2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins

[Adalena935]

From what I understand (I read it somewhere on this thread), GJ in Portland/Multnomah are continuous. They meet on an on-going basis, and take whatever case or individuals the DA brings. Because of that, I'm thinking this isn't a GJ specific to TH/Kyron, but is somewhat routine in a manner that speaks to DDS being lawyered up and not speaking unless compelled to.

Further, I think that DDS claimed 5th amendment rights, as she was in at 11:20 and out before noon. That's a very short time to do much more than say "I stand on my right against self-incrimination", unless they had only a few questions to ask her, which also may be the case.

Best-
Herding Cats

Right. GJ's in my state are continuous for a 1 year volunteer. But that doesn't mean they're meeting all the time. The DA can ask them to convene on a certain case or the grand jury itself can convene whenever it wants to on whichever case it wants to. You can bet this is for the Kyron Horman case. I'm not sure if 5th amendment rights apply to GJ questions. A person can't just go into GJ session and refuse to talk. Not in my state/county anyway. I've never heard of that. Acknowledging I might be wrong

ETA: continuous means they are available 24/7 for that one year volunteerism.

 

[BeanE]

The purpose of a grand jury is usually to determine if there's enough evidence to indict someone.

In this case, it would be to determine if LE has enough evidence to indict TH for the kidnapping/disappearance of Kyron, and/or enough to indict her for the MFH plot.

I'm sure that in addition to DD S's testimony, the grand jury is also considering other evidence LE has presented them with that is unknown to the public - what their investigation has found. This could be in the form of documents or testimony from LE.

I was just reading that the purpose of a GJ is to determine if there's probable cause. Probable cause keeps coming up.

 

[Calliope]

They just said on HLN that DeDe was living with Terri Horman after Kaine moved out. Did anyone else hear that?

I think it had been reported before that she had friends staying with her.

 

[Calliope]

Right. GJ's in my state are continuous for a 1 year volunteer. But that doesn't mean they're meeting all the time. The DA can ask them to convene on a certain case or the grand jury itself can convene whenever it wants to on whichever case it wants to. You can bet this is for the Kyron Horman case. I'm not sure if 5th amendment rights apply to GJ questions. A person can't just go into GJ session and refuse to talk. Not in my state/county anyway. I've never heard of that. Acknowledging I might be wrong

No one can be compelled to incriminate themselves, tho'.

 

[Emma Peel]

I don't believe the witness' attorneys (or the potential defendant/attorney) are allowed inside during the proceeding. No cross-examination, either.

It's just the prosecutor, witness and jurors, IIRC.

Yes, I agree - esp. for criminal trials of this nature where the defense has no idea what evidence there is to refute - I don't recall the defense showing up in front of the GJ.

I just didn't want to make a blanket statement, as I think sometimes defense does request to show their own evidence to the GJ to avoid trial...

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Just got in from work and have not gone back to read yet, but WOWWWWWW
I guess her cousin knew what he was talking about.

I hope she spilled all she knows.

Going back to read now.

 

[STEADFAST]

I can't find anything saying anyone else testified. The reporters are camped out and nobody else mentioned.

Has anybody else found anything saying anyone else testified? I'm not seeing it.

It's a sitting grand jury, not one that is just hearing people today. As has been posted on this thread, the county keeps one going all the time (or a lot of the time.) Witnesses could have come in and testified on any day. If the press didn't know this GJ was hearing witnesses in the Horman case, they might not notice who all has been showing up from time to time.

 

[CapsDeej]

DS is a landscaper...right? Maybe DS's work partner is the one that TH approached on the MFH plot? Probably already discussed...I'm arriving late today.

So maybe she testified in relation to the MFH and not in relation to Kyron's disappearance?

 

[gitana1]

I don't think she is the only one. Just the only one the media has been on to. jmoo

I agree. The media has a reason to tail DS. They don't have a reason to tail LE personnel who may have testified. So, if they are keeping track of DS's whereabouts, they would see her going to court but may not have seen others who testified.

 

[LandAuxvasse]

In this video:
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/DeDe-Spicher-testifies-before-grand-jury-99252004.html#kyron

The reporter asks if she was subpoenaed as part of a criminal investigation or just to solicit information. Her attny said that to his knowledge it was just to "solicit information."

IMO, that means DeDe is not being criminally investigated per se... but that she had information that LE wanted, but could only get from her via a grand jury. In other words, she wouldn't talk unless she was forced to.

Not through the whole thread yet, but why wouldn't LE just issue an investigative subpoena like in the Anthony case with Dominic Casey?

 

[cluciano63]

I'm not expecting this session today to result in any immediate break in the case, or any arrests, personally.

 

[Wrinkles]

From this article:

>>Spicher appeared very briefly, but is expected to return before the grand jury for a more extensive session at a later date, Stavley said. Stavley could not accompany his client as the proceedings are closed and secret. <<

So Dede Spicher's attorney did not accompany her within the session of the Grand Jury.

 

[cluciano63]

From what I looked up today, defense attorneys are not allowed inside grand jury room while their client is testifying.

If he is telling the truth, then this could all go one for quite a while.

 

[Adalena935]

Did they subpoena her because she refused to talk? Very interesting!

I think a GJ is to gather information to make a determination one way or another IF any given case should be brought to trial and sometimes to make a determination one way or another IF a crime has been committed or not and if so which laws have been violated. That sort of thing. It's not a criminal trial per se or anything like that. It's more a fact-finding mission by the community cross-segment that serves on the GJ. Heavy on the "I think.." I think, I believe, it's my best impression etal.

 

[LandAuxvasse]

In Patricia Kimmi's case they had grand jury hearings for months with one to two persons testifying under subpoena each time and it took months to get all the testimony and a vote of a true bill.

This could take time. Lots of time. MOO (or it could go fast like Casey Anthony''s case). I think we must be prepared for either scenario.

Felt this deserved more than just a thanks...

back to the thread

 

[SmoothOperator]

A prosecutor goes before a grand jury to present evidence in order to determine if there is probable cause for an indictment.

It's likely that DS was subpoenaed to testify whatever she knows or whatever LE believes she knows. To clarify further, according to the ABA:


Who must testify before a grand jury?

A prosecutor can obtain a subpoena to compel anyone to testify before a grand jury, without showing probable cause and, in most jurisdictions, without even showing that the person subpoenaed is likely to have relevant information. In the federal system the prosecutor is not required to demonstrate any relevance. The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination.

Above underlined by me.... This part worries me that possibly DeDe told ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! If she can refuse to answer because of self-incrimination then we get NOTHING!! I guess the DA could offer immunity in exchange for her testiminy but I do not know how ofthen something like that is offered?? Anyone know, or know any details which this would or would not apply to her?

 

[Calliope]

Yes, I agree - esp. for criminal trials of this nature where the defense has no idea what evidence there is to refute - I don't recall the defense showing up in front of the GJ.

I just didn't want to make a blanket statement, as I think sometimes defense does request to show their own evidence to the GJ to avoid trial...

I don't know for certain, but I was under the impression that the defense has no part in a GJ proceeding, and that there are no attorneys present in the room while the witness is testifying (other than the prosecutor, of course). IIRC, they can request to leave the room to speak to their attorney. I THINK.

This stuff was discussed ad nauseam back during the Clinton / Lewinsky thing. I do remember the part about the witness' attorney waiting outside, because that surprised me someone could be forced to testify without representation present. Of course, each state would have their own rules I guess.

 

[Leila]

Eating crow here. I thought "cousin" was full of baloney.:crazy:

Hopefully we will get some real information now.

I was doubtful about the cousin, but book marked the site where he was talking about what was going on................18 pages worth when I last looked and that was a couple days ago.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I've been thinking for several weeks now that LE has a lot of information that they are holding very close to the vest. It seems they are letting KH & DY break anything that they want the public to be aware of. It won't surprise me at all if there is an arrest made tomorrow!

 

[SmoothOperator]

I don't know for certain, but I was under the impression that the defense has no part in a GJ proceeding, and that there are no attorneys present in the room while the witness is testifying (other than the prosecutor, of course). IIRC, they can request to leave the room to speak to their attorney. I THINK.

This stuff was discussed ad nauseam back during the Clinton / Lewinsky thing. I do remember the part about the witness' attorney waiting outside, because that surprised me someone could be forced to testify without representation present. Of course, each state would have their own rules I guess.

yes, calliope I think you are correct. there is no "defense" in GJ, its not allowed. Its only purpose is to decide if the DA has shown enough evidence to persuade the GJ to vote yes its enough for an indictment, and then proceed with arrest warrants, etc. But to my knowledge the defense has absolutely no role whatsoever in GJ proceedings.