Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*

[AZlawyer]

http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/index.cfm?a=41382&c=39641 (Organizatinal chart of court)

As always, thanks in advance...:blowkiss:

Rod Underhill is the Chief Deputy DA and seems to be running this case. When I look up his profile it says Rod is -

as of 01/15/09 he is a veteran domestic violence prosecutor with over 1400 DV prosecutions.

He is in three divisions:

1. Family violence
2. Family justice
3. Misdemeanor court

Seems unusual to me that a DA with Rod's expertice in family justice/violence would be in charge of a high profile criminal missing child case? His experience is with crime, but within the family. Am I completely off base here?

Are DA's usually switched between the different courts to direct cases? Or does this indicate a determination was made that Kyron is a victim of family violence?

Is there usually one DA managing and directing a case - working with LE, obtaining search warrants, deciding what information goes to family court for the RO, MFH, custody? Or are there several DA's working together on a case. Sorry for the many questions. TIA

I think it is likely that he was picked because it is believed that Kyron was the victim of family violence.

I'm sure there are at least a couple of DAs working on the case to some extent.

The DAs would not send any information to family court at all.

Is it possible that there is a sealed indictment on this case and that LE just hasn't acted on it?

I ask this because of another case the Haleigh Cummings case where there is speculation that LE may have sealed indictment(s) and have not actually brought the charges yet. Speculation that instead they are working leverage on those in prison to obtain more evidence or even some sort of confession.

Piggybacking on Grandma J's question, could the news that the GJ has suspended itself mean that LE got a sealed indictment yesterday?

I don't really know what you mean by the GJ "suspending itself." Can you link to a news story about this?

I don't think there is a sealed indictment. That would be extremely rare, and extremely rare things don't happen very often.

 

[grandmaj]

Thanks AZ.. it is a tiny paragraph in this article. Toward the bottom.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Kyron-Hormans-eighth-birthday-is-today-missing-portland-102488964.html

snip

During August, a grand jury in the case remained busy, with school employees, friends of Terri Horman, and many others called to testify. But the grand jury suspended itself for the time being.

 

[rnmif]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking is there a circumstance when a client looks guilty but the attorney advises them to testify anyhow for some reason? Like the person was at the wrong place at the wrong time and thus could be pegged for a crime he or she did not actually commit? But there is some reason the attorney wants them to testify in a civil setting? Is that basically what you're asking?

I'm saying, if the person was in the wrong place at the wrong time, wouldn't a competent attorney almost be guaranteed to advise their client to plead the 5th? On the grounds it *might* incriminate them?

I mean, if things look really bad, but your client is innocent.... isn't having them testify needlessly risky?

 

[gitana1]

I'm saying, if the person was in the wrong place at the wrong time, wouldn't a competent attorney almost be guaranteed to advise their client to plead the 5th? On the grounds it *might* incriminate them?

I mean, if things look really bad, but your client is innocent.... isn't having them testify needlessly risky?

I suppose that depends on the circumstances. You say wrong place, wrong time, but there could be numerous factors involved that would determine whether or not their attorney would advise them to plead the fifth or not. Anything's possible.

 

[Calliope]

I suppose that depends on the circumstances. You say wrong place, wrong time, but there could be numerous factors involved that would determine whether or not their attorney would advise them to plead the fifth or not. Anything's possible.

Rather than taking the chance on having to invoke the 5th, wouldn't most defense attorneys advise their clients not to take the stand in the first place? I'm sure juries are expected to know that is the defendant's right, but I'd have to think that it's less damning to have the person not testify at all than to refuse to answer certain questions.

 

[gitana1]

Rather than taking the chance on having to invoke the 5th, wouldn't most defense attorneys advise their clients not to take the stand in the first place? I'm sure juries are expected to know that is the defendant's right, but I'd have to think that it's less damning to have the person not testify at all than to refuse to answer certain questions.

You're right. But a person does not have the same right to not testify, in a civil case. If they fail to testify, that can be held against them. Also, sometimes people are actually jailed for refusing to divulge info in a civil matter. The fifth is for civil actions or for witnesses in any kind of action (That is, actually taking the stand but then invoking, while on the stand). I do think, however, that TH's attorneys would rather not have her on the stand in the civil case, repeatedly asserting her fifth amendment rights. That's why they want an abatement and did not contest the RO.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZ.. it is a tiny paragraph in this article. Toward the bottom.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Kyron-Hormans-eighth-birthday-is-today-missing-portland-102488964.html

snip

During August, a grand jury in the case remained busy, with school employees, friends of Terri Horman, and many others called to testify. But the grand jury suspended itself for the time being.

Well, my initial hunch is that the reporter doesn't have any idea what he/she is talking about. Keep in mind that they don't generally know any more than our members do. Quite often they know less.

But the reporter might mean that the GJ did not issue an indictment, but also decided not to make an official finding that the proposed indictment was "not a true bill," which would require prosecutors to get court permission before attempting another indictment. So the GJ might have said, "Look, you don't have enough evidence yet, but we'll move on to some other cases and just set your indictment form over here for a while with no decision one way or another, and you can come back if you find more evidence."

 

[Billylee]

Surprised no one has asked you legal eagles this yet, why would you say Kaine Horman dropped the contempt motion against Terri for revealing the RO details that were under court seal? There's a whole lot of opinions over on the thread, but I was wondering what you thought? Thanks.

 

[desquire]

Surprised no one has asked you legal eagles this yet, why would you say Kaine Horman dropped the contempt motion against Terri for revealing the RO details that were under court seal? There's a whole lot of opinions over on the thread, but I was wondering what you thought? Thanks.

He could have withdrawn that motion for any number of reasons and your guess is ultimately as good as mine. The most likely reason is that it failed a simple cost-benefit analysis for him. Under the circumstances, it would have been difficult to prove beyond a he-said/she-said level of reasonable doubt that Terri willfully violated the court's order. Kaine would have incurred a load of legal fees in trying to prove that point. At the end of the day, even if he were successful, he really doesn't personally gain anything. The damage to Terri's public reputation has already been done by the allegations in the motion. The hardball has already been played. At this point, what good does it do Kaine if Terri is forced to pay a modest fine. On the flip side, if he isn't able to produce evidence to back up his allegations and Terri puts on a credible argument that not only was the sexting not all it was made out to be and the whole disclosure incident was just a case of her being victimized by an attention-seeking Cook but maybe she also slings some headline-grabbing mud Kaine's way, Kaine is not only out a wad of cash with nothing to show for it but he also loses ground in the court of public opinion. Once the motion was filed and made public, the risk/reward curve was all downhill for Kaine and the withdrawl of the motion is a perfectly logical move.

It's also possible that he understands that this hearing would have been the biggest off-topic circus/soap opera yet and counterproductive to the bigger goal of finding Kyron.

My money is on a combination of the two.

 

[craftybatchy]

Are the circumstances such that the involvement of a GAL (BabyK) is warranted ?

As Kaine did assist in raising J for nearly 8 years, could he be found to have acted *in the role of a primary parent* and subsequently be ordered to pay child support to Js custodial parent ?

 

[Kimster]

Reminder: this thread is only for asking a question and having a verified lawyer answer it for you. It is not for general discussion. Thanks!

 

[Oriah]

Are the circumstances such that the involvement of a GAL (BabyK) is warranted ? As Kaine did assist in raising J for nearly 8 years, could he be found to have acted *in the role of a primary parent* and subsequently be ordered to pay child support to Js custodial parent ?

I wondered about this also. If that were the case, then in Washington would a GAL be appointed for every child in this family? What is this action, exactly?

 

[gitana1]

Are the circumstances such that the involvement of a GAL (BabyK) is warranted ?

As Kaine did assist in raising J for nearly 8 years, could he be found to have acted *in the role of a primary parent* and subsequently be ordered to pay child support to Js custodial parent ?

I wondered about this also. If that were the case, then in Washington would a GAL be appointed for every child in this family? What is this action, exactly?

This is not the kind of case that a guardian or minor's counsel would be appointed for, at this point. TH has not contested custody or made any allegations against Kaine and no one else has suggested Baby K is not completely safe at present and that her needs are not being met.

Kaine will not be ordered to pay support based on his possible role as a primary parent because there is already someone in that role (his adoptive father). That only happens in a case when no other non-custodial party has been deemed to be the parent responsible for the support of the child.

 

[Oriah]

This is not the kind of case that a guardian or minor's counsel would be appointed for, at this point. TH has not contested custody or made any allegations against Kaine and no one else has suggested Baby K is not completely safe at present and that her needs are not being met.

Kaine will not be ordered to pay support based on his possible role as a primary parent because there is already someone in that role (his adoptive father). That only happens in a case when no other non-custodial party has been deemed to be the parent responsible for the support of the child.

Thank you- regarding the first aspect of this: here, the RO would be a cross over in court- from family court to criminal court because it was a domestic issue originally. So a GAL would have been appointed to baby K due to the RO issued against TH at that time because it meant the child was in possible danger, and neither parent had been to court yet to determine who might be placing the child in danger (emergency RO) and so a court appointed 3rd party would come into play. I think anyway.
Or would that be up to the judge sitting at the time?
I had a GAL case once where an RO was ordered for a parent against the other parent, but there were no custodial issues going on at the same time. It ended up still being applicable in both family and criminal court because there was concurrently a criminal case going on regarding the other parent. But IIRC it was because the family court case was initiated first.
Does that make any sense?? Wow now I have confused myself.

TIA, you are awesome!

 

[MarieFaith]

I can't help wondering what the lawyers think of yesterday's press conference and if they have any comment on the progression (or lack thereof) of this case.

 

[SacreBleu]

Perhaps "no statement" is SOP for Mr. Houze. Still, I would be curious to know if our esteemed attorneys have an opinion as to whether or not we might be able to read anything into the fact that no statement was offered to Oprah? I mean, if the counselor thinks that his client is innocent, would it seem unreasonable for a "My client maintains her innocence in the disappearance of her stepson," or some such wording to be offered?

 

[AZlawyer]

Perhaps "no statement" is SOP for Mr. Houze. Still, I would be curious to know if our esteemed attorneys have an opinion as to whether or not we might be able to read anything into the fact that no statement was offered to Oprah? I mean, if the counselor thinks that his client is innocent, would it seem unreasonable for a "My client maintains her innocence in the disappearance of her stepson," or some such wording to be offered?

A lot of people just go with "no comment" because it is generally the safest option. I don't think you can read anything into it.

 

[loves2bmom]

Apologies if this was asked already. I was wondering if the upcoming hearing on October 7th will be an actual divorce hearing? It sounded like they will only discuss the two pending motions of abatement and financial disclosure. If the judge rules that TH cannot delay divorce proceedings, will they just get to it right then or have to reschedule another date?

I'm hoping once the civil stuff gets out of the way, we might see movement in the criminal case.....??

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Kaine--Terri-Horman-expected-in-court-today-101470199.html

 

[AZlawyer]

Apologies if this was asked already. I was wondering if the upcoming hearing on October 7th will be an actual divorce hearing? It sounded like they will only discuss the two pending motions of abatement and financial disclosure. If the judge rules that TH cannot delay divorce proceedings, will they just get to it right then or have to reschedule another date?

I'm hoping once the civil stuff gets out of the way, we might see movement in the criminal case.....??

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Kaine--Terri-Horman-expected-in-court-today-101470199.html

Even if the judge rules against the abatement request, the hearing will not take place that day. There might be a schedule put into place that day, though.

 

[Billylee]

Good morning AZ

There is a lot of discussion as to why TH did not contest the RO. What if any legal reason would there be for Houze to advise his client not to contest at this point? And can it be altered or removed entirely in some other sort of legal action?

Thanks for your time!