CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - *Arrest* #58

[AZlawyer]

I hope the judge forces him and Ma to answer questions on the stand, and if they dont, then I wish additional charges would come down on them for contempt of court or something.

I never have quite understood a few things about pleading the 5th. Maybe some legal eagle who knows could answer.

*What prevents every reluctant or hostile witnesses from always pleading the 5th just to get out of testifying?

*How does a judge prove that their testimony would incriminate themselves? Like what if they are just lying about that to get out of testifying against someone they favor?

*Do the judge and lawyers go into their back chambers with the witness to get them to explain why they cant answer questions?

*And if they are telling the truth that their testimony would incriminate themselves, then doesnt that mean they did something wrong themselves and some other charges of some sort of crime would be warranted for them?

Its confusing to me and Im not sure I will ever fully understand it.

@gitana1 - @riolove77 - @AZlawyer
any of you all able to help us out understanding the 5th?

I'll try haha although I've never heard of this case so this will be without the benefit of context...

*What prevents every reluctant or hostile witnesses from always pleading the 5th just to get out of testifying?

*How does a judge prove that their testimony would incriminate themselves? Like what if they are just lying about that to get out of testifying against someone they favor?

The judge can reject a 5th Amd response if there is no reasonable way that an answer to the question at issue could be used as a link in a chain of evidence to prosecute the person for some crime.

But you're right that, for a lot of questions, there's no real way to know whether the witness is genuinely concerned about prosecution.

*Do the judge and lawyers go into their back chambers with the witness to get them to explain why they cant answer questions?

They can do it in chambers, or excuse the jury for a time to discuss the issue. Or if the nature of the question obviously makes a 5th Amd plea appropriate, there might be no need for argument on the issue. Either way, the witness will not be asked what his or her answer would be.

*And if they are telling the truth that their testimony would incriminate themselves, then doesnt that mean they did something wrong themselves and some other charges of some sort of crime would be warranted for them?

Probably, yes. But our Constitution protects us from being forced to provide evidence against ourselves. Law enforcement and prosecutors have to prove crimes without the help of the accused, if the accused doesn't want to cooperate.

 

[MyBelle]

And hopefully SF2 has good recollection as he was unlikely to have been busy in the kitchen

I'm so looking forward to all their testimony!

JMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

I'll try haha although I've never heard of this case so this will be without the benefit of context...

*What prevents every reluctant or hostile witnesses from always pleading the 5th just to get out of testifying?

*How does a judge prove that their testimony would incriminate themselves? Like what if they are just lying about that to get out of testifying against someone they favor?

The judge can reject a 5th Amd response if there is no reasonable way that an answer to the question at issue could be used as a link in a chain of evidence to prosecute the person for some crime.

But you're right that, for a lot of questions, there's no real way to know whether the witness is genuinely concerned about prosecution.

*Do the judge and lawyers go into their back chambers with the witness to get them to explain why they cant answer questions?

They can do it in chambers, or excuse the jury for a time to discuss the issue. Or if the nature of the question obviously makes a 5th Amd plea appropriate, there might be no need for argument on the issue. Either way, the witness will not be asked what his or her answer would be.

*And if they are telling the truth that their testimony would incriminate themselves, then doesnt that mean they did something wrong themselves and some other charges of some sort of crime would be warranted for them?

Probably, yes. But our Constitution protects us from being forced to provide evidence against ourselves. Law enforcement and prosecutors have to prove crimes without the help of the accused, if the accused doesn't want to cooperate.

Az lawyer so glad you are here! You added so much to the Jodi Arias case!

 

[Hatfield]

I'll try haha although I've never heard of this case so this will be without the benefit of context...

*What prevents every reluctant or hostile witnesses from always pleading the 5th just to get out of testifying?

*How does a judge prove that their testimony would incriminate themselves? Like what if they are just lying about that to get out of testifying against someone they favor?

The judge can reject a 5th Amd response if there is no reasonable way that an answer to the question at issue could be used as a link in a chain of evidence to prosecute the person for some crime.

But you're right that, for a lot of questions, there's no real way to know whether the witness is genuinely concerned about prosecution.

*Do the judge and lawyers go into their back chambers with the witness to get them to explain why they cant answer questions?

They can do it in chambers, or excuse the jury for a time to discuss the issue. Or if the nature of the question obviously makes a 5th Amd plea appropriate, there might be no need for argument on the issue. Either way, the witness will not be asked what his or her answer would be.

*And if they are telling the truth that their testimony would incriminate themselves, then doesnt that mean they did something wrong themselves and some other charges of some sort of crime would be warranted for them?

Probably, yes. But our Constitution protects us from being forced to provide evidence against ourselves. Law enforcement and prosecutors have to prove crimes without the help of the accused, if the accused doesn't want to cooperate.

Thanks AZLAWYER. That helps to understand how its handled.

Thanks for taking the time to respond about this.

 

[oviedo]

I'll try haha although I've never heard of this case so this will be without the benefit of context...

*What prevents every reluctant or hostile witnesses from always pleading the 5th just to get out of testifying?

*How does a judge prove that their testimony would incriminate themselves? Like what if they are just lying about that to get out of testifying against someone they favor?

The judge can reject a 5th Amd response if there is no reasonable way that an answer to the question at issue could be used as a link in a chain of evidence to prosecute the person for some crime.

But you're right that, for a lot of questions, there's no real way to know whether the witness is genuinely concerned about prosecution.

*Do the judge and lawyers go into their back chambers with the witness to get them to explain why they cant answer questions?

They can do it in chambers, or excuse the jury for a time to discuss the issue. Or if the nature of the question obviously makes a 5th Amd plea appropriate, there might be no need for argument on the issue. Either way, the witness will not be asked what his or her answer would be.

*And if they are telling the truth that their testimony would incriminate themselves, then doesnt that mean they did something wrong themselves and some other charges of some sort of crime would be warranted for them?

Probably, yes. But our Constitution protects us from being forced to provide evidence against ourselves. Law enforcement and prosecutors have to prove crimes without the help of the accused, if the accused doesn't want to cooperate.

Thank you for taking the time - I will give you a quick synopsis - the boyfriend PF (in jail) got his former girlfriend- KK to clean up the mess after he beat his daughter's mother with a baseball bat - together they burned her body in a trough on his mother's ranch where he resides. I'm sure I missed a lot but that's about it - we all believe it is over custody of their daughter.

 

[Aydrianna523]

"I think that some vindication and validation for who Kelsey was, and that none of this was her fault, is deserved," Garretson said.

BBM. That part of the statement really bothers me. Is “this” that she is referring to Kelsey’s murder? I realize the statement was said by KB’s relative, but still, how would anyone think “this” was in any way Kelsey’s fault?

Oh, probably PF will get some type of fan club.

 

[GoJacks]

I'm so looking forward to all their testimony!

JMO

I wonder if LEO SF is on witness list. Might not be a good look for his job if he doesn't really answer the questions (I don't know, etc). Like I'm expecting of ol' Ma.


Other thoughts on things I've seen recently in this thread....

People keep mentioning that KK says she didn't see inside the tote, thus Patrick could have really done something else with the body, etc.

I'm sorry, but KK knows whether a body was burned or not. There is no way she wouldn't notice a distinct smell. Also that plastic tote would have burned rather fast in comparison of a body. I think she is trying to make herself not look as bad by saying she never saw the body.

 

[MassGuy]

I wonder if LEO SF is on witness list. Might not be a good look for his job if he doesn't really answer the questions (I don't know, etc). Like I'm expecting of ol' Ma.


Other thoughts on things I've seen recently in this thread....

People keep mentioning that KK says she didn't see inside the tote, thus Patrick could have really done something else with the body, etc.

I'm sorry, but KK knows whether a body was burned or not. There is no way she wouldn't notice a distinct smell. Also that plastic tote would have burned rather fast in comparison of a body. I think she is trying to make herself not look as bad by saying she never saw the body.

Yeah, I think he account to the effect of spotting “a bulge,” is indicative of that.

She is as acknowledging a body, but is reluctant to admit that she clearly saw one.

So she saw a body but didn’t, and she meant to leave evidence to help law enforcement, but then lied to them when they confronted her about this evidence.

No way Jose.

 

[MsBetsy]

Right. And some other important questions she should be able to answer that should not incriminate her in any way unless she was involved.

*Who was present during the Thanksgiving dinner you had (which was day of alleged murder)?
*What time exactly did PF arrive for said dinner?
*What time exactly did PF leave that dinner?
*What time exactly did he get back after he first left?
*When he got back, did he come back with someone else and if so, who was that person?

These types of questions can help establish whether PF had the time slots available for certain alleged activities that the Prosecution will most likely allege.

I hope they ask her if Kelsey was expected for Thanksgiving dinner and if so, was she planning on bringing a dish and what was PF's explanation for her not being there.

 

[Seattle1]

Oh, probably PF will get some type of fan club.

Actually, there was more to that quoted statement. PF would have liked the world to believe that KB was a terrible mother with alcohol and drug dependency issues that had abandoned her child more than once. Oh -- let me not forget his allegations of child abuse against KB.

This paragraph preceded that one:

Slater said law enforcement found no evidence to support Frazee's claims, and now, the family wants to quash that storyline.

 

[Dave F.]

I don't believe PF's mother was involved in any way with the murder. I think the question everyone wants answered pertains to the alleged fire on her property and whether KK was there. In fact, the DA may give her immunity in exchange for her testimony because LE DID find remnants of a fire. If there was no burn permit, as property owner, she could be facing legal consequences. I think Colorado takes open burning pretty seriously.

JMO

As I understand it, the prosecutors are now saying they found "traces of an accelerant", which is not the same as the original "evidence of a fire". I don't think SF has made any statement at all, and am doubtful that there is sufficient "evidence of a fire" to force her testimony to confirm or deny it. JMO

 

[MassGuy]

Actually, there was more to that quoted statement. PF would have liked the world to believe that KB was a terrible mother with alcohol and drug dependency issues that had abandoned her child more than once. Oh -- let me not forget his allegations of child abuse against KB.

Which will prove devastating come trial. He lied to Doss, law enforcement, CB, and CC. I wouldn’t be surprised if he lied to more people than that.

These are provable lies in many cases.

 

[MassGuy]

As I understand it, the prosecutors are now saying they found "traces of an accelerant", which is not the same as the original "evidence of a fire". I don't think SF has made any statement at all, and am doubtful that there is sufficient "evidence of a fire" to force her testimony to confirm or deny it. JMO

“Are now saying,” is insinuating that something changed.

Nothing changed, and the evidence has been consistently referenced (in the arrest affadavit and preliminary hearing).

Discolored earth, burned plastic, traces of an accelerant, and a witness who was indicating a refusal to testify to the existence of a fire.

 

[Seattle1]

I hope they ask her if Kelsey was expected for Thanksgiving dinner and if so, was she planning on bringing a dish and what was PF's explanation for her not being there.

I believe SF was under subpoena but judge didn't make her testify at preliminary hearing. A recall DA May stating he wanted to question her about guests arrival at thanksgiving, fire seen from her porch, and a metal rod. DA May believed she had knowledge regarding these things. MOO

 

[Dave F.]

For anyone who wants to follow the jury selection process, Jennifer Meckles is doing regular and thorough updates. The fastest way to catch them is to go to Facebook, click on "Search" and enter:
Ilike9news
This is the Facebook page of KUSA Television News, Denver........so you may have to scroll down to find her.
It will remain in your Facebook search window until you clear it. To return, click on "Home", then click on "Ilike9news" or "9NEWS (KUSA)" which will appear.

 

[Dave F.]

“Are now saying,” is insinuating that something changed.

Nothing changed, and the evidence has been consistently referenced (in the arrest affadavit and preliminary hearing).

Discolored earth, burned plastic, traces of an accelerant, and a witness who was indicating a refusal to testify to the existence of a fire.

I think it means all of that stuff has been thoroughly tested, but it's just my guess. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Honestly, by now I had hoped for more arrests. IMO there are other(s) involved

Given probable cause for arrest, I can't for one minute believe DA May would postpone charging a suspect in this case!

Who are you waiting on, and with what evidence? @oviedo -- I fear I've missed something!

 

[gitana1]

I hope the judge forces him and Ma to answer questions on the stand, and if they dont, then I wish additional charges would come down on them for contempt of court or something.

I never have quite understood a few things about pleading the 5th. Maybe some legal eagle who knows could answer.

*What prevents every reluctant or hostile witnesses from always pleading the 5th just to get out of testifying?

*How does a judge prove that their testimony would incriminate themselves? Like what if they are just lying about that to get out of testifying against someone they favor?

*Do the judge and lawyers go into their back chambers with the witness to get them to explain why they cant answer questions?

*And if they are telling the truth that their testimony would incriminate themselves, then doesnt that mean they did something wrong themselves and some other charges of some sort of crime would be warranted for them?

Its confusing to me and Im not sure I will ever fully understand it.

I don't know all the answers but I have asked my law partner who does know and am waiting for a response.
In the meantime, witnesses can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify. They don't have the blanket right not to take the stand and testify like criminal defendants. They can't refuse to answer all questions. Only those that might incriminate them. I do believe they have closed hearings or in camera (chambers) meetings to determine whether the answers may incriminate them.

If they plead the fifth about certain questions that tells prosecutors and LE that this witness likely committed a crime but it is not evidence in a criminal case that a crime was committed, justifying a charge and cannot be used to prosecute them.

It could open them up to civil liability, however.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I'll try haha although I've never heard of this case so this will be without the benefit of context...

*What prevents every reluctant or hostile witnesses from always pleading the 5th just to get out of testifying?

*How does a judge prove that their testimony would incriminate themselves? Like what if they are just lying about that to get out of testifying against someone they favor?

The judge can reject a 5th Amd response if there is no reasonable way that an answer to the question at issue could be used as a link in a chain of evidence to prosecute the person for some crime.

But you're right that, for a lot of questions, there's no real way to know whether the witness is genuinely concerned about prosecution.

*Do the judge and lawyers go into their back chambers with the witness to get them to explain why they cant answer questions?

They can do it in chambers, or excuse the jury for a time to discuss the issue. Or if the nature of the question obviously makes a 5th Amd plea appropriate, there might be no need for argument on the issue. Either way, the witness will not be asked what his or her answer would be.

*And if they are telling the truth that their testimony would incriminate themselves, then doesnt that mean they did something wrong themselves and some other charges of some sort of crime would be warranted for them?

Probably, yes. But our Constitution protects us from being forced to provide evidence against ourselves. Law enforcement and prosecutors have to prove crimes without the help of the accused, if the accused doesn't want to cooperate.

We saw an example of a witness in a case just this month who was given immunity because the state of Florida IIRC requires it if they are subpoenaed against their will. Wendi Adelson in the Dan Markel case was given immunity for her entire testimony against anything she said that might incriminate her.

It was the understanding at the time on the thread, when folks researched it, that this was a state of Florida rule about folks who were subpoenaed. Don't know how it applies in other states.

 

[MyBelle]

As I understand it, the prosecutors are now saying they found "traces of an accelerant", which is not the same as the original "evidence of a fire". I don't think SF has made any statement at all, and am doubtful that there is sufficient "evidence of a fire" to force her testimony to confirm or deny it. JMO

Help my confusion, pls. I'm not sure what "traces of an accelerant" even means. Aren't accelerants used to assist a fire's intensity? I thought fire was one of the reasons the DA gave at the hearing for wanting SF's testimony. iirc, she was called first.