it. Can anyone veryify it was deleted? Thanks.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Wonder if the friends who EN communicated with after the shoot have named the shooter? They gotta know who it is I assume. People know who the driver is. Probably don't want to "snitch" however.

 

[jjenny]

The defense team might prefer to do some investigation to verify what their client tells them before making any public statements about it.

They might prefer not to say anything publicly, and save their defense for court.

They might not believe what their client is telling them.

They might even now be negotiating with the prosecutors on a plea deal.

They might even now be preparing motions to disallow a lot of the evidence and witness testimony.

Just because the defense attorneys aren't telling us what EN is saying or not saying, that doesn't mean that we can draw any conclusions about that. The only conclusion we can draw is that the defense attorneys are electing not to make public at this point whatever their client might be saying or not saying.

What has been reported is that defense lawyers can't get much out of their own client. So I think I can draw conclusions from that.

 

[jjenny]

Wonder if the friends who EN communicated with after the shoot have named the shooter? They gotta know who it is I assume. People know who the driver is. Probably don't want to "snitch" however.

If somebody told police, why hasn't he been arrested? I presume friends claimed EN didn't tell them.

 

[sonjay]

I'm not so sure. I go back and forth with this. First I thought maybe he'd name him to cut a deal, but at this point I can't think of a reason the prosecution would offer a deal. They are confident EN is guilty. However, I might change my mind again

They might be absolutely 100% certain that EN is guilty. But that doesn't necessarily mean they believe they can meet the bar of proving it to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors often offer plea deals to people that they are sure are guilty. In cases without strong evidence, they're more likely to offer a plea.

Or, in a case where the victim's family has told so many lies that prosecution is going to be exceedingly difficult, they might be inclined to offer a plea.

 

[jjenny]

If I had to guess, I'd guess that the defense team isn't married to any one particular defense strategy at this point. They have only just begun the process of gathering information. Their client hasn't even been indicted yet. They haven't yet seen all of the evidence that has been gathered so far, and there's still more evidence yet to come.

I'm quite sure they're keeping all possible defense strategies on the table at this point.

Maybe they will argue that police got the wrong guy.

They could say the Audi driver did the shooting. Or another, unidentified passenger in the Audi. They could say that EN's "confession" to his friends was just empty bragging. Given that the Meyerses originally claimed that they didn't know who the shooter was, would they have any credibility as witnesses testifying that they saw EN shoot TM? Can it proved that EN was the shooter, and not the driver or another passenger? Can it even be proved that EN was in the silver car that night?

Wouldn't they have to name the driver in order to blame him? Their client knows who the driver is. If they just say "driver did it all" it's not going to sound credible whatsoever, if the driver isn't named.

 

[sonjay]

What has been reported is that defense lawyers can't get much out of their own client. So I think I can draw conclusions from that.

A. That was reported a few days ago. Do you have any inside information about whether EN has talked to his attorneys since then?

B. Do you believe everything that's reported? It could be the defense just said that because they don't want to tip their hand just yet about what EN has told them.

 

[sonjay]

Wouldn't they have to name the driver in order to blame him? Their client knows who the driver is. If they just say "driver did it all" it's not going to sound credible whatsoever, if the driver isn't named.

But the question is, can the prosecution prove that EN did the shooting and not the driver? Presumptions aren't allowed when it comes to convicting people. "Probably" isn't good enough. "Trust us, we're sure it was him" isn't good enough. The prosecution has to prove their case. Can they? We don't know yet. The prosecutors probably don't know yet.

Sadly, the Meyers have made it more difficult for the prosecutors to prove their case.

 

[PaperDoll]

It's gotta be hard to claim self-defense if client isn't cooperative.

I'm wondering how this is consider self defense???? EN's attorney, IMO, would have a hard time proving it was. EN drove to the Meyers house and shot at them. In the police report EN said he wasn't shot at, IIRC. He also said "he got those kids" The Meyers drove home after the 1st shooting happened, then EN followed them and took more shots. Where is the self defense?

 

[SStarr33]

In case anyone wants to do any sleuthing on EN, his instagram is @moblife18. I'm doing Facebook graph and other SM searches on people who have supported him to see if anything can be found on the driver. Obviously we can't discuss findings here, but if you find anything, send to LE. Here is their website:

http://www.lvmpd.com

 

[jjenny]

I'm wondering how this is consider self defense???? EN's attorney, IMO, would have a hard time proving it was. EN drove to the Meyers house and shot at them. In the police report EN said he wasn't shot at, IIRC. He also said "he got those kids" The Meyers drove home after the 1st shooting happened, then EN followed them and took more shots. Where is the self defense?

I don't think it was self-defense at all. When the suspect followed Meyers to their home and shot at them, that is not self-defense. But the lawyer apparently plans to claim self-defense. And if the client isn't cooperative, how is that going to work? For self-defense, clients usually testify. And lawyer at least has to have his client's side of the story, rather than poking holes in victim's side of the story.

 

[SStarr33]

Here is the school calendar for 2014/2015. Looks like the day after the murder they were off school and it was a long weekend for Prez day. If that is correct, the folks who said it was a school night are wrong:

http://ccsd.net/district/calendar/pdf/2014-2015-school-calendars/855.7-9-month.pdf