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

[TGIRecovered]

If a client tells a their defense attorney that they did commit a crime, is that attorney under any obligation to advise their client to tell the cops the truth?

If the client refuses to confess but the attorney knows they are guilty, can that attorney still represent the client as long as he does not lie? Example; attorney says " there is no proof, evidence illegally obtained etc", but doesen't ever say "client was not there, didn't do it etc."

Does a good defense lawyer ever advise the client NOT to tell him/her certain things, so that the attorney can legitimately say that they believe their client to be innocent?

If client says " I know Kyron is safe (or deceased), I have knowledge of the crime but did not take him myself, don't know his exact location", what is attorney legally required to do?

In your professional experience, do most guilty people tell their attorney the truth, partial truth, total lies, or say they don't remember? Do defence attorneys usually know if their client is guilty or not, even if the client never admits the truth?

 

[JBean]

If a client tells a their defense attorney that they did commit a crime, is that attorney under any obligation to advise their client to tell the cops the truth?

If the client refuses to confess but the attorney knows they are guilty, can that attorney still represent the client as long as he does not lie? Example; attorney says " there is no proof, evidence illegally obtained etc", but doesen't ever say "client was not there, didn't do it etc."

Does a good defense lawyer ever advise the client NOT to tell him/her certain things, so that the attorney can legitimately say that they believe their client to be innocent?

If client says " I know Kyron is safe (or deceased), I have knowledge of the crime but did not take him myself, don't know his exact location", what is attorney legally required to do?

In your professional experience, do most guilty people tell their attorney the truth, partial truth, total lies, or say they don't remember? Do defence attorneys usually know if their client is guilty or not, even if the client never admits the truth?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5480690&postcount=136"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*[/ame]

 

[AZlawyer]

how is it that desiree and kaine are allowed to go on tv... pointing fingers at terri and telling everyone that they believe she took kyron.. and other things.. without having proof?
i understand freedom of speech.. but what about presumption of innocence?
are people allowed to just go around and blame people (on tv) for things that they can not prove?

No one is obligated to presume someone's innocence unless they are on the jury.

The risk in accusing someone of a crime in public is that you will be sued for defamation. But as long as you don't say anything that you know or ought to know is false, it's OK if you don't have "proof" that it's true.

 

[rnmif]

I'm not sure if anyone here might have experience with this, but how does DA... jurisdiction(?) work? Is it common to have the DA from a neighboring county help in a case such as this?

 

[desquire]

I'm not sure if anyone here might have experience with this, but how does DA... jurisdiction(?) work? Is it common to have the DA from a neighboring county help in a case such as this?

In Oregon, a DA's jurisdiction covers the county in which she was elected and any state crimes committed in that county or any civil cases involving the county government. You would expect to see cooperation from a neighboring county's DA if elements of a crime took place in that neighboring county or if witnesses or evidence lie within that other county. Otherwise, as elected officials, DAs are political animals and are typically loathe to share credit with or be seen as needing help from another county's DA, particularly in high profile cases.

 

[BeanE]

No one is obligated to presume someone's innocence unless they are on the jury.

The risk in accusing someone of a crime in public is that you will be sued for defamation. But as long as you don't say anything that you know or ought to know is false, it's OK if you don't have "proof" that it's true.

So, so long as I don't know for sure that it's false, I can post any vile thing I want, about anyone, from one end of the internet to the other, and there's nothing the person can do about it?

Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[desquire]

So, so long as I don't know for sure that it's false, I can post any vile thing I want, about anyone, from one end of the internet to the other, and there's nothing the person can do about it?

Am I understanding that correctly?

I wouldn't put it quite that way. If your vile postings are true or if you reasonably believe them to be true, you would have a good defense against a libel/defamation claim. If, however, you know that your vile posting is false or through a reasonable exercise of diligence you could have learned that your nasty statement is false, you could be found guilty of libel.

Depending on where the person you are posting about is located or where her reputation is damaged, or where the website is located, the laws may be tougher. In England, for example, the defendant has the burden of proof in a defamation suit.

 

[Billylee]

I asked this earlier here and didn't really get an answer.

KH's divorce proceedings are based on what LE caused him to believe. If the information that LE gave KH turns out to be misleading, then is there some sort of legal exposure that LE has set itself up for from TH's side of the courtroom? Some sort of lawsuit for pain and suffering caused by LE to TH for providing KH inaccurate or misleading information?

IMO, this could be one reason she's still wearing her wedding ring.

Thanks.

 

[AZlawyer]

I asked this earlier here and didn't really get an answer.

KH's divorce proceedings are based on what LE caused him to believe. If the information that LE gave KH turns out to be misleading, then is there some sort of legal exposure that LE has set itself up for from TH's side of the courtroom? Some sort of lawsuit for pain and suffering caused by LE to TH for providing KH inaccurate or misleading information?

IMO, this could be one reason she's still wearing her wedding ring.

Thanks.

Unless LE purposely and maliciously made up lies about Terri to tell Kaine, I doubt they have any legal exposure. LE has a high level of immunity for law enforcement-related activities.

 

[gardeness]

Unless LE purposely and maliciously made up lies about Terri to tell Kaine, I doubt they have any legal exposure. LE has a high level of immunity for law enforcement-related activities.

Would it have to be purposely and maliciously? Could it just be purposely? TIA!

 

[desquire]

Would it have to be purposely and maliciously? Could it just be purposely? TIA!

Sovereign immunity would prevent suit against a police oficer acting within the scope of their official duties. There are a million things that a police officer could do purposefully that cause damages but that are within the scope of their lawful, official duties. I think anything done maliciously would, almost by definition, be outside the scope of their lawful, official duties.

 

[wenwe4]

I haven't heard anything recently about the GJ meeting or any witnesses that may be seen coming or going and I am wondering if the GJ is still hearing witness testimony or if they may be meeting for an indictment vote. How long do GJ's usually hear testimony and how long might we expect the GJ to meet? I know there has to be some idea of time that the court schedules testimony for and anticipate for deliberations. Just wondering what the "normal" time frames are usually set aside for GJ cases.

 

[AZlawyer]

I haven't heard anything recently about the GJ meeting or any witnesses that may be seen coming or going and I am wondering if the GJ is still hearing witness testimony or if they may be meeting for an indictment vote. How long do GJ's usually hear testimony and how long might we expect the GJ to meet? I know there has to be some idea of time that the court schedules testimony for and anticipate for deliberations. Just wondering what the "normal" time frames are usually set aside for GJ cases.

There is absolutely no normal time frame. Could be an hour, could be a year.

 

[Calliope]

The state grand jury would not be considering any federal charges. Also, I think we can safely say that, whatever Terri did to Kyron, if anything, she did not do it because of his status as an attendant at a federally-funded school or in order to prevent him from exercising a federal right. Whether she did anything that might fall within one of the "interstate commerce" types of offenses is tough to say at this point, since we don't know if she did anything at all.

Thanks. I know the current GJ would be looking at charges under Oregon statutes, just wondering if there may be a chance Terri could face Federal charges down the road (especially if she managed to somehow *beat* the state charges).

 

[Calliope]

I doubt it was that calculated. He needed to show actual or threatened harm to a family member and the MFH and Kyron were the two biggies. If they had been thinking about manuevering her onto making a statement on the record, they would have been hoping she contesteed the RO. It isn't necessary that he mentioned Kyron in the RO request to bring it up in the divorce proceeding. When they get around to arguing custody, I'm sure Terri's alleged involvement in Kyron's disappearance will be argument #1 for Kaine. I seriously doubt that was the purpose for filing for divorce but, if the judge doesn't abate, the result will be just what you describe. They will force Terri to testify, they will ask her every conceivable question about Kyron's disappearance and the role she may have played in it. She will either need to deny any involvement on the record or take the 5th.

Although the RO and divorce petition are obviously related, wouldn't the Court rule on each separately? Since Terri refuses to contest both the RO and the divorce (which is what her attorneys have indicated she will do), how can she be forced into the position where she either has to testify or take the 5th? If she just rolls over and agrees to whatever Kaine demands, as far as custody and dissolution at least, I don't see where she would be required to answer to any of his accusations.

But if somehow she is forced to do so, can she simply deny everything and leave it at that, or would this lead to a cross-examination and possibly witness testimony and --- in essence --- a trial without jury?

This is where I have a real problem with this case. Innocent or guilty, I don't believe it's right for her to be forced to try her potential criminal case in a civil divorce case (or for her attorney to have to tip his hand to the prosecution). I think the judge should rule in favor of the abatement motion, giving Kaine his divorce and continued custody per the RO, but leaving the rest until the criminal investigation and probable trial is completed. Otherwise, if she's innocent, then it increases the chance that she'll be wrongfully convicted. If she's guilty, I can see Houze using this as a basis for a successful appeal down the road. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at Holiday Inn Express last night but I feel this is just wrong on so many levels.

 

[Really]

Since Terri has lawyered up she is supposedly not allowed to speak to people via internet, text etc. IF she IS communicating in this fashion can what she says be used against her in a court of law even if she does not identify herself on the forums where she is posting?:waitasec:

 

[Calliope]

As a follow-up to my above post, are you aware of any cases where a criminal investigation or trial was so entwined with an ongoing civil case? Where the civil matter had such potential to impact the criminal prosecution or defense?

 

[desquire]

Although the RO and divorce petition are obviously related, wouldn't the Court rule on each separately?

Not necessarily. If Terri never contests the RO (and at this point you have to figure that she doesn't care about being restrained from approaching Kaine and she wouldn't want to live in the house) the judge's decuision in the divorce proceeding regarding division of custody of the baby would supercede the RO. So it's unlikely there will be any further hearings or rulings regarding the RO.

If Terri refuses to contest both the RO and the divorce (which is what her attorneys have indicated she will do), how can she be forced into the position where she either has to testify or take the 5th? If she just rolls over and agrees to whatever Kaine demands, as far as custody and dissolution at least, I don't see where she would be required to answer to any of his accusations.

If Terri stipulates to giving Kaine sole custody of the baby and waives all visitation and other rights with respect to the baby, she most likely would not need to testify about anything other than finances and employability. If she wants to have any interaction with the baby going forward she will have to answer Kaine's accusations. If she takes the 5th, the judge can draw an adverse inference andwould most likely rule against her on custody. If she refuses to testify at all, she not only gets the same result on custody but would also face contempt charges.

But if somehow she is forced to do so, can she simply deny everything and leave it at that, or would this lead to a cross-examination and possibly witness testimony and --- in essence --- a trial without jury?.

She can't take the 5th with respect to a question if her answer would not incriminate her or lead to incriminating evidence. So if she's innocent, all she can do is deny. If Kaine has any evidence or testimony to rebut that denial, you'd expect him to present it. So you would end up with a mini trial on criminal accusations in a civil court the rules of civil prodcedure and lower evidentiary standards.

This is where I have a real problem with this case. Innocent or guilty, I don't believe it's right for her to be forced to try her potential criminal case in a civil divorce case (or for her attorney to have to tip his hand to the prosecution). I think the judge should rule in favor of the abatement motion, giving Kaine his divorce and continued custody per the RO, but leaving the rest until the criminal investigation and probable trial is completed. Otherwise, if she's innocent, then it increases the chance that she'll be wrongfully convicted. If she's guilty, I can see Houze using this as a basis for a successful appeal down the road. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at Holiday Inn Express last night but I feel this is just wrong on so many levels.

The judge will have to weigh the prejudice to Terri in proceeding under the current circumstances against the prejudice to Kaine in delaying. The longer the Kyron investigation drags out with no visible progress towards resolution, the harder it will be to maintain an abatement.

 

[desquire]

Since Terri has lawyered up she is supposedly not allowed to speak to people via internet, text etc. IF she IS communicating in this fashion can what she says be used against her in a court of law even if she does not identify herself on the forums where she is posting?:waitasec:

Anything she communicates in any fashion can be used against her. Of course, the prosecution would have to prove that it was Terri who made the statement. It's very difficult to conclusively attribute a web posting to any individual but it's not impossible.

 

[debs]

I would also assume that it's just as hard to take what a friend or her mom says and attribute it to Terri, though one could reasonably assume a conversation between a friend or her mom did take place. Many people say "Carol said this, or Finster said this, and it contradicts what Terri says" and holds Terri's own words as lies ...... in a court, which would weigh more .... is the word favorably? for Terri's case?