2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins

[pittsburghgirl]

So, Terri wont ever be showing up to testify in front of the GJ if they are meeting to indict her right?

If TH is the subject of the investigation, and the goal is an indictment of her for kidnapping, murder, etc., she won't appear in front of the GJ, unless, as BeanE says, she requests to present evidence.

What isn't allowed is for the subject of the investigation be present to hear the testimony or have witnesses cross-examined by his or her defense attorney.

Regarding KH and DY's knowledge of the GJ, they could mean that they don't know about the testimony that has been gives. GJ testimony is supposed to be secret.

 

[KopDog]

Both can be accomplished. An indictment is always the ultimate goal of prosecutor bringing a case before a grand jury.

let me ask it another way...I am trying to understand . would a GJ be assembled for preliminary review of evidence or would a GJ only be presented to on this topic if the prosectution was seeking an indictment, against somebody specific (meaning they have a theory). I am assuming a GJ is not some interim step to flush out testimony?? Is that a correct assumption?

 

[BeanE]

Hmm... I didn't think that was allowed. Now I'm confused; I thought I read one of the attorneys here address that last week.

I asked about it too. Somebody answered - can't remember who - and AZ thanked the post, which I took to mean a yes.

 

[Leila]

Hmm...why TY?

TY has been there since he and DY arrived within hours of Kyron's disappearance being reported. He's Kyron's stepfather, but more importantly, he's a detective with another LE department. His professional observations of the family members are invaluable.

 

[cluciano63]

On the American Bar Association site, it says grand juries function is to determine if there is probable cause for an indictment. It also says that people can be called to tesitfy without LE having to show that that the person has knowledge of the crime or any relevant information. So in that way, it is kind of a "fishing expedition", if true.

 

[Calliope]

I asked about it too. Somebody answered - can't remember who - and AZ thanked the post, which I took to mean a yes.

I'd like to see that clarified though. Seems to me anything that's obtained from her during a grand jury proceeding wouldn't be admissible in trial. So why would the prosecutor want her to testify? She certainly cannot be subpoenaed to appear.

 

[Donjeta]

Not unless she requests to present evidence, and the prosecutor grants her request. From what I'm read, these requests are usually granted. Her attorney may assist in making the request and in presenting evidence.

Would Terri be notified that GJ is meeting about indicting her or will she just have to read the papers and guess like the rest of us?

 

[BeanE]

I'd like to see that clarified though. Seems to me anything that's obtained from her during a grand jury proceeding wouldn't be admissible in trial. So why would the prosecutor want her to testify? She certainly cannot be subpoenaed to appear.

In fairness to the person who is under investigation. An opportunity to present evidence. Note though, that the person doesn't have access to the testimony of others, so is still at a disadvantage in that they have to guess at what to refute.

So I suppose it's an opportunity to present evidence of an alibi - something broad like that.

ETA: IANAL and I highly recommend the Legal & Law Question thread.

 

[goatman]

He witnessed Terri's reaction to Kyron's disappearance, he was there when she claimed to have failed her LDT's, he was there when she talked about her cell pings, he's a witness to Terri's other words and actions, he knew her previously as well and could answer questions about her 'normal' interactions and demeanor, and probably a dozen other things that have to do with evidence, leads or clues we've never heard about.

Her future ex-husband's ex-wife's husband? Unless he and she talked about custody directly and weekend visits, I highly doubt he knew her that well. While I am sure that he did witness things she said and did...I am nut sure that he can speak about how that differs from her past demeanor. DY didn't/doesn't like TH and from all that I have read it was DY and TH that communicated the most about/over Kyron. While, I am not saying he wouldn't be a valuable witness as far as "yeah, she said this...and this... and this..." just because someone rants about a LDT or pings or whatever doesn't make them guilty. Odd reactions don't make people guilty. Not all batsh$@ crazy people are guilty.

Besides I personally think that by publicly outing TH as a liar (like DY and KH have done) has shot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately I can hear TH's lawyer now: "oh she said that...but didn't your wife call her a liar?"

 

[Dee10]

Obviously they have a lot more evidence than what we have been officially told by LE.

 

[human]

Her future ex-husband's ex-wife's husband? Unless he and she talked about custody directly and weekend visits, I highly doubt he knew her that well. While I am sure that he did witness things she said and did...I am nut sure that he can speak about how that differs from her past demeanor. DY didn't/doesn't like TH and from all that I have read it was DY and TH that communicated the most about/over Kyron. While, I am not saying he wouldn't be a valuable witness as far as "yeah, she said this...and this... and this..." just because someone rants about a LDT or pings or whatever doesn't make them guilty. Odd reactions don't make people guilty. Not all batsh$@ crazy people are guilty.

Besides I personally think that by publicly outing TH as a liar (like DY and KH have done) has shot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately I can hear TH's lawyer now: "oh she said that...but didn't your wife call her a liar?"

Terri said whatever and they can prove it's a lie.

 

[cluciano63]

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

this is a Q&A from American Bar Assoc. on grand juries...

 

[Chablis]

So if the GJ is meeting to hear evidence to see if there is enough to indict Terri, does that mean shes a suspect?

 

[Calliope]

Would Terri be notified that GJ is meeting about indicting her or will she just have to read the papers and guess like the rest of us?

An indictment, when found and indorsed, as provided in ORS 132.400 and 132.580, shall be filed with the clerk of the court, in whose office it shall remain as a public record. Upon being designated by the district attorney as confidential and until after the arrest of a defendant who has not been held to answer the charge, the indictment or any order or process in relation thereto shall not be inspected by any person other than the judge, the clerk of the court, the district attorney or a peace officer in the discharge of a duty concerning the indictment, order or process.


No grand juror, reporter or other person except the district attorney or a peace officer in the exercise of duties in effecting an arrest shall disclose any fact concerning any indictment while it is not subject to public inspection.

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

 

[goatman]

TY has been there since he and DY arrived within hours of Kyron's disappearance being reported. He's Kyron's stepfather, but more importantly, he's a detective with another LE department. His professional observations of the family members are invaluable.

His professional observations however, may be skewed by the fact that DY (his wife) doesn't like TH, DY suspected TH from the beginning, and that he too was going through the grieving process as well (as he should have/would expected to be).

Unless he can argue objectivity, I doubt that the DA can argue that he is a reliable witness because of his professional observations. IF her lawyer can argue subjectivity, then wouldn't that discount any professional observations he may have? AND then from there it is a slippery slope (I doubt this would happen-but for arguments sake) to them saying that his subjectivity influenced the case...isn't that why dectives recuse themselves from cases where they might have known people only in passing?

 

[shorty42404]

What's goin' on? oh man.. wish I understood all this legal stuff.

Why would they testify? It's not to rule them out is it? Haven't they been ruled out already? Is it for Terri? Dede? I have been crying crying crying and praying praying praying for this sweet boy and his family. Please let there be more information today or if not any info for us at least for Kyrons' family!

 

[Calliope]

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

this is a Q&A from American Bar Assoc. on grand juries...

Thanks!


Can a grand jury target offer evidence of his or her own?

For the most part, the subject of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify unless subpoenaed, nor any right to compel the grand jury to hear certain witnesses or evidence. Often, however, if a target requests an opportunity to testify, he or she will be permitted by the prosecutor to do so but without a grant of immunity.

The prosecutor may refuse to present evidence submitted by a target. In federal grand juries, exculpatory evidence need not be presented, although in many states exculpatory evidence must be submitted for the grand jury's consideration. Prosecutors have the right in federal grand juries to introduce hearsay and to otherwise utilize evidence that would not be admissible in a regular trial.



What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?

None. The target's only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony

--------

IMO, neither the defense nor the prosecution would want her to appear before the grand jury.

 

[ami]

Her future ex-husband's ex-wife's husband? Unless he and she talked about custody directly and weekend visits, I highly doubt he knew her that well. While I am sure that he did witness things she said and did...I am nut sure that he can speak about how that differs from her past demeanor. DY didn't/doesn't like TH and from all that I have read it was DY and TH that communicated the most about/over Kyron. While, I am not saying he wouldn't be a valuable witness as far as "yeah, she said this...and this... and this..." just because someone rants about a LDT or pings or whatever doesn't make them guilty. Odd reactions don't make people guilty. Not all batsh$@ crazy people are guilty.

Besides I personally think that by publicly outing TH as a liar (like DY and KH have done) has shot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately I can hear TH's lawyer now: "oh she said that...but didn't your wife call her a liar?"

They were a blended family who worked on being communicative - as they reported many times - and Tony certainly seemed to know the family including Kaine and Terri very well, from what he said, and from the length of time he was part of the family. You might minimize by adding many "ex's" to your description of their relationship, but in fact until the day Kyron disappeared they were co-parents. He was a co-parent to Kyron and so was Terri. Their lives were entwined, and the centerpoint that entwined them was the child whose abduction is under investigation.

But even without his previous knowledge of Terri, he was right there when she talked about failing a LDT and about her cell pings. This makes him a witness, which makes him interesting to people investigating the crime. The ranting does not "make her guilty" - the ranting shows her state of mind during an investigation into the disappearance of her step-son shortly after she was seen with him.

We have already taken it for granted that neither Kaine and Desiree nor Tony actually witnessed Terri abducting Kyron - therefore their usefulness as witnesses will come by relaying information about Terri that would inform the investigation surrounding her.

Unfortunately I can hear TH's lawyer now: "oh she said that...but didn't your wife call her a liar?

If Terri's lawyer is especially awful he might say that - one would hope he had a better defense for his client should it come to a murder or kidnap investigation.

 

[Calliope]

Her future ex-husband's ex-wife's husband? Unless he and she talked about custody directly and weekend visits, I highly doubt he knew her that well. While I am sure that he did witness things she said and did...I am nut sure that he can speak about how that differs from her past demeanor. DY didn't/doesn't like TH and from all that I have read it was DY and TH that communicated the most about/over Kyron. While, I am not saying he wouldn't be a valuable witness as far as "yeah, she said this...and this... and this..." just because someone rants about a LDT or pings or whatever doesn't make them guilty. Odd reactions don't make people guilty. Not all batsh$@ crazy people are guilty.

Besides I personally think that by publicly outing TH as a liar (like DY and KH have done) has shot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately I can hear TH's lawyer now: "oh she said that...but didn't your wife call her a liar?"

Well she's a liar until she says something that proves to them she's involved.

 

[Calliope]

If Terri's lawyer is especially awful he might say that - one would hope he had a better defense for his client should it come to a murder or kidnap investigation.

Planting a seed of reasonable doubt isn't awful. It's his job.