2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins

[ami]

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?

If that were enough reason to discount someone's testimony, then parents, friends and family members would never be asked to give information about their missing loved ones. Fortunately for missing persons everywhere, even biased family members with information are encouraged to share it.

Anyway, he's not a witness in the prosecution of Terri Horman (yet), he's giving information to a group assembled to question people and gain information.

If they discounted anyone who was emotionally distressed over Kyron's disappearance, they'd have to recuse the investigating officers, every one of the detectives, the other parents of children, every family member and most of the police force.

 

[orb4me]

Sometimes the prosecutor does not have enough evidence and will take the case before the Grand Jury hoping to get the Grand Jury to bind 'whoever' over for trial.

Maybe the LE is not hiding info from the public, maybe they just dont have enough or any for that matter. So TH could now end up being scape goat.

 

[JSR]

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

As I've noted before ONLY the prosecutor presents evidence. A defense attorney may not offer evidence or cross examine any witnesses.

 

[ami]

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

When did I say planting reasonable doubt was awful? I said the lawyer would be awful if he used such a flimsy argument to suggest reasonable doubt. I'm sure her lawyer is not stupid and will therefore come up with a much better argument for her, should it come to trial.

 

[goatman]

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.

(snipped by me)

But, that won't convict her "she's an odd duck and reacted weird" doesn't convict people. And isn't that the goal? Having all these witnesses to her state of mind seems to be grasping and easily defended against. "Your honor all the prosecution has is people talking about her state of mind...where are the witnesses that saw her take him out of the school?"

Reasonable doubt is not something we want...if she's guilty.

 

[JSR]

Sometimes the prosecutor does not have enough evidence and will take the case before the Grand Jury hoping to get the Grand Jury to bind 'whoever' over for trial.

Maybe the LE is not hiding info from the public, maybe they just dont have enough or any for that matter. So TH could now end up being scape goat.

The prosecutor would never hold a grand jury if he/she didn't think the case should be brought for trial. A grand jury is implemented for the exact reason of making sure no one is a "scape goat".

 

[Donjeta]

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

But how does it work in Terri's defense to remind the jury that the people who know her think she's a liar? Doesn't her lawyer want them to think she's a good person who is telling the truth when she says she is innocent?

 

[Kimster]

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.

I think it was one of the guests on Levi's show that said Grand Juries are often used in high profile cases. I took it to mean a security of sorts.

 

[ami]

(snipped by me)

But, that won't convict her "she's an odd duck and reacted weird" doesn't convict people. And isn't that the goal? Having all these witnesses to her state of mind seems to be grasping and easily defended against. "Your honor all the prosecution has is people talking about her state of mind...where are the witnesses that saw her take him out of the school?"

Reasonable doubt is not something we want...if she's guilty.

Then it's a good thing that that isn't what Tony, Kaine and Desiree are saying. In fact besides you, I've never read anything that said the parents of Kyron were saying that.

People can be and have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

 

[Chablis]

But how does it work in Terri's defense to remind the jury that the people who know her think she's a liar? Doesn't her lawyer want them to think she's a good person who is telling the truth when she says she is innocent?

Well, I am sure Desiree gave that GJ an earful!

 

[goatman]

If that were enough reason to discount someone's testimony, then parents, friends and family members would never be asked to give information about their missing loved ones. Fortunately for missing persons everywhere, even biased family members with information are encouraged to share it.

Anyway, he's not a witness in the prosecution of Terri Horman (yet), he's giving information to a group assembled to question people and gain information.

If they discounted anyone who was emotionally distressed over Kyron's disappearance, they'd have to recuse the investigating officers, every one of the detectives, the other parents of children, every family member and most of the police force.

I was addressing his professional opinion...and as a professional he is NOT objective. Therefore, IMO his professional opinion-in order to keep this case water tight- should not be used or addressed. As Kyron's stepdad, yes he may have valuable insight- as an LE officer that opens the door to subjectivity. By that I mean looking at TH subjectivity, of course people will and should feel empathy for the family and Kyron...BUT they have to be able to look at TH objectively.

 

[Jo in Calif]

In my opinion the during the GJ KH, DY and TY will be asked basically the same questions as DS, exactly were you on the 4th of June, and what were you doing and what was said by Terry while you were in the house with her. I highly doubt if DY will be asked if she liked Terry or if she thinks she's guilty because of gut feelings. or KH or TY for that matter.

 

[Chablis]

I was addressing his professional opinion...and as a professional he is NOT objective. Therefore, IMO his professional opinion-in order to keep this case water tight- should not be used or addressed. As Kyron's stepdad, yes he may have valuable insight- as an LE officer that opens the door to subjectivity. By that I mean looking at TH subjectivity, of course people will and should feel empathy for the family and Kyron...BUT they have to be able to look at TH objectively.

Its hard to be objective when you are looking at someone who you have been told wanted Kyrons father dead, and now hes missing and the last known person with him was the person who wanted his father dead.

 

[Donjeta]

We're not privy to what's going on but since the link appears to imply that TY was called in to testify alongside the other co-parents, it suggests that he's there as a family member, not as a professional, IMO.

 

[darlin gal]

Under the Oregon constitution and state law, a felony prosecution cannot proceed to trial unless an indictment has been issued by the grand jury. The grand jury is where the prosecutor, without the defendant or his attorney present, submit witness to the grand jury to determine whether or not to indict, or charge, the defendant.

http://www.arnoldlawfirm.com/oregon-jury-duty-lane-county.html#grandjury

 

[JSR]

I think it was one of the guests on Levi's show that said Grand Juries are often used in high profile cases. I took it to mean a security of sorts.

Grand Juries are used in high profile cases because the alternative- a preliminary hearing is held in public. If evidence (especially not being given the scrutiny of a cross examination) is held in public it often doesn't allow a defendant a right to a fair trial. So prosecutors sometimes prefer the privacy that a grand jury provides.

 

[PortlandMama]

Its hard to be objective when you are looking at someone who you have been told wanted Kyrons father dead, and now hes missing and the last known person with him was the person who wanted his father dead.

Yes, that's exactly why they're almost certainly not soliciting his professional opinion as LE (which the above post was in response to), but his testimony as a family member. No one is asking him to be objective about it, nor should they. I don't think anyone has said they disagree with that.

 

[eyes4crime]

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

:applause:

I'm sure the GJ won't take 'gut feelings' or anyone saying 'we just know she did it'... I think it's a good idea and will serve to separate intuition from fact. :gavel: jmo

Where is Kyron! :heart:

 

[SmoothOperator]

Hmm...why TY?

Of course just my opinion but I would think the reason for TY is possibly to testify about Terr's strange, odd, defensive behaviors that he witnessed in the immediate following days after Kyron's disappearance when they all were staying in the Horman home together...


ETA~ am just now reading this thread, so someone may have already thoroughly answered this question...
ok now back to reading rest of the posts...

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I am curious on your thoughts re:...I get the GJ for #2, but why would they put K, D and Tony in front of a GJ for #1? Does that even make sense or does this give us a clue that an indictment is coming?

Hi, KopDog. Here is a short passage from an online source that suggests how lawyers should prepare people for giving testimony to the GJ. This source says that witnesses should prepare to do one of two things:

1. Be prepared to give truthful answers to every conceivable question.
Even if the government's interest is limited, once the client enters the grand jury room and answers anything beyond the most benign background questions, the client waives the Fifth Amendment. Once the privilege is lost, any answer may be demanded of your client. The general rules of relevance, hearsay, etc. are of no avail. The grand jury is an institutionalized fishing expedition. (bbm)
In other words, the decision to talk is a decision to talk candidly and, once carried into the grand jury room, this decision generally cannot not be changed.

2. Be prepared to keep silent, risk being immunized, endure contempt.

http://www.finer-bering.com/grandjuryArt.pdf

And here is another interesting factoid about GJ testimony:

Unlike the person questioned by a police officer, the subpoenaed witness is compelled to answer questions before the grand jury unless the witness can claim an evidentiary privilege, such as the marital privilege or the privilege against self-incrimination. If the witness refuses to testify without such legal justification, the witness will be held in contempt and subjected to incarceration. Ordinarily, the recalcitrant witness will be held in "civil contempt," which means the witness will be released when willing to testify, or if unwilling, when the grand jury term ends. Criminal contempt is available if the grand jury no longer has need for the witness' testimony, and it commonly carries a jail term of several months to a few years. If the witness testifies and fails to tell the truth, the witness may be prosecuted for perjury since the testimony is given under oath. Here the potential prison term is substantially longer. [bbm]
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1263/Grand-Jury-subpoena-testify.html

The GJ is a powerful investigative tool for prosecutors because people are compelled to testify (through subpoena) and then either immunized from prosecution (to compel testimony against an associate) or held in contempt and imprisoned. As the first quotation indicates, witnesses have to know whether they are willing to testify or just want to refuse. In addition, it is not just the prosecutor who gets to ask questions; the jurors can, as well. So if someone agrees to testify, pretty much anything is fair game.

Of course, the testimony is given under oath and recorded so that prosecutors can lock witnesses into statements prior to a criminal trial, without the protection of attorneys who can object to hearsay, etc. And witnesses who are reluctant (neighbors, friends, co-workers, people who are afraid of the defendant or just don't want to be involved) and who stonewalled LE have to speak up or risk contempt charges. If LE had all it needed to charge someone in Kyron's case, they would have done so. The GJ is a chance to gather more information and let the citizens indict the suspect. The testimony of KH, DY and Tony is likely most pertinent to an indictment.

Remember, too, that the GJ can "no bill," which would allow the district attorney to explain why someone who is a suspect is still walking around: the GJ said there was insufficient evidence for an indictment. It's hard to know just what the prosecutor is thinking in this case.