2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins

[human]

I seriously doubt that the GJ is going to ask people how they felt about things.

They are looking to see if there is enough evidence to go forward with a capital crime.

They will be asking questions that have answers that provide evidence, not feelings.

DY's stating that Terri has "ice in her veins" would not hold any water, unless they check her veins and see that they indeed have ice.

 

[SmoothOperator]

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 believe with all due respect that all of the posts that are in reply to the ones concerning TY are all generated originally from answering your initial post of "why TY called to testify in GJ" several posters politely posted a reply to that post with of course their own opinions of why they feel TY was called to testify in GJ. With which I take you disagree with most of those replies[this assumption is from reading your subsequent replies of stating that IYO TY testimony would not be needed for the reasons that many stated they felt it was]

I am just saying that you posed a simple question in your first post and many courteously, politely, simply answered the question you posed... No one agrees on everything in this case or everything in any case, but when a question is asked there usually will be answers given... (and certainly not all of those answers may be our own personal belief or opinion but are the opinions of the person replying and most importantly THEY ARE answers to your question)

This is no way is meant as anything other than a reminder of the FACT that we will NEVER all agree or have the same opinions. And that when I pose a question IMO I am appreciative of those taking the time to answer.

 

[TxLady2]

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?

Their purpose is to hear the case and decide whether to indict. It is not to "flush out" testimony. The DA is presenting the case, everything they have so far, to try to get an indictment against Terri Hormon.
The DA's do not have to present a specific charge against her.. the GJ will hear the testimony of each witness and they will decide what they can charge her with by law, or they might no bill and that's it. BUT the DA can always bring it back before the GJ at a later time.
I asked my son who is a lieutenant with the sheriff's dept. about this yesterday and this is what he told me. He said some cases have been taken to the GJ 4 or 5 times before they get an indictment.

 

[Barry]

When a GJ is first seated, who is it that gives them the instructions, guidelines, etc on how to handle and manage indictments and correct procedures for determining a yes bill or a no bill? I wouldn't think it would be the prosecution. Is it a judge?

 

[MsFacetious]

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

The difference here is that what she says can be backed up with evidence.

When Terri says her cell phone was pinging somewhere she was not....

LE will have the records to prove whether that is true or not.

When Terri says she failed her polygraphs....

LE will have the records to prove whether that is true or not.

The things that they have come out and said Terri has said, which they feel are true... are things which can be verified by the information that LE has. They haven't come out and said they believe her on anything which doesn't have evidence backing it.

 

[Patty G]

When I was 16, I had to go in front of a Grand Jury over something that my mother's boyfriend did and I was just asked questions regarding only what had happened on the evening of the incident. I was the only key witness.

 

[MsFacetious]

So much for DeDe being called back to the grand jury in "4-6 weeks."

"As soon as tomorrow" is a totally different story.

I wonder if that means she is cooperating more... or if that was the plan the whole time.

 

[Patty G]

Grand Jury Manual
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/4371.htm

 

[Barry]

Grand Jury Manual
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/4371.htm

Thank you

 

[ami]

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.

Respectfully, I'm not sure how that really refutes anything I've said. Of course his job is to defend his client. The statement you quoted from my post had to do with the specific quote that was used upthread - it had nothing to do with whether an attorney was supposed to defend his client or not.

Also (and the lawyers here can weigh in on this) circumstantial evidence can be used to convict someone of a crime if it's strong enough.

 

[TxLady2]

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.

No, if he didn't have enough evidence, he wouldn't be calling a grand jury. The DA has to make the request to the district judge to bring the case to them. If the judge thinks he has enough, he will let them go before the GJ.

DA's like GJ's. They are very often on the prosecution's side, and there are no defense attornies allowed, so the GJ hears ONLY the prosecution's case.
In a prelim, the defendant is present along with his/her attorney, and the judge hears BOTH sides.

 

[goatman]

I believe with all due respect that all of the posts that are in reply to the ones concerning TY are all generated originally from answering your initial post of "why TY called to testify in GJ" several posters politely posted a reply to that post with of course their own opinions of why they feel TY was called to testify in GJ. With which I take you disagree with most of those replies[this assumption is from reading your subsequent replies of stating that IYO TY testimony would not be needed for the reasons that many stated they felt it was]

I am just saying that you posed a simple question in your first post and many courteously, politely, simply answered the question you posed... No one agrees on everything in this case or everything in any case, but when a question is asked there usually will be answers given... (and certainly not all of those answers may be our own personal belief or opinion but are the opinions of the person replying and most importantly THEY ARE answers to your question)

This is no way is meant as anything other than a reminder of the FACT that we will NEVER all agree or have the same opinions. And that when I pose a question IMO I am appreciative of those taking the time to answer.

Being thankful for people's replies and agreeing with them are two different things. I believe that my subsequent responses shows that I am thankful and willing to think about what others have to say on this subject. When people suggest one thing and I either refute it or offer up an alternative to the way I feel it is NOT in disrespect or because I am not thankful for other's replies. After several people gave possible reasons for why TY would have been called, I conceded that some points I had not thought about-or thought enough about. And others that I did not think were the case. I did not call anyone out for being disrespectful, rude, or anything else for disagreeing with me or for offering their reasonings (for whatever).

This is a discussing forum, and as such I expect to be involved in discussions. Which means (to me) a dialog about this case and different aspects of it.

I am not sure what you are getting at in your post (if it wasn't directed at me) but I am reading it as if you think I am not being respectful in my responses to those who have responded to me, if you believe that this is so please pm me with specifics-as I am unsure what I have said that could have been construed that way.

ETA: I was replying to a statement made about him being used as a witness to b/c of his profession and was clarifying my statement about his objectivity towards TH. Which is why there was an emphasis on him as a professional (LE) witness. From my point, I thought that my original question had evolved to him being a professional vs personal vs both witness and was responding in kind.

 

[TxLady2]

When a GJ is first seated, who is it that gives them the instructions, guidelines, etc on how to handle and manage indictments and correct procedures for determining a yes bill or a no bill? I wouldn't think it would be the prosecution. Is it a judge?

Yes, it is a judge who gives them the guidelines. I am not sure if the judge sits in on the proceedings, but they are given written guidelines for each case. Each district court has its own judge, and its own grand jury.
Here, the grand juries hear cases other than murder cases too. I've seen their list in the paper where the GJ indicted various people and there are different charges... drugs, rape, kidnapping, theft, (over a certain amount, not sure what it is), etc. Our GJ's here serve sometimes for 6 months, and some are called back to sit on the GJ again. It's an honor.

 

[Tiki]

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.

If Kyron was kidnapped and taken across state lines, wouldn't that be a federal offense?

ETA:
I found this

http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-kidnapping-act

"The Lindbergh Act is a federal law (48 Stat. 781) that makes it a crime to kidnap — for ransom, reward, or otherwise— and transport a victim from one state to another or to a foreign country, except in the case of a minor abducted by his or her parent."

Would Terri be considered a parent?

Guess I'll go to the legal q & a thread . . .




.

 

[Patty G]

Do we really know if TY met with the Grand Jury or did he just accompany his wife to court?

 

[TxLady2]

Just want to clarify, I'm NOT a lawyer. But with a son in LE for 20 years who is now in charge of CID in this county... I have learned a lot about the law as far as police work and investigations go. And I have read tons of crime and courtroom novels, in which I learned a lot too. I am not brilliant but I do absorb.
And now I have to go... my son is in the hospital and I just came home to rest and see to the puppies. I didn't rest, so back I go.
Please... we need your prayers.

 

[ami]

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.

Is DNA and other blood evidence circumstantial, or hair and fiber, clothing or possessions found (trophies) in the suspect's possession, etc? I'm not asking that in a snarky way, it's a genuine question. I though circumstantial meant no physical evidence.

 

[ami]

Do we really know if TY met with the Grand Jury or did he just accompany his wife to court?

Good question!

 

[Patty G]

Circumstantial Evidence

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

 

[goatman]

Two questions-that are not necessarily related:waitasec:

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.

Is it one gj per a county at a time, or if there are multiple cases are there multiple juries? Simplifying :innocent: can one gj be working on more than one case at the same time? What if those cases were related (same defendant)? Would the same jury be involved in both cases, possibly at the same time?

Yes, it is a judge who gives them the guidelines. I am not sure if the judge sits in on the proceedings, but they are given written guidelines for each case. Each district court has its own judge, and its own grand jury.
Here, the grand juries hear cases other than murder cases too. I've seen their list in the paper where the GJ indicted various people and there are different charges... drugs, rape, kidnapping, theft, (over a certain amount, not sure what it is), etc. Our GJ's here serve sometimes for 6 months, and some are called back to sit on the GJ again. It's an honor.

So, if a person commits two different crimes in the same county would they have the same judge for both cases?

Can someone be in court for two different crimes at the same time?