Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #7

[SteveS]

She can set the clock back. The way it works is that the old charges are dismissed without prejudice (which happens when a prosecutor drops a charge before the court makes a final resolution on the case).

If anyone is wondering, this is NOT how it works. Once a case goes to court, it proceeds under the control of the judge, not the prosecutor.

As a result, the prosecutor might ask the judge to dismiss charges without prejudice, but the defense could request that the dismissal be with prejudice, and offer due process arguments to the judge. The final determination of whether the prosecutor can dismiss and then at will make the defendant go through the process all over again from the beginning (ie without prejudice) would rest with the judge, not the prosecutor, because if your case has been dismissed, then it's possible double jeopardy restrictions are appropriate.

 

[Tugela]

When I said they take their jobs seriously, I meant they follow the Court's instructions and are fair and impartial. No, most do not employ a "fry the bastards" mentality. There is no basis for such a statement.

To suggest that only people with "a lot of money" are going to be acquitted is also not correct. Public Defenders and Court-appointed lawyers win cases as well. Keep in mind that the prominent lawyers usually take a small number of Court-appointed cases. This is usually done when the public defender's office has a conflict of interest or if the public defender's office reaches the maximum number of cases it can represent. The top criminal lawyer in my hometown told me years ago that he takes at least one Court-appointed case each criminal term of the Court. He felt is was his civic duty as an Officer of the Court to do so. He also said that the Judges, when addressing the local Bar, strongly encouraged each of the attorneys practicing criminal law to take Court-appointed cases. This not MOO, but instead my personal experience.

Sure they take their jobs seriously, they are very serious about convicting people. Read that link, it provides the statistics for known false convictions in DP cases, where you would think the bar was that much higher. For every exoneration there are likely many more who rot in prison or who are executed who don't have enough luck to get someone to seriously re-examine their cases. In non DP cases, where the bar for evidence in jurors minds is lower, there are probably a lot more false convictions than that.

In almost all of the cases where people are exonerated you see convictions on shockingly flimsy evidence. And there are many other cases with equally weak evidence that don't get exonerated. Juries still convict in those cases. They are supposed to acquit if there is reasonable doubt but they don't, they convict on an emotive basis instead where the actual evidence means little. The main problem is that most people have no concept of what "reasonable doubt" means, and just assume that if someone has been indicted they must be guilty, and that the defense has to prove otherwise to get an acquittal. It is not supposed to work like that, but it does. You just need to look on these boards to see that attitude time and time again. Even in the Bobo case, most people here are ready to convict even though they actually know almost nothing about what evidence there is. This is the sort of attitude you will find on most juries. It is not just the juries, most judges as well are elected officials who were previously prosecutors, and they very definitely favor the prosecutions side of the room. Again, look at what is happening in the Bobo case - the prosecutions behavior has been appalling, but the judge does nothing about it. If the defense was getting up to the antics the prosecution is, you can bet they would be pulled up in short order! Once you get into a trial the odds are heavily stacked against you no matter what the quality of the evidence is.

Money per se does not get you acquitted, but it does get you high quality lawyers who are going to go over the evidence with a fine tooth comb and make sure that there are no holes in the prosecution case. Plus, with money you can afford to do your own investigation, bring in your own experts who actually are experts, and such things. A poor person can't do that. They get a PD, who in most cases is a sad sack lawyer with no resources, and they can't afford quality expert witnesses.

 

[DR3AM3R]

Tugela that was beautiful, IMO

 

[Tugela]

If anyone is wondering, this is NOT how it works. Once a case goes to court, it proceeds under the control of the judge, not the prosecutor.

As a result, the prosecutor might ask the judge to dismiss charges without prejudice, but the defense could request that the dismissal be with prejudice, and offer due process arguments to the judge. The final determination of whether the prosecutor can dismiss and then at will make the defendant go through the process all over again from the beginning (ie without prejudice) would rest with the judge, not the prosecutor, because if your case has been dismissed, then it's possible double jeopardy restrictions are appropriate.

That isn't how it works. The prosecution can drop the charges without prejudice if there is a procedural reason for it (that is pretty much the only reason they can use). Typically it would be something that would delay the commencement of a trial. That is what happened to one of the Pearcy brothers, he was currently involved in a federal charge and the prosecutors claimed that they could not continue until that was done. So the charges were dropped without prejudice. The same argument will be used for ZA and company with their new charges. Since the new charges are more "senior", they will take precedence over the previous ones which will be dropped but not invoke double jeopardy in the process. This is fairly standard in criminal cases where the severity of charges is increased.

Dismissal with prejudice happens when the prosecutor has no proper reason for requesting it. For example, coming to the conclusion that the evidence is likely insufficient to obtain a conviction and so it is not in the public interest to proceed. When that happens the dismissal is regarded as a final judgment in the case and double jeopardy kicks in. Dismissal due to defense motion on the basis of lack of evidence will have the same consequence.

In the case of the second Pearcy brother, he was charged, but the prosecutor declined to seek an indictment. The trial will not continue of course since the charge will lapse without an indictment, but the prosecutor can go to a grand jury at a later date to seek one. Double jeopardy didn't kick in because the matter had not come before the court formally and consequently a final judgment will not have been entered.

If charges are dropped because of procedural reasons, it will generally be without prejudice, for any other reason it will be with prejudice.

 

[SteveS]

Tugela, with all due respect, what I said is accurate. It is the JUDGE in a case who will make the determination as to whether or not a dismissal is with or without prejudice.

It flows from a "motion to dismiss," the reasons are offered to the court as to what and why and so on, and then the decision is made by a judge, who can deny the motion to dismiss, and also set the condition of whether it's with or without prejudice.

If a prosecutor wants a dismissal without prejudice and the judge doesn't want to allow it, then the prosecutor is forced to decide whether to continue the case or ask for a dismissal with prejudice.

The reasoning you offer is not inconsistent with the arguments presented to the court, and your rationale is fairly reasonable as to how things tend to go. Some of these things are so routine as to almost look like they are rubber-stamped and automatic. But once a case has gone to a judge (as this one has), a prosecutor does not get to file and dismiss and refile and dismiss and file and do whatever he wants. It's in the domain of the judge, and the court makes such decisions.

 

[Chainsaw385]

Tugela, with all due respect, what I said is accurate. It is the JUDGE in a case who will make the determination as to whether or not a dismissal is with or without prejudice.

It flows from a "motion to dismiss," the reasons are offered to the court as to what and why and so on, and then the decision is made by a judge, who can deny the motion to dismiss, and also set the condition of whether it's with or without prejudice.

If a prosecutor wants a dismissal without prejudice and the judge doesn't want to allow it, then the prosecutor is forced to decide whether to continue the case or ask for a dismissal with prejudice.

The reasoning you offer is not inconsistent with the arguments presented to the court, and your rationale is fairly reasonable as to how things tend to go. Some of these things are so routine as to almost look like they are rubber-stamped and automatic. But once a case has gone to a judge (as this one has), a prosecutor does not get to file and dismiss and refile and dismiss and file and do whatever he wants. It's in the domain of the judge, and the court makes such decisions.

I also believe this is true for any criminal case.....for example DUI,theft,disorderly conduct and so on.

If what Tugela is saying is true ...they could keep people in prison forever without a trial by just dropping and re-filing charges.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Just a reminder:

HEARING -- WEDNESDAY -- JUNE 3

I am not certain what time the hearing will begin, but will post the time as soon as I confirm.

Snippet from WBBJ about the Hearing:

All three men are expected to be arraigned on the new charges on June 3rd, according to the Decatur County Court System.

Link: http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Bob...304559521.html

 

[Tugela]

I also believe this is true for any criminal case.....for example DUI,theft,disorderly conduct and so on.

If what Tugela is saying is true ...they could keep people in prison forever without a trial by just dropping and re-filing charges.

No, they can drop older charges by refilling for more serious charges. There has to be a valid reason to drop charges, usually that is something that procedural in nature. If they don't give a reason then it is assumed that the reason is insufficiency of evidence and jeopardy is terminated. They can't reindict on the same charge after that since it would become double jeopardy.

 

[Tugela]

Tugela, with all due respect, what I said is accurate. It is the JUDGE in a case who will make the determination as to whether or not a dismissal is with or without prejudice.

It flows from a "motion to dismiss," the reasons are offered to the court as to what and why and so on, and then the decision is made by a judge, who can deny the motion to dismiss, and also set the condition of whether it's with or without prejudice.

If a prosecutor wants a dismissal without prejudice and the judge doesn't want to allow it, then the prosecutor is forced to decide whether to continue the case or ask for a dismissal with prejudice.

The reasoning you offer is not inconsistent with the arguments presented to the court, and your rationale is fairly reasonable as to how things tend to go. Some of these things are so routine as to almost look like they are rubber-stamped and automatic. But once a case has gone to a judge (as this one has), a prosecutor does not get to file and dismiss and refile and dismiss and file and do whatever he wants. It's in the domain of the judge, and the court makes such decisions.

It isn't really the judge that makes that decision, the criteria are decided by precedent and higher court rulings. The judge can't do something differently because it would be overruled on appeal. The prosecutor can dismiss charges any time they feel like, but when and why they do it determines the jeopardy status so they have to be careful about that and have a legitimate and appropriate reason. The charges can also be dismissed at the behest of the defense as well, and that kicks in different jeopardy implications. In this case the defense should be looking for a dismissal due to lack of evidence since that would bar further charges. If they get a dismissal for procedural reasons prior to a jury being empanneled (such as things taking too long or the actions of the prosecutor) then their clients could be recharged at a later date. Who knows, maybe that is what the prosecution is hoping for, so they can keep the door open.

You can read about double jeopardy here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Double+Jeopardy

Those are general considerations, the specifics may be a little different from state to state.

 

[SteveS]

It isn't really the judge that makes that decision, the criteria are decided by precedent and higher court rulings.

I can't say this strongly enough, but this statement is just nonsense. There is no such thing as an "automatic" dismissal. A person makes the decision when a case has gone to court and there is a request to dismiss with/without prejudice, and that person is the judge.

I am not suggesting that a judge would simply make it up as he goes, as to his reasoning to grant a dismissal with or without prejudice. His decision is certainly subject to certain standards and appeal. But the judge, not the prosecutor, makes such a decision.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From WSMV:

Suspects in Holly Bobo case to appear in court Wednesday

This will be the first court appearance for Zach Adams, Dylan Adams and Jason Autry since new charges were handed down against the trio of suspects.


Link: http://www.wsmv.com/story/29210663/suspects-in-holly-bobo-case-to-appear-in-court-Wednesday


No time is listed in this article as to when the Hearing will start tomorrow ... usually, they start at 9:00 a.m.

I'll keep looking and will post when confirmed.


:seeya: And Morning, Y'all !

 

[OldSteve]

From WSMV:

Suspects in Holly Bobo case to appear in court Wednesday

This will be the first court appearance for Zach Adams, Dylan Adams and Jason Autry since new charges were handed down against the trio of suspects.


Link: http://www.wsmv.com/story/29210663/suspects-in-holly-bobo-case-to-appear-in-court-Wednesday


No time is listed in this article as to when the Hearing will start tomorrow ... usually, they start at 9:00 a.m.

I'll keep looking and will post when confirmed.


:seeya: And Morning, Y'all !

What is expected to happen? Has it been decided if the three will be tried together?
Seems to make sense to do that, no?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

OMG ... just saw this while searching for info on tomorrow's hearing:

From WKRN:

So what do you do after an 18-year high-profile legal career that recently ended with a conviction of extorting money from a client?

If you are Fletcher Long, it’s a radio talk show.

Long became well-known as an attorney in criminal cases defending convicted former football player Brandon Vandenburg in the high-profile Vanderbilt rape and Jason Autry, one of three men charged in the Holly Bobo murder case.


Link: http://wkrn.com/2015/06/01/noted-defense-attorney-fletcher-long-nudged-into-radio-career/

 

[dog.gone.cute]

What is expected to happen? Has it been decided if the three will be tried together?
Seems to make sense to do that, no?

:seeya: Hi OS !

It has not been decided if the 3 will be tried together.

And IMO, yes, it makes sense to do it that way -- but I am going to guess that the defense attorneys for each of the 3 defendants will want a separate trial for their clients.

Tomorrow is the Hearing on the recent indictments handed down by the recent GJ.

Here's the "simple version" of the new charges:

- Dylan is now charged with kidnapping and murder -- he was previously charged with 2 counts of rape.

- Zach and Jason are now charged with rape -- they were previously charged with kidnapping and murder.


I will re-post the list of the counts against these 3 in another post.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From WBBJ:


EIGHT COUNTS against ZA, JA and DA are listed below.

Portions snipped for space and BBM for emphasis :

FIRST COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams , heretofore, to- whit: between April 12,2011 and September 8, 2014, before the finding of this indictment, In the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully and with the intent to commit Kidnapping kill Holly Lynn Bobo in the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate Kidnapping, thereby committing the offense of First Degree Murder, in violation of T.C.A. 9-13-202, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

SECOND COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and knowingly remove or confine Holly Lynn Bobo so as to interfere substantially with the liberty of the said Holly Lynn Bobo, and the removal and confinement was accomplished with a deadly weapon or by display of an article used or fashioned to lead the said Holly Lynn Bobo to reasonably believe the article to be a deadly weapon , thereby committing the offense of Especially Aggravated Kidnapping, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-305, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

THIRD COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and knowingly remove or confine Holly Lynn Bobo so as to interfere substantially with the liberty of the said Holly Lynn Bobo,and said Holly Lynn Bobo did suffer serious bodily injury, thereby committing the offense of Especially Aggravated Kidnapping, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-305, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

FOURTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and with the intent to commit Rape kill Holly Lynn Bobo in the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate Rape, thereby committing the offense of First degree Murder, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-202, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

FIFTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and intentionally, knowingly or recklessly sexually penetrate Holly Lynn Bobo by the use of force or coercion, while armed with a weapon or article used or fashioned on a manner to lead Holly Lynn Bobo reasonably to believe it to be a weapon, thereby committing the offense of Aggravated Rape, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-502, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

SIXTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and intentionally, knowingly or recklessly sexually penetrate and cause boldly injury to Holly Lynn Bobo, thereby committing the offense of Aggravated Rape, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-502, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

SEVENTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and intentionally, knowingly or recklessly sexually penetrate Holly Lynn Bobo by the use of force or coercion, while being aided and abetted by one or more other persons, thereby committing the offense of Aggravated Rape, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-502, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

EIGHTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully, intentionally and with premeditation kill Holly Lynn Bobo, thereby committing the offense of Murder First Degree, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-202, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.


Link: http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Bob...304559521.html

 

[pearl]

How much security do ya'll think will be at the courthouse tomorrow? I think it will look like a fortress.

 

[Bali]

:seeya: Hi OS !

It has not been decided if the 3 will be tried together.

And IMO, yes, it makes sense to do it that way -- but I am going to guess that the defense attorneys for each of the 3 defendants will want a separate trial for their clients.

Tomorrow is the Hearing on the recent indictments handed down by the recent GJ.

Here's the "simple version" of the new charges:

- Dylan is now charged with kidnapping and murder -- he was previously charged with 2 counts of rape.

- Zach and Jason are now charged with rape -- they were previously charged with kidnapping and murder.


I will re-post the list of the counts against these 3 in another post.

The way they're discussing it in the media makes it sound like being tried together is the default and the defense will have to get it separated.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Finally, with the latest charges, I can see an actual mug shot of the 'younger brother' with a height chart (see http://www.wenkwtpr.com/w/); he comes in at 5 feet 9 inches. You will have to scroll down or search this long page for his name and pic. He is the only of the three main arrested suspects who is realistically close to the 5’ 10” estimate of the kidnapping suspect by Holly’s brother, although I guesstimate that the 'younger brother' is less than the estimated 200 pounds for the kidnapper- he looks quite skinny and light-weight by comparison.

As I have alluded to before, there are a couple of other interesting people knocking around out there who might possess motive and opportunity, are possibly of the proper height and weight, but are NOT suspects or POI’s. But at least the 'younger brother' is apparently not five to nine inches taller than the man seen by Holly’s brother, as are the other two main suspects in custody.

Let me throw a curve-ball, just for the spirit of discussion (and there has been some SPIRITED discussion here lately!): let us say that the 'younger brother' is learning-impaired (I personally believe this) and susceptible to yielding to pressure, false memories, coerced confessions, etc. SO- why has he not simply confessed to the whole affair, guilty or not? Since he has not confessed, I must presume that his statements ARE being used against him, BUT he is not yet claiming to have kidnapped anybody. However, he is on very dangerous ground here (if the mug shot is HIM and is accurate), since a jury could be convinced that he somewhat resembles the profile of the kidnapping suspect described by the sole material witness- Holly Bobo’s brother.

 

[margarita25]

From WBBJ:


EIGHT COUNTS against ZA, JA and DA are listed below.

Portions snipped for space and BBM for emphasis :

FIRST COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams , heretofore, to- whit: between April 12,2011 and September 8, 2014, before the finding of this indictment, In the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully and with the intent to commit Kidnapping kill Holly Lynn Bobo in the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate Kidnapping, thereby committing the offense of First Degree Murder, in violation of T.C.A. 9-13-202, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

SECOND COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and knowingly remove or confine Holly Lynn Bobo so as to interfere substantially with the liberty of the said Holly Lynn Bobo, and the removal and confinement was accomplished with a deadly weapon or by display of an article used or fashioned to lead the said Holly Lynn Bobo to reasonably believe the article to be a deadly weapon , thereby committing the offense of Especially Aggravated Kidnapping, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-305, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

THIRD COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and knowingly remove or confine Holly Lynn Bobo so as to interfere substantially with the liberty of the said Holly Lynn Bobo,and said Holly Lynn Bobo did suffer serious bodily injury, thereby committing the offense of Especially Aggravated Kidnapping, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-305, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

FOURTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and with the intent to commit Rape kill Holly Lynn Bobo in the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate Rape, thereby committing the offense of First degree Murder, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-202, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

FIFTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and intentionally, knowingly or recklessly sexually penetrate Holly Lynn Bobo by the use of force or coercion, while armed with a weapon or article used or fashioned on a manner to lead Holly Lynn Bobo reasonably to believe it to be a weapon, thereby committing the offense of Aggravated Rape, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-502, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

SIXTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and intentionally, knowingly or recklessly sexually penetrate and cause boldly injury to Holly Lynn Bobo, thereby committing the offense of Aggravated Rape, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-502, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

SEVENTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully and intentionally, knowingly or recklessly sexually penetrate Holly Lynn Bobo by the use of force or coercion, while being aided and abetted by one or more other persons, thereby committing the offense of Aggravated Rape, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-502, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

EIGHTH COUNT:

That Zachary Rye Adams, Jason Wayne Autry, and John Dylan Adams ... did unlawfully, intentionally and with premeditation kill Holly Lynn Bobo, thereby committing the offense of Murder First Degree, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-202, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.


Link: http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Bob...304559521.html

Sickening!! Poor Holly!

 

[bessie]

I barely made it to Count Six.

Rest in peace, dear Holly. As for the animals who did this to you, I guess I'll have to keep those words to myself.