Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*

[Calliope]

For desquire, bringing over a post from another thread:

I actually agree with most of what you said. The only thing I would disagree with you on is the issue of motives. I actually give Kaine more credit than you do. I don't think he is slinging the mud to get a better divorce settlement - if he is, it won't work because divorces are pretty much a mathematical exercise these days and courts don't care about the underlying relationship issues or who was the better person. I think he's slinging the mud to pressure her to talk in the Kyron case, which is a good and pure motive in my mind. I also think Terri is more concerned about the effect of the divorce proceeding on her prospects in the criminal case than vice versa. Either way, she is motivated solely by self-interest. So I give Kaine more credit on the motive front.

I do think that, however honorable his motive, Kaine is really abusing the court system by putting nasty allegations about Terri in these filings - even though they are clearly legally irrelevant to the issue addressed - and then releasing the motions to the press at the same time he submits them to the court.

Some questions about your post ....

Could the Court order Kaine not to release these motions to the press? Could the Court reprimand or sanction the attorney for continuing to include irrelevant information in her filings? Do you think it's likely? Do you think Terri's divorce attorney would call them on this and move that the Court address this issue?

 

[craftybatchy]

Would it be out of the realm of possibility for LE to misrepresent
the results of TH's polygraph exam to TH ? ie. telling her that the results
indicated deception when in fact they did not. Would this misrepresentation
be considered entrapment ?

 

[desquire]

For desquire, bringing over a post from another thread:



Some questions about your post ....

Could the Court order Kaine not to release these motions to the press? Could the Court reprimand or sanction the attorney for continuing to include irrelevant information in her filings? Do you think it's likely? Do you think Terri's divorce attorney would call them on this and move that the Court address this issue?

To clarify, I don't think Kaine or his lawyer are sending copies of their filings to the press when they file them. They really don't need to. The story has been so big and the media so hungry for any solid thing to report, that Kaine and Rackner just know that any lurid tidbit they drop into a filing will become the next day's front page news. They don't need to get their hands dirty diseminating the filings because they are all public records and are publicly available from the courts - for a small fee anyone can access them online as soon as they are scanned into the clerk's system. Do I think someone from Rackner's office could be calling a few media contacts to give them a heads up to be watching for something? Sure. But they don't even need to do that; if they file it, it will be printed.

I think Kaine and Rackner are just taking advantage of a dynamic not of their own making and using these court proceedings for purposes other than the intended use. To me that abuse is irritating and more so because many people who read the papers think that, just because something is stated in a court document, it must be true or at least have some evidence to back it up. That said, I don't think there is anything the judge could or should do to stop it.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

I think Kaine and Rackner are just taking advantage of a dynamic not of their own making and using these court proceedings for purposes other than the intended use. To me that abuse is irritating and more so because many people who read the papers think that, just because something is stated in a court document, it must be true or at least have some evidence to back it up. That said, I don't think there is anything the judge could or should do to stop it.

sbm....desquire - sorry if you have already answered this elsewhere. re: the ro,

can you comment on how your statement above would apply to kaines words from the ro - if at all? thank you. jade.

kaine writes:

I believe respondent is involved in the disappearance of my son kyron who has been missing since june 4 2010.

I also recently learned that respondent attempted to hire someone to murder me.

The police have provided me w/ probable cause to beleive the above two
statements to be true.

 

[desquire]

sbm....desquire - sorry if you have already answered this elsewhere. re: the ro,

can you comment on how your statement above would apply to kaines words from the ro - if at all? thank you. jade.

kaine writes:

I believe respondent is involved in the disappearance of my son kyron who has been missing since june 4 2010.

I also recently learned that respondent attempted to hire someone to murder me.

The police have provided me w/ probable cause to beleive the above two
statements to be true.

Again, this is all just my opinion about how they are conducting themselves and my opinion is no more informed or valid than yours or anyone else's. My comments do not apply to the restraining order request. I don't think there was anything irrelevant or gratuitously lurid in that filing. Of course, they filed that along with a request that it be sealed. But I think seeing what happened with the info in the RO affidavit once it was made public - how it was quoted and reprinted all over the media and was the source of news buzz for days - that was the model for how they could wage a devastatingly effective two-front war against Terri just by working damaging juicy allegations into their motions, relevant or not. Don't get me wrong, people throw unsupported, irrelevant and nasty allegations into pleadings all the time - the difference is in 99.99% of those cases nobody ever sees the garbage except the judge and her clerk, who know garbage when they see it, just ignore it and get to the relevant substance.

 

[AZlawyer]

Would it be out of the realm of possibility for LE to misrepresent
the results of TH's polygraph exam to TH ? ie. telling her that the results
indicated deception when in fact they did not. Would this misrepresentation
be considered entrapment ?

Yes, LE could do this, and it would not be entrapment. Entrapment is when LE tricks you into committing a crime you would not otherwise have committed.

I don't understand why people are so focused on whether or not TH "really" passed or failed the polygraph. What difference does it make? If she failed, does it mean she did something to Kyron? No, it means she was nervous--either because she did something to Kyron or because of any number of other reasons.

 

[BeanE]

Would it be typical for a grand jury to stop, the DA goes and tries to collect more witnesses, and then the grand jury reconvenes to hear those witnesses? Not saying that's what happening in this case - I have no idea. But just wondering since the DA, via the presser, is attempting to collect more witnesses, and there was also that request to the school for a list of all employees which *could* be an attempt to find more witnesses.

TIA

:blowkiss:

 

[Calliope]

Now here's another stupid question.

Are grand jurors instructed not to investigate or monitor outside of the courtroom a case they're hearing? I know they're not sequestered like a trial jury, right? But are they advised to stay away from news articles, Nancy Grace, websleuths (lol) and other sources that might sway their decision one way or the other?

 

[desquire]

Would it be typical for a grand jury to stop, the DA goes and tries to collect more witnesses, and then the grand jury reconvenes to hear those witnesses? Not saying that's what happening in this case - I have no idea. But just wondering since the DA, via the presser, is attempting to collect more witnesses, and there was also that request to the school for a list of all employees which *could* be an attempt to find more witnesses.

TIA

:blowkiss:

Particularly for grand juries that have been impaneled for longer-term service (i.e., a month or more) as I assume this grand jury has been, it's not unusual to have gaps of days or weeks between witnesses or between hearing evidence and deliberating. So, yes, the DA could send the grand jury home for a while as he does more evidence gathering or, more likely, the grand jury will continue working on other cases and come back to this one when there is more evidence to be presented.

 

[desquire]

Now here's another stupid question.

Are grand jurors instructed not to investigate or monitor outside of the courtroom a case they're hearing? I know they're not sequestered like a trial jury, right? But are they advised to stay away from news articles, Nancy Grace, websleuths (lol) and other sources that might sway their decision one way or the other?

Actually, not a stupid question at all. Because the purpose of all grand juries is, in a sense, investigative, jurisdictions are all over the place in how they instruct grand jurors on "outside information." For example, the federal grand jury instructions say nothing on the issue. Here in NY, grand jurors are instructed " You must not google or otherwise search for any information about a case, or the law which applies to a case, or the people involved in a case, including the defendant, the witnesses and the lawyers." Other states tell grand jurors that the grand jury functions and operates only as a whole body; no individual or group of grand jurors may make, or attempt to make, any independent investigation whatsoever and, if a grand juror becomes aware of information not presented in court, she must present it to the entire grand jury. I'm not familiar with the Oregon instructions. I'll look into it but maybe AZLawyer or someone else can chime in in the meantime.

 

[Calliope]

Actually, not a stupid question at all. Because the purpose of all grand juries is, in a sense, investigative, jurisdictions are all over the place in how they instruct grand jurors on "outside information." For example, the federal grand jury instructions say nothing on the issue. Here in NY, grand jurors are instructed " You must not google or otherwise search for any information about a case, or the law which applies to a case, or the people involved in a case, including the defendant, the witnesses and the lawyers." Other states tell grand jurors that the grand jury functions and operates only as a whole body; no individual or group of grand jurors may make, or attempt to make, any independent investigation whatsoever and, if a grand juror becomes aware of information not presented in court, she must present it to the entire grand jury. I'm not familiar with the Oregon instructions. I'll look into it but maybe AZLawyer or someone else can chime in in the meantime.

Ah thanks.

The bolded part rings a bell... vaguely. I'll have to go back through the statutes and see if I can find it again.

Would required instructions to a grand jury be in the actual statute? Or somewhere else?

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/index.html

Grand jurors may not be challenged.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.030.html

( referenced in that statute: http://law.onecle.com/oregon/10-juries/10.050.html )

I take that to mean they're aren't asked if they have any preconceived thoughts on the case. So, if it's similar to what you describe in NY, for example, it's ok for the jurors to have done those things listed prior to their service, just not while serving.

----

(9) The grand jury is not bound to hear evidence for the defendant, but it shall weigh all the evidence submitted to it; and when it believes that other evidence within its reach will explain away the charge, it should order such evidence to be produced, and for that purpose may require the district attorney to issue process for the witnesses.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.320.html

---

Regarding what I bolded in your post:

(1) If a grand juror knows or has reason to believe that a crime which is triable in the county has been committed, the grand juror shall disclose the same to the fellow jurors, who may thereupon investigate the same.

(2) An indictment or presentment must not be found upon the statement of a grand juror unless the grand juror is sworn and examined as a witness.

(3) A grand juror testifying as provided in subsection (2) of this section shall not vote on the indictment nor be present during deliberations thereon.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.350.html


Is that what you were talking about?

 

[desquire]

Ah thanks.

The bolded part rings a bell... vaguely. I'll have to go back through the statutes and see if I can find it again.

Would required instructions to a grand jury be in the actual statute? Or somewhere else?

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/index.html

Grand jurors may not be challenged.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.030.html

( referenced in that statute: http://law.onecle.com/oregon/10-juries/10.050.html )

I take that to mean they're aren't asked if they have any preconceived thoughts on the case. So, if it's similar to what you describe in NY, for example, it's ok for the jurors to have done those things listed prior to their service, just not while serving.

----

(9) The grand jury is not bound to hear evidence for the defendant, but it shall weigh all the evidence submitted to it; and when it believes that other evidence within its reach will explain away the charge, it should order such evidence to be produced, and for that purpose may require the district attorney to issue process for the witnesses.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.320.html

---

Regarding what I bolded in your post:

(1) If a grand juror knows or has reason to believe that a crime which is triable in the county has been committed, the grand juror shall disclose the same to the fellow jurors, who may thereupon investigate the same.

(2) An indictment or presentment must not be found upon the statement of a grand juror unless the grand juror is sworn and examined as a witness.

(3) A grand juror testifying as provided in subsection (2) of this section shall not vote on the indictment nor be present during deliberations thereon.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.350.html


Is that what you were talking about?

Call me if you are ever looking for a paralegal job.

 

[Billylee]

For desquire, bringing over a post from another thread:



Some questions about your post ....

Could the Court order Kaine not to release these motions to the press? Could the Court reprimand or sanction the attorney for continuing to include irrelevant information in her filings? Do you think it's likely? Do you think Terri's divorce attorney would call them on this and move that the Court address this issue?

I am glad you brought this over, Cal. This is my question about the sexting motion that was included in the documents.

Since the RO was solely predicated on the fact that TH had allegedly planned a MFHP, and she used sexting and as the payment for said plan, then would not the new documents showing the sexting between MC and herself AND the fact that she illegally gave MC access to the RO be relevant also? I mean I'm assuming that KH and his attorney viewed this new episode as the same type of thing she apparently was doing with the MFHP, so wouldn't it be relevant that she was again using this sexting technique to do something she was not supposed to be doing, like giving MC Kaine's new address? Anyway I was wondering if that's why the attorney chose to include those documents? Hope I made sense.

 

[Calliope]

Call me if you are ever looking for a paralegal job.

:floorlaugh:

 

[cluciano63]

Please pardon me if this has already been asked & answered....

What could have possibly taken place at the GJ re: Dede Spicher that would not involve her being asked any questions, as her lawyer stated? Wouldn't the prosecutor know in advance if she planned to ask for immunity and wouldn't the question "Will you answer questions today?" at least be asked? Is he just playing games with words here? Is there any explanation besides pending immunity? Thank you in advance.

 

[Editorss]

If Kyron is not found and LE does not have enough info to charge someone how long will TH be asked to stay in the house with no phone/computer etc? At what point would her atty say "Go on with your life."

 

[AZlawyer]

Please pardon me if this has already been asked & answered....

What could have possibly taken place at the GJ re: Dede Spicher that would not involve her being asked any questions, as her lawyer stated? Wouldn't the prosecutor know in advance if she planned to ask for immunity and wouldn't the question "Will you answer questions today?" at least be asked? Is he just playing games with words here? Is there any explanation besides pending immunity? Thank you in advance.

I believe someone mentioned that she got a lawyer only a day or so before the grand jury met, so it's possible that the prosecutor did not know she was going to ask for immunity in advance. I'm sure there are other possible explanations as well. Perhaps the GJ just wanted to review other evidence first--but then you would think she would have been called back the next day or soon after. An immunity request is still the most likely explanation.

If Kyron is not found and LE does not have enough info to charge someone how long will TH be asked to stay in the house with no phone/computer etc? At what point would her atty say "Go on with your life."

I don't think it's really been confirmed that her attorney advised her not to use the phone or computer. But if he did, I would think TH would be the one to eventually say, "You know what? I'm going on with my life now," before her attorney says it. She seems to have been pretty fond of her phone and computer.

 

[gitana1]

I am glad you brought this over, Cal. This is my question about the sexting motion that was included in the documents.

Since the RO was solely predicated on the fact that TH had allegedly planned a MFHP, and she used sexting and as the payment for said plan, then would not the new documents showing the sexting between MC and herself AND the fact that she illegally gave MC access to the RO be relevant also? I mean I'm assuming that KH and his attorney viewed this new episode as the same type of thing she apparently was doing with the MFHP, so wouldn't it be relevant that she was again using this sexting technique to do something she was not supposed to be doing, like giving MC Kaine's new address? Anyway I was wondering if that's why the attorney chose to include those documents? Hope I made sense.

The RO was not solely predicated on the alleged MFH and my understanding is that there has been nothing released or alleged in the pleadings regarding the sexting as part of the MFH. The RO was predicated on an alleged MFH as well as TH's alleged involvement in Kyron's disappearance.
The sexting was brought up in connection with Kaine's contempt motion and was added backdrop to set up the relationship between TH and the guy she reportedly showed the sealed pleadings to.
I don't think the sexting is relevant to any criminal allegations nor to any domestic violence allegations. The only potential relevance to me of the sexting texts would be to lay a foundation for the contempt - TH showing MC the RO. However, even that is a stretch to me. I would argue against the admissibility of any texts or sexts, if someone was trying to introduce them against my client, that do not directly show my client was in violation of a court order.
I frankly do not think the actual sexts have much of a place in family court at all as evidence except perhaps to argue that TH is behaving erratically, in connection with any custody case.

ETA That when I say behaving erratically, I do not mean that the sexting is such in and of itself. However, it may be argued that it is evidence of erratic behavior if it occurred constantly and soon after the disappearance of the little boy she raised.

 

[PDXMom]

How does TH's retainer work with Mr. Houze? Does she retain him for a period of time, or is it a prepayment for future services rendered? Is he likely to be billing her now, even if she paid a retainer at first? If so, for what, do you think? She's been seen arriving at and leaving from his office several times, but she hasn't been charged with anything. Could LE conceivably just string it out until Terri's out of money and then try her? Of course everyone wants a speedy resolution, but if they aren't 100% sure they can get a conviction right now, could they just wait? It seems like her money will dry up eventually - probably sooner than later. Are there some kind of ethics involved with that?

 

[sleuthy sleutherson]

sbm....desquire - sorry if you have already answered this elsewhere. re: the ro,

can you comment on how your statement above would apply to kaines words from the ro - if at all? thank you. jade.

kaine writes:

I believe respondent is involved in the disappearance of my son kyron who has been missing since june 4 2010.

I also recently learned that respondent attempted to hire someone to murder me.

The police have provided me w/ probable cause to beleive the above two
statements to be true.

These last 3 sentences make me want to ask the question, as I was informed by a friend that if you make a statement "I believe" or "I feel" and use phrases such as Kaine did to obtain his order, is the judge is more likely to grant your order. Is this typically true?

I found it to be helpful in my current custody case and was not made aware until after the fact that making statements in this context can weigh on how a judge rules. Just curious as Kyron's case was already very public when Kaine filed but I question how the "publicity" of the case against Kaine's statements may have affected the judges decision.