2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins

[orb4me]

OR law: Under Oregon law, a grand jury’s job is to determine whether the evidence presented to it, if uncontradicted or unexplained at trial, is sufficient to support a conviction. ORS 132.390. Generally speaking, the rules of evidence apply, ORS 132.320, and national standards remind prosecutors to respect the panel’s independence and to not unduly influence its decisions.1

Bradley Berry, the president of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, says that in his experience, grand juries do function independently.

"It is a misconception that grand juries are a rubber stamp for the prosecution," he says. "They truly act independently in my experience, issuing ‘true bills’ most of the time; adding, deleting or changing charges; and issuing ‘not true bills’ when the evidence doesn’t support a ‘true bill’ finding."

Under Oregon law, a grand jury proceeding is one of two prosecutorial options for getting a felony charge before a trial jury. (The other is a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, Oregon Constitution, Article VII, Section 5.)

Until 1983, Oregon district attorneys had the option to use either procedure at will. Then, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that failure to have a consistent policy for the use of grand juries versus preliminary hearings violated prospective defendants’ Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. State v. Freeland, 295 Or 367, 370, 667 P2d 509 (1983).

 

[debs]

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.

The lawyer would not be awful, either. He'd be doing his job. His job is to defend his client against claims of guilt with no proof of same. And right now, it is the State's job to demonstrate that proof. Not simply make claims of it.

 

[Donjeta]

: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:

I'm going to be an optimist and think that they have to have some evidence apart from unverifiable gut feelings if they bother to have a grand jury. IMO it would be a huge waste of several people's time if they've got nothing else than personal hunches.

 

[debs]

Am I correct in understanding that this GJ is sitting, and prosecutors are allowed to present what it is they've got for a case for the State, and not that this GJ was called specifically for this case?

 

[orb4me]

I see I wasnt the only one looking for the OR law on GJ. I also read there is no Judge present.

Im thinking the GJ will support a true bill finding.
Where as a pre-lim can have so much stuff removed, that a jury doesnt get to hear or use that info.

 

[eyes4crime]

I'm going to be an optimist and think that they have to have some evidence apart from unverifiable gut feelings if they bother to have a grand jury. IMO it would be a huge waste of several people's time if they've got nothing else than personal hunches.

Sorry, should have been clearer. I was referring to what we have heard so far from Kaine and Desiree - gut feelings, I just know she is involved etc. Sounds like the DA uses the GJ to gather information without media scrutiny and the spotlight. IMO that would be a welcome event in this case. I'm remembering Drew Peterson's GJ - the DA used it to gather his evidence. moo mho

 

[SmoothOperator]

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?"

No matter what our personal opinions are of TY, his relationship with TH, and opinions of what is thought of DY and KH's actions none of that matters.. TY HAS BEEN called to testify before the GJ so IMO LE obviously feels TY has something they want the GJ to hear...

IMO among other things he could be testifying to her state of mind after the fact[from all of her actions, reactions, demeanors,etc immediately after the fact]tho, that alone will NOT convict someone but from what I have seen it does play an important role in trials and together as a whole[all evidence&testimony]is what can successfully get someone convicted...

 

[pittsburghgirl]

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".

At times, prosecutors do hope for a "no true bill," i.e., no indictiment.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/2898963.html

One grand juror reported, "We no-billed 12 cases in 11 weeks, 4 percent of those presented. But prosecutors wanted us to no-bill more than half of these. They were cases with some political sensitivity where the district attorney felt the need to be able to blame the decision on the grand jury."

I found this on Wikipedia but went back to the original, which is an article that shows both how much the GJ system operates as a rubber stamp (96% are indicted in this example) and how some GJ proceedings may serve other purposes (politics, appeasing the public, etc.). This was in Texas, where felony charges require the GJ indictment.

GJs can also be convened for investigative purposes when prosecutors are reluctant to move forward and corruption or other malfeasance is suspected.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Under Oregon law, a grand jury proceeding is one of two prosecutorial options for getting a felony charge before a trial jury. (The other is a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, Oregon Constitution, Article VII, Section 5.)

Until 1983, Oregon district attorneys had the option to use either procedure at will. Then, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that failure to have a consistent policy for the use of grand juries versus preliminary hearings violated prospective defendants’ Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. State v. Freeland, 295 Or 367, 370, 667 P2d 509 (1983).

Does that mean that all felony charges must now go through GJ? That would make a big difference in how we see today's proceedings.

 

[xin]

I wonder if the school secretary got called in. Very important and direct witness, IMHO.

 

[JSR]

Am I correct in understanding that this GJ is sitting, and prosecutors are allowed to present what it is they've got for a case for the State, and not that this GJ was called specifically for this case?

Yes to both.

Grand Juries are sitting juries. They serve for a particular amount of time (it differs from state to state). And whatever case the prosecutor happens to want a grand jury to hear they use the sitting grand jury at the time to listen to evidence. So yes this is a sitting grand jury and yes the prosecutor called a grand jury session specially for this case.

Hope the above made sense.

 

[For The Kids]

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.

I have no doubts whatsoever Tony can be objective. Tony isnt stupid. I am sure he will be able to answer anything hes asked calmly and honestly. I have a feeling he would be the most useful one out of the three parents in all honesty as his eyes would have picked things up that others wouldnt have.

jmo

 

[JSR]

I wonder if the school secretary got called in.

You would think she should be called to testify. I'm sure she could speak to how TH reacted that day.

 

[JSR]

I wasn't aware that OR requires only a Grand Jury for indictment. In other states the prosecutor has the choice to move forward with either a grand jury or a preliminary hearing. Interesting.

I do know that this is also the case in all Federal cases. But obviously this isn't a federal case.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

I wonder if the school secretary got called in. Very important and direct witness, IMHO.

Not only the secretary but the teacher as well. I would think the teacher has quite a bit of info about that morning, the doctor appt, the project, etc. etc. Plus, TH had volunteered in her class throughout the year - even more to her (TH's) character, demeanor, interactions, etc.

 

[SuziQ]

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.

High profile cases are usually Capital Murder cases. I don't know about Oregon, but many states require a grand jury to hand down an indictment on any case where someone could face LWOP or the DP. In other words, a prosecutor can't just go out a file charges against someone for Capital Murder.

 

[JSR]

Not only the secretary but the teacher as well. I would think the teacher has quite a bit of info about that morning, the doctor appt, the project, etc. etc. Plus, TH had volunteered in her class throughout the year - even more to her (TH's) character, demeanor, interactions, etc.

You're right the teacher's testimony would be useful as well.

 

[SuziQ]

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.

Unless there is a video of the crime, a confession or someone standing over a body with a smoking gun, a conviction is almost always based on circumstantial facts.

 

[AZlawyer]

From what I've read online about the Oregon grand jury system, it appears that it might be possible for a defendant to request the opportunity to testify, and for that request to be granted, but obviously no one is going to offer the defendant any immunity so IMO it would be a rare case in which any defense attorney would think this was a good plan.

On WS we tend to explore the outside possibilities of what might happen in a legal case, but 99% of the time everything just goes along like any other normal case. So I'm going to guess that the grand jury is meeting with no defense involvement and was called for the purpose of getting an indictment against, um, whomever is not testifying , rather than merely for the purpose of gathering information. It's a good guess, because that's what happens 99% of the time, but it's only a guess.

 

[SuziQ]

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

Thank you for posting this!