gliving
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,634
- Reaction score
- 39,620
TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #41
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
New Posts
-
FL - Doug Benefield, 58, shot and killed by estranged wife, Manatee County, 27 Sept 2020- Latest: nodamselindistress
-
-
- Status
liltexans
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 13,451
- Reaction score
- 25,904
Yes, potentially. If they ever make an arrest, they can decide what charges are warranted and I see no reason to think that the death penalty wouldn't be a possibility, unless the perp turns out to be a minor.
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
An indictment comes from a grand jury and formally charges you with the commission of a crime. The indictment itself is not secret and you will get a copy of it. Grand jury proceedings are secret. Link Google ....
An interesting description of a GJ in the recent Zuzu Verk case. http://m.wect.com/wect/pm_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=od:uz3TqDMR
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
I agree. But for it to be DP, the bar is higher (as it should) and have to have strong evidence. It is sometimes used as a bargaining tool JMHO. Texas does sentence to death and execute. Would think would be a good deterrent but evil roams the street we roam. Good to see you! :seeya:
janesmith787
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 939
Doesn't it have to be capital murder charge to get death penalty in TX?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,344
- Reaction score
- 42,044
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.
(b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.
Sec. 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1) and:
(1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the person knows is a peace officer or fireman;
(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), or (6);
(3) the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;
(4) the person commits the murder while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution;
(5) the person, while incarcerated in a penal institution, murders another:
(A) who is employed in the operation of the penal institution; or
(B) with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination;
(6) the person:
(A) while incarcerated for an offense under this section or Section 19.02, murders another; or
(B) while serving a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of 99 years for an offense under Section 20.04, 22.021, or 29.03, murders another;
(7) the person murders more than one person:
(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;
(8) the person murders an individual under 10 years of age; or
(9) the person murders another person in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a judge or justice of the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a justice court, or a municipal court.
(b) An offense under this section is a capital felony.
(c) If the jury or, when authorized by law, the judge does not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offense under this section, he may be convicted of murder or of any other lesser included offense. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm
PENAL CODE
TITLE 3. PUNISHMENT
CHAPTER 12. PUNISHMENTS
Sec. 12.31. CAPITAL FELONY. (a) An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state seeks the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life without parole or by death. An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state does not seek the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for:
(1) life, if the individual committed the offense when younger than 18 years of age; or
(2) life without parole, if the individual committed the offense when 18 years of age or older.
(b) In a capital felony trial in which the state seeks the death penalty, prospective jurors shall be informed that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole or death is mandatory on conviction of a capital felony. In a capital felony trial in which the state does not seek the death penalty, prospective jurors shall be informed that the state is not seeking the death penalty and that:
(1) a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction of the capital felony, if the individual committed the offense when younger than 18 years of age; or
(2) a sentence of life imprisonment without parole is mandatory on conviction of the capital felony, if the individual committed the offense when 18 years of age or older.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.12.htm
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
(Woo hoo I did it correctly GA Peach! *multiple post)
Sec. 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1) and: (2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), or (6); http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm
Curious if it means anything at all that the word "Capital" was scratched out of Capital Murder on the iPhone & iPad SW that Corporal Cody Moon prepared & was signed by Judge Carroll on 4/19/16? I understand it was very early on and they didn't have all the facts but seems like looking it would be Capital because of the breaking into the building and the murder. Its evident that they used a template type SW where they already have and they change the pertinent information. Did the Primary Investigator first think "Capital Murder" when prepared, and after speaking with Judge Carroll change and scratch out "Capital" for time being?
ETA: JMHO maybe after they found out nothing was taken from building is why changed at time? :thinking:
PENAL CODE
TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS
Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm
Cannonball3804
Former Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 4
Texas statutes most certainly allow for indictment before arrest and indictment after arrest. I have never said otherwise. What I have said is that in practicality, the vast majority of indictments follow a path in which a suspect is arrested and THEN the GJ is presented the case and decides to return an indictment (which they do in 95% of cases).
It IS following the law.
Here is a snippet from a law firm that gives an overview of the arrest and grand jury process. Keep in mind that this is a firm in MN, not TX, so we need to disregard the part about the prosecutor having an option of presenting the complaint to the trial court rather than a grand jury. In TX if a felony, he MUST present to GJ:
"The Arrest and Report
After an arrest is made, but before anyone is charged with a crime, the police create an arrest report and forward it to the prosecutor. The report summarizes the events leading up to the arrest and the details of the arrest (dates, time, location, witnesses, etc).
Based on this report, the prosecutor can either:
- File a complaint with the trial court, setting forth the charges
- Go to a grand jury, present the evidence to them, and ask them what criminal charges, if any, should be brought
- Elect to not pursue the matter"
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-happens-when-you-re-charged-with-a-crime.html
Here's another:
"[FONT=&]A criminal case usually gets started with a police arrest report. The prosecutor then decides what criminal charges to file, if any. Some cases can then go to a grand jury for a [/FONT]criminal indictment[FONT=&] or to a [/FONT]preliminary hearing[FONT=&], where a judge decides if there is enough evidence to proceed.[/FONT]"
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/charged-with-crime-how-29677.html
This isn't the first time to the rodeo for the police and prosecutor - they have a good idea of what constitutes probable cause. And remember that is the only thing the GJ decides anyway - whether there is probable cause or not. So the police make their arrest, and then the prosecutor presents the case to the GJ.
It's important to note here that the real purpose of the GJ in general is:
The American grand jury system was devised as a protection against oppression and dates back to colonial times. "The idea is that no one should have to account for a serious crime unless a group of their peers have authorized the prosecution to go forward."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Q-A-What-is-a-grand-jury-and-how-does-it-work-5917386.php
Now, the above SOUNDS really good and designed to protect the accused. But as I stated in an earlier post, the average GJ is hearing HUNDREDS of cases each day they're in session. Even if you give them the benefit of a 10-hour-day and a minimum of 200 cases which would be the lowest amount you could mean by "hundreds", that's still 3 minutes per case.
[FONT=&]Grand juries are notorious for being rubber*stamps for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal matters. ([/FONT]Plea Bargaining: Critical Issues and Common Practices, by William F. McDonald, (U.S. DOJ, National Institute of Justice, 1985).
Mimi, since you're interested in all the things that "can" happen, here is a good summary. This is from NJ but I believe it all still applies:
"1. Without an arrest (when you do not physically have the perpetrator or know who he or she is) evidence can be presented​ to a grand jury. The indictment is called a no arrest indictment, which forms the basis of an arrest warrant, so when the suspect is found and arrested he or she has already been indicted.
2. ​After a person is arrested, the case is immediately within a week, unless time is waived presented to a grand jury.
3. After a person is arrested, he or she is not held in jail because the district attorney is investigating and unsure whether the case will be presented to a grand jury, or reduced to a misdemeanor, and a plea offer may be made thereby waiving a grand jury, or the case will be dismissed.
4. There is no arrest, you know who the perpetrator is and the case is presented to a
grand jury. An arrest only occurs if a grand jury indicts."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/6-your-questions-about-grand-juries-answered
But again, in actual practice number 2 above is what happens the vast majority of the time. Number 4 happens when LE themselves are the accused, because it allows a GJ of regular citizens to make a decision on indictment instead of people already in the justice system looking out for their own. Number 3 is more of a scenario where we're probably not talking about murder, and the initial facts are a little shaky with the prosecutor not sure what is going to stand up and if a plea bargain might be presented. So that leaves number 1. But with much still being unknown about MB's murder, and the lack of even a suspect, what would be the benefit of going that route?
Question: are there other search warrants in this case that we, the public, haven't seen yet?
If this is a premeditated murder by someone that MB knew, surely interviews with friends and family as well as investigating her electronic communication would have put this person on the POI list. I just don't see MB being a sophisticated, double-life kind of woman. IMO she's a pretty average housewife who's flirting and possibly getting some strange on the side. She's busy with two active kids, a busy job and a household.
I think LE knows that missing piece to tie SP to the murder will be either finding the swat gear or finding MBs blood on the person's belongings. They need to search someone's car, their home, their storage units etc.
Do we know if LE had probably cause on anyone else - enough to issue a SW to look for evidence? If i understand the SW process correctly, LE would take their request and probably cause to a judge who would authorize the search. I'm curious if LE has done this at all since the original SWs.
If this is a premeditated murder by someone that MB knew, surely interviews with friends and family as well as investigating her electronic communication would have put this person on the POI list. I just don't see MB being a sophisticated, double-life kind of woman. IMO she's a pretty average housewife who's flirting and possibly getting some strange on the side. She's busy with two active kids, a busy job and a household.
I think LE knows that missing piece to tie SP to the murder will be either finding the swat gear or finding MBs blood on the person's belongings. They need to search someone's car, their home, their storage units etc.
Do we know if LE had probably cause on anyone else - enough to issue a SW to look for evidence? If i understand the SW process correctly, LE would take their request and probably cause to a judge who would authorize the search. I'm curious if LE has done this at all since the original SWs.
Cannonball3804
Former Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 4
I wasn't familiar with that case before your post. Looking at it now, they took the very unusual and "rare" step as a GJ of meeting multiple times about the case.
https://m.facebook.com/newswest9/posts/10154252256165017
Some aspects of this case to consider - at first, in mid Oct Zerk was a missing person and they had not recovered her remains yet. They began to suspect the BF two weeks after the disappearance.
GJ began to look into the case sometime between Oct and Dec. Called the BF to testify before them in Dec but he did not cooperate. There has been no indictment that we know of.
Complicating matters was this: "A prosecutor from the state attorney general's office is handling the case, according to Dodson, because the district attorney in office at the time of Verk's disappearance finished his term at the end of 2016."
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...est-texas-near-dallas-area-woman-went-missing
Perhaps the fact that the prosecutor was a lame duck is at least one reason why he went ahead and took it to the GJ so early and without an arrest.
Then in early Feb, her remains were found and the BF was arrested the next day. Still no indictment returned as of yet. Do I have all that right?
lonetraveler
Crime Addict
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 17,492
- Reaction score
- 44,833
I served as grand jury foreman for one year in NC and there the indictment comes first, then warrant is issued for arrest. All kept secret until the arrest happens (most likely to keep the person from fleeing).
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Thank you for the links Cannonball. I do like to read. But in this case, in this conversation pertaining to the GJ and your prior comment, and the Texas Statutes I copy and pasted and provided links...
Fact is this Murder case will be going in front of a GJ, not matter of IF but WHEN. It is a Felony so that is in the TX Code.
"1. But with much still being unknown about MB's murder, and the lack of even a suspect, what would be the benefit of going that route?" <<< We the Public, have absolutely no idea what the MPD actually know or have as evidence. So can not give an opinion. I don't see the DA going to GJ with no evidence, so jmho they won't until they have enough.
I just trying to keep factual and the factual possibilities in this case, in Texas. And point I am making or trying to is that it was your opinion that there would be an arrest then the GJ Indictment only AFTER an arrest. You stated/presented it as if it were a fact because you live in TX and know how it is done.
And that although is one of the possibilities and may happen, it is not the only one and Texas Statute /Code proves it. And if there had not been an arrest or under bond by time the Indictment was to be presented, by Texas Code, it can not be made public until the capis has been served and the Suspect arrested. THEN the Indictment is made public, but the arrest would come AFTER the Indictment in that case. So one of the very factual possibilities (by CODE) is that an Indictment has been made/or that the DA has presented to the GJ the case (or whatever the proper language) for this case of murder of MB, but an arrest has not. < POSSIBILITY, Not stating is fact that has been accomplished yet but it is a possibility and due to GJ proceedings being Secret we won't know until we know. Hopefully that will be known in the soon future not much later. JMHO
eace:
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
By Texas Statute/Code, SWs have to be filed for public record after being executed within xx number of days unless sealed. There is huge possibility that there were possibly other SW executed & filed and MSM just not reported on it. Unsure why they wouldn't but there is that possibility. **(possibly something that could be answered FOIA as to whether any have been executed since last ones) There is also the possibility that consent was given so some things no need for a SW was done. There is also the possibility of TX Rangers or FBI having SW in other jurisdictions iirc that would not be filed in Ellis County. Many investigative possibilities but here is the link to SWs Code ** below, (b) on the sealing was what happened on FB search warrants. :thinking: curious since KS posted on that fb page and was quoted her full post in the Dallas Observer about BB phone being tapped. I curious on this part of Art. 18.011 (2) the affidavit contains information obtained from a court-ordered wiretap that has not expired at the time the attorney representing the state requests the sealing of the affidavit.
Art. 18.01. SEARCH WARRANT (a) A "search warrant" is a written order, issued by a magistrate and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for any property or thing and to seize the same and bring it before such magistrate or commanding him to search for and photograph a child and to deliver to the magistrate any of the film exposed pursuant to the order.
(b) No search warrant shall issue for any purpose in this state unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the issuing magistrate that probable cause does in fact exist for its issuance. A sworn affidavit setting forth substantial facts establishing probable cause shall be filed in every instance in which a search warrant is requested. Except as provided by Article 18.011, the affidavit is public information if executed, and the magistrate's clerk shall make a copy of the affidavit available for public inspection in the clerk's office during normal business hours.
Art. 18.011. SEALING OF AFFIDAVIT. (a) An attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felonies may request a district judge or the judge of an appellate court to seal an affidavit presented under Article 18.01(b). The judge may order the affidavit sealed if the attorney establishes a compelling state interest in that:
(1) public disclosure of the affidavit would jeopardize the safety of a victim, witness, or confidential informant or cause the destruction of evidence; or
(2) the affidavit contains information obtained from a court-ordered wiretap that has not expired at the time the attorney representing the state requests the sealing of the affidavit.
(b) An order sealing an affidavit under this section expires on the 31st day after the date on which the search warrant for which the affidavit was presented is executed. After an original order sealing an affidavit is issued under this article, an attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felonies may request, and a judge may grant, before the 31st day after the date on which the search warrant for which the affidavit was presented is executed, on a new finding of compelling state interest, one 30-day extension of the original order.
(c) On the expiration of an order issued under Subsection (b) and any extension, the affidavit must be unsealed.
(d) An order issued under this section may not:
(1) prohibit the disclosure of information relating to the contents of a search warrant, the return of a search warrant, or the inventory of property taken pursuant to a search warrant; or
(2) affect the right of a defendant to discover the contents of an affidavit.
Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 355 (S.B. 244), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.18.htm#18.011
Jethro4WS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2016
- Messages
- 6,054
- Reaction score
- 35,227
Even with just Missy there are a number of warrants that I would expect to exist yet we have not seen. Among these would be:
Missy had an iPhone and iPad. She would have had at least one (you can have more than one) AppleID and there is no warrant to Apple for the AppStore, iTunes and iCloud services.
Missy is known to have at least two Yahoo! E-mail accounts and there is no warrant to Yahoo! for e-mail or other services such as PhotoBucket, or Tumblr, etc.
Missy is known to have at least one Twitter account and there is no warrant to Twitter for obtaining and direct messages as an example.
Missy is known to have at least one Instagram account and there is no warrant to instagram to obtain any information from any Instagram accounts.
CW is known to have had at least one Facebook account and per the MB Facebook probably cause affidavit MB was in contact with CW using that account and yet no FB warrant for CW.
CW is known to have e-mail accounts and there is no warrant to obtain e-mails from those providers.
CW is known to have other online accounts and there is no warrant to obtain information from those accounts.
It is very possible that MB belonged to sites with forums (fitness related, for example) that have private messaging capabilities (not unlike this site) and there are no warrants for such sites.
Everyone on the phone warrants likely has online SM, e-mail, and other online services (including cloud services) and there are no such warrants.
I find this perplexing and I can't see why warrants were not issued for these services.
Cannonball3804
Former Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 4
Thank you for the links Cannonball. I do like to read. But in this case, in this conversation pertaining to the GJ and your prior comment, and the Texas Statutes I copy and pasted and provided links...
Fact is this Murder case will be going in front of a GJ, not matter of IF but WHEN. It is a Felony so that is in the TX Code.
"1. But with much still being unknown about MB's murder, and the lack of even a suspect, what would be the benefit of going that route?" <<< We the Public, have absolutely no idea what the MPD actually know or have as evidence. So can not give an opinion. I don't see the DA going to GJ with no evidence, so jmho they won't until they have enough.
I just trying to keep factual and the factual possibilities in this case, in Texas. And point I am making or trying to is that it was your opinion that there would be an arrest then the GJ Indictment only AFTER an arrest. You stated/presented it as if it were a fact because you live in TX and know how it is done.
And that although is one of the possibilities and may happen, it is not the only one and Texas Statute /Code proves it. And if there had not been an arrest or under bond by time the Indictment was to be presented, by Texas Code, it can not be made public until the capis has been served and the Suspect arrested. THEN the Indictment is made public, but the arrest would come AFTER the Indictment in that case. So one of the very factual possibilities (by CODE) is that an Indictment has been made/or that the DA has presented to the GJ the case (or whatever the proper language) for this case of murder of MB, but an arrest has not. < POSSIBILITY, Not stating is fact that has been accomplished yet but it is a possibility and due to GJ proceedings being Secret we won't know until we know. Hopefully that will be known in the soon future not much later. JMHO
There are tons of things that are "possibilities". But then a much smaller number are "probabilities". A much smaller number are "likelihoods".
In Texas, the overwhelming likelihood is that indictment will follow arrest, and that IS following the law. If you do some internet research, it becomes clear that for at least every one example of a case that went to a GJ prior to arrest, there are at least 9 where an arrest was made and then went to a GJ for indictment. I don't know about you, but if there is a 90% chance of rain, I'm taking an umbrella.
That's all I intend to post about GJ's and how they work in Texas, so you or whoever else can have whatever last word you wish. I've spent way too much time on it already.
Cannonball3804
Former Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 4
I'm going to violate my own rule from my previous post and say one more thing.
Lonetraveler, in a year of serving as a GJ foreman, you have to know that there were numerous cases in which a person committed a felony and is arrested immediately or that same day. Right? So the suspect is already under arrest prior to a GJ having any opportunity to look at it. Because the prosecutor who would send it to the GJ hasn't even seen the police report yet.
A GJ is not able to issue a warrant for arrest if the person is already in custody or was previously arrested and bonded out.
Ok, now I'm really done.
Cannonball3804
Former Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 4
Jethro, have you considered that there might be federal warrants? What I wonder is that maybe within a day or two of the murder, MPD may have leaned heavily upon the FBI and their recommendations about how to proceed. And the FBI may have advised them that, wherever possible, federal warrants would be preferable to state/local ones because it would be easier to keep them out of the public eye. That's just my speculation.
- Status