Found Deceased TX - Heidi Broussard, 33, murdered, baby stolen, Austin, 12 Dec 2019 *friend charged* #12

[Tortoise]

Keeping Heidi's body in the car might lend itself to an insanity defense but inserting herself into the investigation, playing it perfectly and not arousing suspicion, and the finer logistics and timings of entrapping Heidi with her phone, kind of negates that, imo. I think she was very aware of her wrongdoing and evading capture.

 

[Seattle1]

The original two kidnapping charges were the same though, both third class felonies, one for Margo and one for Heidi, but yet MF was indicted only on the one for Margo.

Can you please post the affidavit for Murder charges or wherever you're reading the conflicting information. Thanks.

 

[deugirtni]

This and a few other things make me think that it's related to HB seemingly "willingly" getting into the car of a person she trusted completely - and a lack of knowledge (yet) of what happened between that and her death maybe made it a less certain indictment? Just a theory. The baby didn't have that agency on her own.

From what I have read, I think it has to do with your 'double jeopardy' laws. Just my opinion.

 

[deugirtni]

Best guess on the charges is that MF will be tried for capital murder with extenuating enhancement (kidnapping). The additional kidnapping charge for MC could still stand. Another best guess is that MF's attornies will be trying to save her life by plea. Based on the obvious premeditation, it would be difficult to claim a mental defect.

Yes, the grand jury has already indicted MF for the kidnapping of Margo. It is the charge of kidnapping for HB which has not been mentioned since MF was charged with her murder.

 

[deugirtni]

Can you please post the affidavit for Murder charges or wherever you're reading the conflicting information. Thanks.

I don't see any conflicting information. I'm simply saying that MF was initially charged with 3 separate charges: 1 kidnapping HB, 1 kidnapping Margo, and 1 tampering/hiding body; but the grand jury indicted her on only kidnapping Margo, and the new murder charge for Heidi. People here are saying that MF still has four charges against her, whereas I'm suggesting that since she was only indicted on two of the four charges, the other two charges are no longer in effect because they have been sort of 'absorbed' in with the new murder charge. imo.

 

[deugirtni]

Keeping Heidi's body in the car might lend itself to an insanity defense but inserting herself into the investigation, playing it perfectly and not arousing suspicion, and the finer logistics and timings of entrapping Heidi with her phone, kind of negates that, imo. I think she was very aware of her wrongdoing and evading capture.

Agreed. All of the many things MF did to cover her own arse seem to preclude an insanity defense. I can't see how MF is NOT crazy, but she sure isn't crazy enough not to try to cover her own butt; ie telling her ex-partner she had the baby on the 12th - the same day she kidnapped Margo and HB, meanwhile telling HB she'd given birth a few days earlier; telling her partner she was going to the beach and the police she had gone to a birthing center; telling police she wasn't in the vicinity of HB's residence on the 12th even though her phone records apparently prove otherwise; acting to all of HB's friends and family that she was concerned about HB's disappearance; etc etc etc. IF she was legally nuts, she'd just admit what happened, not understanding that it was wrong. imo.

 

[Seattle1]

I don't see any conflicting information. I'm simply saying that MF was initially charged with 3 separate charges: 1 kidnapping HB, 1 kidnapping Margo, and 1 tampering/hiding body; but the grand jury indicted her on only kidnapping Margo, and the new murder charge for Heidi. People here are saying that MF still has four charges against her, whereas I'm suggesting that since she was only indicted on two of the four charges, the other two charges are no longer in effect because they have been sort of 'absorbed' in with the new murder charge. imo.

D.A. #D1DC209000007 MNI # 7971270 TRN: DPS: 09990022 Court 460th
The State of Texas v. MAGEN FIERAMUSCA

INDICTMENT
CAPITAL MURDER BY TERROR THREAT/OTHER FELONY - PC
19.03(a)(2) - FX

Bond $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In The 450TH Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

THE GRAND JURY, for the County of Travis, State of Texas, duly selected, empanelled, sworn, charged, and organized as such at the JANUARY Term, 2020, of the 450TH Judicial District Court for said County, upon its oath presents in and to said Court at said term, that MAGEN FIERAMUSCA, on or about the 12th day of December, 2019, and before the presentment of this Indictment, in the County of Travis, and State of Texas, did then and there intentionally cause the death of HEIDI BROUSSARD, an individual, by asphyxiating HEIDI BROUSSARD by ligature strangulation, and by asphyxiating HEIDI BROUSSARD with a leash, and by asphyxiating HEIDI BROUSSARD with her hands, and by asphyxiating HEIDI BROUSSARD in a manner unknown to the Grand Jury, and the defendant did then and there cause the death of said individual in the course of committing and attempting to commit the offense of kidnapping of HEIDI BROUSSARD and M. CAREY against the peace and dignity of the State,
------------------------------------
Foreperson of the Grand Jury

Filed on
1/28/2020 10:38 AM
Travis County District Clerk
Velva L. Price

D.A. #D1DC19302438 MNI # 7971270 TRN: 9237956207 DPS: 10990001 Court 460th

The State of Texas v. MAGEN FIERAMUSCA

INDICTMENT
KIDNAPPING - PC 20.03 - F3

19.03(a)(2) - FX

Bond $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In The 450TH Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

THE GRAND JURY, for the County of Travis, State of Texas, duly selected, empanelled, sworn, charged, and organized as such at the JANUARY Term, 2020, of the 450TH Judicial District Court for said County, upon its oath presents in and to said Court at said term, that MAGEN FIERAMUSCA, on or about the 12th day of December, 2019, and before the presentment of this Indictment, in the County of Travis, and State of Texas, did then and there intentionally and knowingly abduct M. CAREY, a minor child, by restraining M. Carey with the intent to prevent the liberation of M. CAREY by using and threatening to use deadly force against M. CAREY and by restraining M. CAREY with the intent to prevent the liberation of M. CAREY by secreting and holding M. CAREY in a place where M. CAREY was not likely to be found and the Defendant did then and there restrain M. CAREY by restricting the movement of M. CAREY without the consent of M. CAREY so as to substantially interfere with the liberty of M. CAREY by confining M. CAREY and by moving M. CAREY from place to place,

against the peace and dignity of the State,
------------------------------------
Foreperson of the Grand Jury
Filed on
1/28/2020 10:38 AM
Travis County District Clerk
Velva L. Price

I finally located the two referenced Indictments dated Jan 28, 2020 --written for MF-- and confirm that the earlier charges of 1) Kidnapping HB and 2) Tampering with evidence/corpse are not included in the grand jury indictments.

First - there's an old saying that "you can indict a ham sandwich." Since I completely agree with the prosecutor's initial charges and see no reason why kidnapping HB and tampering with evidence were not found applicable, I can think of only two reasons why these charges were omitted from the indictment:

1) there will be an amendment to the Indictment,

2) the prosecution intends to charge two subjects for the kidnapping and murder of HB. I now think it's possible that there's a pending indictment against another party that will specifically include kidnapping KB, and tampering with evidence/corpse. And perhaps murder.

More reason to believe that there was a third adult in the car
with HB and MF??

MOO

@deugirtni -- thanks for forcing me to read the Indictments!!

 

[BeachSky]

....”against the peace and dignity of the State”

Amen!

 

[Niner]

I don't see any conflicting information. I'm simply saying that MF was initially charged with 3 separate charges: 1 kidnapping HB, 1 kidnapping Margo, and 1 tampering/hiding body; but the grand jury indicted her on only kidnapping Margo, and the new murder charge for Heidi. People here are saying that MF still has four charges against her, whereas I'm suggesting that since she was only indicted on two of the four charges, the other two charges are no longer in effect because they have been sort of 'absorbed' in with the new murder charge. imo.

But PommyMommy posted from the court site - post #618
and I quote:

Here's what I'm seeing on the docket:

Defendant FIERAMUSCA, MAGEN
Attorney WOOD, JACKIE
Cause D-1-DC-19-302438
Date & Time 2/3/20 9:00 AM
Court 460
Floor 1
Type UDS2
Charge KIDNAPPING

Defendant FIERAMUSCA, MAGEN
Attorney ERSKINE, BRIAN
Cause D-1-DC-19-302438
Date & Time 2/3/20 9:00 AM
Court 460
Floor 1
Type UDS2
Charge KIDNAPPING

Defendant FIERAMUSCA, MAGEN
Attorney WOOD, JACKIE
Cause D-1-DC-19-302437
Date & Time 2/3/20 9:00 AM
Court 460
Floor 1
Type UDS2
Charge KIDNAPPING

Defendant FIERAMUSCA, MAGEN
Attorney ERSKINE, BRIAN
Cause D-1-DC-19-302437
Date & Time 2/3/20 9:00 AM
Court 460
Floor 1
Type UDS2
Charge KIDNAPPING

Defendant FIERAMUSCA, MAGEN
Attorney WOOD, JACKIE
Cause D-1-DC-20-900007
Date & Time 2/3/20 9:00 AM
Court 460
Floor 1
Type DESG1
Charge CAPITAL MURDER BY TERROR THREAT/OTHER FELONY

Defendant FIERAMUSCA, MAGEN
Attorney ERSKINE, BRIAN
Cause D-1-DC-20-900007
Date & Time 2/3/20 9:00 AM
Court 460
Floor 1
Type DESG1
Charge CAPITAL MURDER BY TERROR THREAT/OTHER FELONY

Defendant FIERAMUSCA, MAGEN
Attorney WOOD, JACKIE
Cause D-1-DC-19-302439
Date & Time 2/3/20 9:00 AM
Court 460
Floor 1
Type UDS2
Charge TAMP/FAB PHYS EVID W/INTENT TO IMPAIR HUM CORPSE

Defendant FIERAMUSCA, MAGEN
Attorney ERSKINE, BRIAN
Cause D-1-DC-19-302439
Date & Time 2/3/20 9:00 AM
Court 460
Floor 1
Type UDS2
Charge TAMP/FAB PHYS EVID W/INTENT TO IMPAIR HUM CORPSE

(Charges appear twice - once for each attorney)
***

So - according to this - she has 1 count of capital murder, 2 counts of felony 3 kidnapping & 1 count of tampering with evidence.


If she wasn't charged with the 1 kidnapping & tampering counts they wouldn't show up on the court site - would they?

And why do the charges appear twice - for each of the attorneys? TIA!

 

[InvSmith]

Yes, the grand jury has already indicted MF for the kidnapping of Margo. It is the charge of kidnapping for HB which has not been mentioned since MF was charged with her murder.

Have we seen any indictment? So far, we have seen the arrest affidavit, press release, and the recent capital charge.

Can anyone help me to understand why MF and her legal team would not have been present at MF's grand jury indictment? Just trying to understand the differences.. over here the accuseds are entitled to be present at all court hearings involving themselves. I got the impression from articles I've read that her legal team didn't even know it was happening. Can this be true?

The Grand Jury examines the current evidence for an indictment. This is a judicial process to ensure sufficiently evidenced. The scope and purpose of the Grand Jury are different than a criminal trial. The jurors actually can ask questions of usually the lead investigator/officers and others as deemed necessary. You are correct in that the defense is usually not part of the discussions. The DA tries to lay out the case in a smaller degree. Ultimately, the DA has to decide if there is enough evidence.

 

[PommyMommy]

Have we seen any indictment? So far, we have seen the arrest affidavit, press release, and the recent capital charge.

The Grand Jury examines the current evidence for an indictment. This is a judicial process to ensure sufficiently evidenced. The scope and purpose of the Grand Jury are different than a criminal trial. The jurors actually can ask questions of usually the lead investigator/officers and others as deemed necessary. You are correct in that the defense is usually not part of the discussions. The DA tries to lay out the case in a smaller degree. Ultimately, the DA has to decide if there is enough evidence.

Jessica Willey on Twitter
Here are the indictments against Magen Fieramusca filed today.

2:28 PM · Jan 28, 2020 from Houston, TX

 

[Tortoise]

Could it simply be a case that she was already arraigned on Heidi's kidnapping and tampering charges, and that those being non-capital crimes, by themselves, didn't require indictment signed by a grand jury, as the capital murder and kidnapping of Margo did? I mean Margo's kidnapping was potentially requiring of a higher burden of proof if for instance MF could claim there was no criminal element and Heidi had entrusted her with Margo's care, for example.

 

[WillenFan21]

Just gone done watching Dateline episode. My heart breaks for everyone. Hearing them talk about Silas was heartbreaking.

 

[Seattle1]

Could it simply be a case that she was already arraigned on Heidi's kidnapping and tampering charges, and that those being non-capital crimes, by themselves, didn't require indictment signed by a grand jury, as the capital murder and kidnapping of Margo did? I mean Margo's kidnapping was potentially requiring of a higher burden of proof if for instance MF could claim there was no criminal element and Heidi had entrusted her with Margo's care, for example.

After @deugirtni repeatedly posted how the indictment included only two charges (murder and kidnapping baby MS), I thought maybe the grand jury did not receive evidence and/or have to decide on the initial, lesser charges for which MF was first held. I understand that's not correct and the grand jury receives a "bill" of all the charges and the evidence. Unless there is a second indictment, I believe the indictment will be amended or the prosecutor will charge the defendant regardless. MOO

The prosecutor gives the [grand] jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function as a "test" trial, enabling them to see how the evidence is likely to be received by jurors.

If the grand jury indicts a defendant based on the evidence presented, it returns a "true bill". If the grand jury decides not to indict, it returns a "no bill." However, even if a grand jury doesn't indict, the prosecutor can return to the same grand jury and present additional evidence, get a new grand jury, or even file criminal charges regardless.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-happens-when-you-re-charged-with-a-crime.html

 

[Tortoise]

After @deugirtni repeatedly posted how the indictment included only two charges (murder and kidnapping baby MS), I thought maybe the grand jury did not receive evidence and/or have to decide on the initial, lesser charges for which MF was first held. I understand that's not correct and the grand jury receives a "bill" of all the charges and the evidence. Unless there is a second indictment, I believe the indictment will be amended or the prosecutor will charge the defendant regardless. MOO

The prosecutor gives the [grand] jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function as a "test" trial, enabling them to see how the evidence is likely to be received by jurors.

If the grand jury indicts a defendant based on the evidence presented, it returns a "true bill". If the grand jury decides not to indict, it returns a "no bill." However, even if a grand jury doesn't indict, the prosecutor can return to the same grand jury and present additional evidence, get a new grand jury, or even file criminal charges regardless.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-happens-when-you-re-charged-with-a-crime.html

I'm not sure you understood my post. I'll try and phrase it another way. It may be that prosecutor didn't require a GJ indictment for the kidnapping of Heidi and tampering because she's already been arraigned on those charges. Would that be legal to hold her since December otherwise? So the GJ was only considering the additional charges of capital murder and kidnapping of Margo.

Possibly.

 

[InvSmith]

Jessica Willey on Twitter
Here are the indictments against Magen Fieramusca filed today.

2:28 PM · Jan 28, 2020 from Houston, TX

Looks like the capital murder indictment is the charge with kidnapping being the special circumstance. Generally, committing a felony (kidnapping) with the intent to cause the death of HB (capital murder). The felony kidnapping remains for MC. It is of interest to note that one method of strangulation remains unknown by the Grand Jury.

 

[Seattle1]

Could it simply be a case that she was already arraigned on Heidi's kidnapping and tampering charges, and that those being non-capital crimes, by themselves, didn't require indictment signed by a grand jury, as the capital murder and kidnapping of Margo did?

^^sbbm

If I recall correctly, MF has not been arraigned. She had her first court appearance scheduled for Jan 2 which was reset to Feb 3. (MF's attorney requested her first appearance reset).

Thursday, December 26, 2019

AUSTIN, Texas (KTRK) -- The woman who's charged with kidnapping in the disappearance of an Austin mom and her baby is reportedly due in court next week.

Sources tell ABC News 33-year-old Magen Fieramusca is due in court on Thursday, Jan. 2. She is accused of abducting her close friend Heidi Broussard and Broussard's infant daughter, Margot Carey.

Lawyers for accused Austin mom killer: 'We're anxious to review the evidence'

Published: 12:38 PM CST December 26, 2019
Updated: 10:24 AM CST January 1, 2020

AUSTIN, Texas — Magen Fieramusca, the woman arrested in connection to the killing of an Austin mom and the kidnapping of her baby, will now make her first appearance in Travis County District Court on Feb. 3.

Her first court appearance was originally scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 2, but the district attorney's office told KVUE that at the request of Fieramusca's attorneys, it was reset. The court confirmed that Fieramusca does not have to appear in person at the hearing.

The formality hearing is scheduled to take place at 9 a.m. at the 460th District Court before Hon. Geoffrey Puryear. He was appointed to the court by Gov. Greg Abbott in November.

Jackie Wood, Fieramusca's attorney, released the following statement on Thursday:

"As with every American accused of a crime, unless the State can prove these allegations beyond any reasonable doubt, Ms. Fieramusca is innocent."

Fieramusca is currently being held in Travis County on two charges of kidnapping and one count of tampering with a human corpse. As of Thursday afternoon, there was no indication of any additional charges filed against her.

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/magen-fieramusca-set-to-make-first-court-appearance-on-jan-2/269-c57beb89-0984-4dd9-9348-d3ba0a67ab42

 

[Seattle1]

I'm not sure you understood my post. I'll try and phrase it another way. It may be that prosecutor didn't require a GJ indictment for the kidnapping of Heidi and tampering because she's already been arraigned on those charges. Would that be legal to hold her since December otherwise? So the GJ was only considering the additional charges of capital murder and kidnapping of Margo.

Possibly.

MF has never appeared in court for the charges (not arraigned on her charges). She was scheduled to appear Jan 3 and reset to Feb 3 at her attorney's request.

 

[InvSmith]

After @deugirtni repeatedly posted how the indictment included only two charges (murder and kidnapping baby MS), I thought maybe the grand jury did not receive evidence and/or have to decide on the initial, lesser charges for which MF was first held. I understand that's not correct and the grand jury receives a "bill" of all the charges and the evidence. Unless there is a second indictment, I believe the indictment will be amended or the prosecutor will charge the defendant regardless. MOO

The prosecutor gives the [grand] jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function as a "test" trial, enabling them to see how the evidence is likely to be received by jurors.

If the grand jury indicts a defendant based on the evidence presented, it returns a "true bill". If the grand jury decides not to indict, it returns a "no bill." However, even if a grand jury doesn't indict, the prosecutor can return to the same grand jury and present additional evidence, get a new grand jury, or even file criminal charges regardless.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-happens-when-you-re-charged-with-a-crime.html[/QUOTE

It would appear the kidnapping of HB will be an enhancement to the capital murder charge and MC will be kidnapping.

 

[InvSmith]

MF has never appeared in court for the charges. She was scheduled to appear Jan 3 and reset to Feb 3 at her attorney's request.

In a physical sense, MF may not have appeared in court; however, a Livelink is usually used and the charges and rights are discussed. Technically, she has been afforded her rights to know the charges and her rights.