2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

[MarieFaith]

I think it's pretty interesting she is still wearing her wedding ring.

I would imagine her lawyer told her exactly what to wear, including instructions to wear her wedding ring. He wants to portray her as a "normal" wife who's become the victim of a terrible misunderstanding and/or severe emotional distress (and who had no other way to cope with stress of losing stepson and husband and daughter except to send hundreds of sexts to another man???)

The poor woman...I feel sorry for her already.

My opinion.

 

[gardeness]

This reinforces to me that she has something to hide in regards to Kyron. Her criminal defense attorney is involved in her divorce proceedings. She is trying to keep herself from incriminating herself in any kind of courtroom, and she is hoping this will "blow over." Eventually, many people will forget and move on and she'll be able to do the same.

My pov is the opposite, I guess- I see her as falsely accused at this point (I am waiting for evidence that will change my mind!), and see her as coming to court completely prepared to defend herself from being even more wronged...

 

[Jaryd]

Is there some kind of loophole in marital confidence laws that they need to push the divorce, though the search and grand jury is still taking place for Kyron?

This is the first missing person case I've watched, but it seems... weird.

 

[wondering1]

I agree. And I do think the LE bodyguards were a bit much. I mean sheesh. Did she really need three of them AND her lawyers? Entourage much? I just don't think she'd be in that much danger at a divorce hearing.

it's a witch-hunt and she's gotten death threats, doncha' know :angel:

 

[wondering1]

Is there some kind of loophole in marital confidence laws that they need to push the divorce, though the search and grand jury is still taking place for Kyron?

This is the first missing person case I've watched, but it seems... weird.

It's my understanding that the marital privilege can be waived by the party asserting it. In this case, I'm guessing either one of the spouses would be more than willing to testify against the other at this point. jmoo

eta: I should have said "can be waived by the party with the RIGHT to assert it." Obviously, if they're waiving it, they're not asserting it...d'oh

 

[krowdkat]

Is there some kind of loophole in marital confidence laws that they need to push the divorce, though the search and grand jury is still taking place for Kyron?

This is the first missing person case I've watched, but it seems... weird.

I'm no lawyer and I think this would be an excellent question for the family lawyers on this board.

In my personal experience, family law and criminal law are two differerent practices. That this case has both issues going on at the same time, IMO, it will take more than one expert and more than one dollar to straighten it all out. I don't recall any other case in my lifetime being so complex in a legal sense.

Hello, Misty married and divorced Ron AFTER Haleigh went missing and before she was ever found.

I have nothing else to offer up as a comparison. Anyone else?

 

[cypress]

This reinforces to me that she has something to hide in regards to Kyron. Her criminal defense attorney is involved in her divorce proceedings. She is trying to keep herself from incriminating herself in any kind of courtroom, and she is hoping this will "blow over." Eventually, many people will forget and move on and she'll be able to do the same.

She's the primary focus of an investigation into the case of a missing child. Her divorce is not happening in a vacuum; the basis for the divorce was a MFH plot allegedly uncovered by LE during the investigation into the missing person's case. IMHO, it's only natural the the lawyerly duties would overlap.

 

[Kimster]

Is there some kind of loophole in marital confidence laws that they need to push the divorce, though the search and grand jury is still taking place for Kyron?

This is the first missing person case I've watched, but it seems... weird.

 

[wondering1]

I'm no lawyer and I think this would be an excellent question for the family lawyers on this board.

In my personal experience, family law and criminal law are two differerent practices. That this case has both issues going on at the same time, IMO, it will take more than one expert and more than one dollar to straighten it all out. I don't recall any other case in my lifetime being so complex in a legal sense.

Hello, Misty married and divorced Ron AFTER Haleigh went missing and before she was ever found.

I have nothing else to offer up as a comparison. Anyone else?

I found this link that talks about both marital confidence and spousal testimonial privilege. It says that for the first, the spouse CAN prevent the other spouse from testifying about a marital confidence BUT the privilege generally survives the marriage.

For the second, the spouse called to testify can waive the privilege, but it's not generally applicable after the marriage.

Also, the second privilege only applies in criminal cases.

If that is a correct assessment, it seems like it doesn't really matter in this case, since the first privilege generally survives the divorce and the second can be waived at any time. You're right, it's a good question for the verified lawyers. I'd like to hear how this works in real life -- especially whether there's an exception to the general rule that marital confidences privilege surviving the divorce if there are pending felony charges. Hmm...


[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege[/ame]

 

[Jaryd]

Thank you much!
Crossed fingers that I did the quote correctly..

 

[Kimster]

Thank you much!
Crossed fingers that I did the quote correctly..

Done like you've been here forever! :wink:

 

[wondering1]

y'all got me curious, so I hunted down the Oregon evidence rule on the marital confidence privilege.

I bolded the exception that would apply. So it looks like the divorce is not a strategy -- at least as it relates to privilege issues:

Rule 505. Husband-wife privilege

(1) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:

(a) "Confidential communication" means a communication by a spouse to the other spouse and not intended to be disclosed to any other person.

(b) "Marriage" means a marital relationship between husband and wife, legally recognized under the laws of this state.

(2) In any civil or criminal action, a spouse has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent the other spouse from disclosing any confidential communication made by one spouse to the other during the marriage. The privilege created by this subsection may be claimed by either spouse. The authority of the spouse to claim the privilege and the claiming of the privilege is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

(3) In any criminal proceeding, neither spouse, during the marriage, shall be examined adversely against the other as to any other matter occurring during the marriage unless the spouse called as a witness consents to testify.

(4) There is no privilege under this section:

(a) In all criminal actions in which one spouse is charged with bigamy or with an offense or attempted offense against the person or property of the other spouse or of a child of either, or with an offense against the person or property of a third person committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit an offense against the other spouse;

(b) As to matters occurring prior to the marriage; or

(c) In any civil action where the spouses are adverse parties. [1981 c.892 §34; 1983 c.433 §1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255

 

[debs]

y'all got me curious, so I hunted down the Oregon evidence rule on the marital confidence privilege.

I bolded the exception that would apply. So it looks like the divorce is not a strategy -- at least as it relates to privilege issues:

Rule 505. Husband-wife privilege

(1) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:

(a) "Confidential communication" means a communication by a spouse to the other spouse and not intended to be disclosed to any other person.

(b) "Marriage" means a marital relationship between husband and wife, legally recognized under the laws of this state.

(2) In any civil or criminal action, a spouse has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent the other spouse from disclosing any confidential communication made by one spouse to the other during the marriage. The privilege created by this subsection may be claimed by either spouse. The authority of the spouse to claim the privilege and the claiming of the privilege is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

(3) In any criminal proceeding, neither spouse, during the marriage, shall be examined adversely against the other as to any other matter occurring during the marriage unless the spouse called as a witness consents to testify.

(4) There is no privilege under this section:

(a) In all criminal actions in which one spouse is charged with bigamy or with an offense or attempted offense against the person or property of the other spouse or of a child of either, or with an offense against the person or property of a third person committed in the course of committing or attempting to commit an offense against the other spouse;

(b) As to matters occurring prior to the marriage; or

(c) In any civil action where the spouses are adverse parties. [1981 c.892 §34; 1983 c.433 §1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.255

But with Kaine willing to testify AGAINST Terri, this does in fact demonstrate a strategy. Kaine has only to testify that he was given information which supports a claim that Terri tried to have him killed, and Terri either pleads the 5th or answers that claim. Kaine has only to testify that he believes Terri kidnapped and either has hidden or killed his child. Terri once again must plead the 5th or answer that claim.

Then it becomes a mini trial attempting to prove Terri did do both these things in their marriage, calling witness after witness who should rightfully testify in a case against Terri for either charge rather than in her divorce case. Kaine can attempt to then basically convict her without ever charging her because hey, they were getting divorced and he was just listing his reasons for getting one.

Strategy it is.

 

[stmarysmead]

But with Kaine willing to testify AGAINST Terri, this does in fact demonstrate a strategy. Kaine has only to testify that he was given information which supports a claim that Terri tried to have him killed, and Terri either pleads the 5th or answers that claim. Kaine has only to testify that he believes Terri kidnapped and either has hidden or killed his child. Terri once again must plead the 5th or answer that claim.

Then it becomes a mini trial attempting to prove Terri did do both these things in their marriage, calling witness after witness who should rightfully testify in a case against Terri for either charge rather than in her divorce case. Kaine can attempt to then basically convict her without ever charging her because hey, they were getting divorced and he was just listing his reasons for getting one.

Strategy it is.

And a worthy one if it gets to the truth IMO.

 

[RainyGirl]

But with Kaine willing to testify AGAINST Terri, this does in fact demonstrate a strategy. Kaine has only to testify that he was given information which supports a claim that Terri tried to have him killed, and Terri either pleads the 5th or answers that claim. Kaine has only to testify that he believes Terri kidnapped and either has hidden or killed his child. Terri once again must plead the 5th or answer that claim.

Then it becomes a mini trial attempting to prove Terri did do both these things in their marriage, calling witness after witness who should rightfully testify in a case against Terri for either charge rather than in her divorce case. Kaine can attempt to then basically convict her without ever charging her because hey, they were getting divorced and he was just listing his reasons for getting one.

Strategy it is.

Agreed! STRATEGY is the word that keeps popping up in my head.

JMO.....and praying for Kyron (and for those who love him near and far).

 

[wondering1]

But with Kaine willing to testify AGAINST Terri, this does in fact demonstrate a strategy. Kaine has only to testify that he was given information which supports a claim that Terri tried to have him killed, and Terri either pleads the 5th or answers that claim. Kaine has only to testify that he believes Terri kidnapped and either has hidden or killed his child. Terri once again must plead the 5th or answer that claim.

Then it becomes a mini trial attempting to prove Terri did do both these things in their marriage, calling witness after witness who should rightfully testify in a case against Terri for either charge rather than in her divorce case. Kaine can attempt to then basically convict her without ever charging her because hey, they were getting divorced and he was just listing his reasons for getting one.

Strategy it is.

You're right. If no criminal charges are pending, he could use a divorce to invoke the adverse civil proceeding exception. Mea culpa. I want to clarify though, that I've never believed or said that KH isn't strategizing to get her to testify or take the 5th. I think he is and I don't fault him for that. What I was incorrect about was that he wasn't using the divorce as a strategy to get around the privilege issue -- specifically. I agree with you after reading the rule again and remembering that it was his choice to file that he almost certainly is, since there are not yet any criminal charges pending. Thanks

 

[cluciano63]

But if she is guilty...she is not going to admit it in any kind of court...so it won't help find Kyron

 

[debs]

But if she is guilty...she is not going to admit it in any kind of court...so it won't help find Kyron

But if she IS guilty and Kaine is successful in forcing her into a mini-trial where she isn't charged with anything but has pleaded the 5th or answered the claim, he is then able to bring witnesses in which could in fact prove she was guilty of Kyron's disappearance. Terri, if she pleads the 5th, has made her testimony by not testifying which might incriminate her. But witnesses aren't bound by that. And like I said, Kaine is only trying to prove his reasons for wanting what he'll want in the divorce is warranted because see, she tried to kill him and took his child away.

She won't have to admit it. I just wonder at that point what it would do for the chances of a criminal trial, being as prejudicial as it appears to be.

 

[citigirl]

But if she IS guilty and Kaine is successful in forcing her into a mini-trial where she isn't charged with anything but has pleaded the 5th or answered the claim, he is then able to bring witnesses in which could in fact prove she was guilty of Kyron's disappearance. Terri, if she pleads the 5th, has made her testimony by not testifying which might incriminate her. But witnesses aren't bound by that. And like I said, Kaine is only trying to prove his reasons for wanting what he'll want in the divorce is warranted because see, she tried to kill him and took his child away.

She won't have to admit it. I just wonder at that point what it would do for the chances of a criminal trial, being as prejudicial as it appears to be.

debs, I get and agree with your last point. I'm not following the first part of your argument. What are you saying could happen in the mini-trial?

 

[cluciano63]

I'm not knowledgeable about divorces...but what if she does not fight anything? Just agrees to his terms? And then later files for a change in custody or visitation status, if she is ever cleared? Seems like people file for new custody arrangements all the time.

Otherwise, this sounds kind of like a civil trial, where threshold is lower, unless I am reading it all wrong. Where Terri could be made to seem guilty much easier than in criminal court.