Terri's Constitutional Rights

[JBean]

Eyes, surely you understand that juries are picked today in calculated ways if the funds exist to hire a jury specialist. IMO whomever is paying the Big Bucks for Terri will happily find such a "specialist." Money seems to be no be no object and someone wants her to have the best.

I would expect that such a specialist could twig to the fact....just from reading across the Internet for a few days..that one group of Terri supporters seem to continually compare Kaine to their ex-husbands...and not favorably. Many, many "excuses" for Terri...begin with a comparison of Kaine to a previous ex-husband.

Therefore if I can see this pattern..so will a jury specialist.

There is nothing offensive in this. Just a general observation. In fact, I may have saved Terri's team some expenses.

Do you suspect that the prosecution will also use a jury consultant? If so, do you think it reasonable or fair?

 

[grandmaj]

BillyLee I think we all must use logic in understanding when someone is throwing out a theory and someone is speculating. Versus what is fact. I would say that stmarysmead is throwing out a theory or speculating on an event that could in her opinion occur.

In that case asking for a link would not be appropriate.

Now if stmarysmead stated that she knows this has happened in the past, she read that it happened in another case, asking for a link would be fair.

 

[stmarysmead]

Thanks, JBean. I think many of us would like to understand the SPECIFIC concerns.

In what way was the poster for example a violation of Terri's rights? Is putting out the description of a car suspected in an Amber Alert a violation of the car owner's rights?

I truly would like this explained so we can discuss the concerns.

 

[stmarysmead]

Do you suspect that the prosecution will also use a jury consultant? If so, do you think it reasonable or fair?

It's legal, yes. But it's one of those things that I believe perverts the process. A jury of my peers does not mean seeking out certain folks who hold certain beliefs that help my case or striking ones for the opposite reason. There's something unseemly about it.

I am also appalled at celebrity lawyers. I think trials are becoming more like sporting events. You even get to hire someone to pick the most favorable refs. It's more about winning than justice for victims.

I want a robust defense..but not trickery...how can scientific evidence be the opposite depending on who is paying the expert?

I find the needle has swung a bit too far away from truth.

 

[JBean]

It's legal, yes. But it's one of those things that I believe perverts the process. A jury of my peers does not mean seeking out certain folks who hold certain beliefs that help my case or striking ones for the opposite reason. There's something unseemly about it.

I am also appalled at celebrity lawyers. I think trials are becoming more like sporting events. You even get to hire someone to pick the most favorable refs. It's more about winning than justice for victims.

I want a robust defense..but not trickery...how can scientific evidence be the opposite depending on who is paying the expert?

I find the needle has swung a bit too far away from truth.

What is your opinion if the prosecution uses a jury consultant, but the defense does not?

 

[GrainneDhu]

bbm~
We could take 1000 steps back and still not be there. Imo, our criminal *justice* system is so far removed from what the framers intended that they would be rolling in their graves. Seeing child murderers and child rapists (just for example) go free on technicalities, or spend decades in prison on the people's dime instead of receiving the death sentence handed down by the jury while endless appeals on those same technicalities are pursued. That is NOT what our founding father's intended. I am sure of it. And it offends and frightens me deeply.

I am infinitely more concerned with my loved ones being a victim of a criminal that was exonerated on a technicality; or handed a light sentence; or released from prison because of crowding, etc., etc. etc., than I am of being wrongfully convicted of a crime. And don't even get me started on what our idea of "prison" and "punishment" is. The truth is that many criminals have better lives in prison than they do on the streets, and don't mind being there at all. I know some personally.

One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned." I believe he is probably spinning in his grave because the Department of Justice says that somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of people imprisoned today have been falsely convicted.

 

[AlexisFresca]

One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned." I believe he is probably spinning in his grave because the Department of Justice says that somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of people imprisoned today have been falsely convicted.

Which is what was also taught in the paralegal program at the local community college, as difficult as it is to hear.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Question: is it Houze's responsibility to use every bit of skill and legal knowledge he has to protect Terri's constitutional rights or to try to get an acquittal even if she killed this child in cold blood?

I am not a lawyer but this is how I understand the ethics of the legal system:

To give any client less than his best effort would be unethical, I believe. It is not his job to covertly team up with the prosecution to get his client convicted.

I believe our system is largely weighted in favour of the prosecution (any prosecutor who has less than a 90% conviction rate should get a different day job).

Will Houze get her a jury loaded with divorced women who think Kaine is the embodiment of their ex-husband...and see acquitting Terri as payback? Throw in a few men who think she's too pretty to be guilty? Did the Founding Fathers envision that kind of jury selection?

The prosecution gets to conduct voir dire, just as the defence does. They get to dismiss just as many candidates as the defence does. While the defence tries to get the jury most suited to their point of view, the prosecution is doing the same thing.

So far as the founding fathers were concerned, I believe the evidence tends to show that they envisioned juries comprised solely of white male landowners. I will never forget that in the first presidential election, there were only approximately 34,000 qualified voters out of a population of approximately 2 million. Since women did not have the vote, nor did slaves (in some places, even freed slaves were not allowed to vote), nor did Native Americans, nor did many other groups... well, once you cut out the number of disenfranchised people, the number of actual voters was only 1.7% of the actual population.

That's not exactly a shining standard of democracy as we think of it today.

Likewise, standards have changed as to acceptable standards in many other areas. For example, many of those Founding Fathers were slave owners. They owned human beings and exercised complete power over them. George Washington himself was probably guilty of using loopholes in the law to illegally retain ownership of his slaves and when any of his slaves escaped, he used the services of brutal slave hunters to attempt to re-capture them.

My point is that the Founding Fathers came up with an amazing document but were not, themselves, completely above reproach. In many ways, they lived their lives in ways that would be seen as despicable and horrifying today.

Will he work to get the emails showing her intense hatred and desire to hurt a 7 year old..thrown out...so the jury can never know the way this woman's mind works?

If the prosecution introduces such evidence, it is Houze's job to challenge it and the judge's job to rule on the challenge according to specific rules of evidence.

Houze's job is to put on the best defence he is capable of mounting. It would be unethical for him to collude, directly or indirectly, with the prosecution to get his client convicted.

Will he try to demonize Kaine and/or Desiree on the stand in order to make his client look like she was THEIR victim?

Will the prosecution try to demonize TMH in order to make her look as guilty as possible? Of course. There are at least two sides to every story and neither side is required to present both sides at once.

Will he be looking for ways to undermine EVEN WHAT HE KNOWS to be the truth...so that his client may go home one day, sink into her favorite chair, smile and say...."I did it. I killed that freaking kid I hated. And Mr. Big Bucks got me the slick lawyers I needed...and WOW! Hurrah! and Joy to the world! I'm home free!! Cry your eyes out, Kaine and Desiree..I killed your brat and got away with it!"

Is that what the founding Fathers had in mind?

Thomas Jefferson said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned." In other words, I believe that he was endorsing the risk that a guilty person might be acquitted because he believed that affording (part of) the populace strong constitutional rights was a greater good.

 

[Barry]

The balance is so fine on this issue. I can imagine what an innocent child goes through at the hands of a perpetrator. But I can also imagine being on death row or even executed for a crime one didn't commit. Horrifying in both regards.

If you take the extremes, OJ going free, or people on death row that didn't belong there, things are disconcerting. However, I believe for the most part that we operate at a reasonable middle between these two extremes in this country. In most instances, the system works. We should be ever vigilant, though, that we never allow criminals to get coddled too much, or for innocent people to suffer prison time or worse.

In the specific case of Kyron missing, it's hard to say where it will end up, IMO. It's one of the stranger investigations I've ever kept up with. I still feel there is a component missing in it. I have confidence in our system. It will be solved, and the perpetrator(s) will get what they deserve.

 

[Emma Peel]

The balance is so fine on this issue. I can imagine what an innocent child goes through at the hands of a perpetrator. But I can also imagine being on death row or even executed for a crime one didn't commit. Horrifying in both regards.

If you take the extremes, OJ going free, or people on death row that didn't belong there, things are disconcerting. However, I believe for the most part that we operate at a reasonable middle between these two extremes in this country. In most instances, the system works. We should be ever vigilant, though, that we never allow criminals to get coddled too much, or for innocent people to suffer prison time or worse.

In the specific case of Kyron missing, it's hard to say where it will end up, IMO. It's one of the stranger investigations I've ever kept up with. I still feel there is a component missing in it. I have confidence in our system. It will be solved, and the perpetrator(s) will get what they deserve.

Well said.

I agree, this one is complicated by something. What is it? :banghead: Where's Kyron?

 

[mmmagique]

Which is what was also taught in the paralegal program at the local community college, as difficult as it is to hear.

I'm thinking there ARE lots of guilty (wo)men going free, but of course it doesn't stop the innocent from sometimes being convicted. We can only do our best.

 

[JBean]

Please remember that the topic is do you think any of Terri's Constitutional Rights are in peril?
If you do think any of her Constitutional Rights have been violated, which ones and how so? If you are just concerned that her Constitutional Rights have the potential to be violated, which ones and how so?

 

[txsvicki]

How can they ever villianize Desiree without mentioning the little tidbit of a certain person taking up with a married man who had an 8 month pregnant wife and his leaving her? I can't believe any defense attorney will ever dare bring her up in that way, because it will open up all the other questions. They have to charge Terri with something first though.

 

[stmarysmead]

What is your opinion if the prosecution uses a jury consultant, but the defense does not?

I don't like that either.

Please understand I am not asking Houze to collude with the prosecution if Terri is guilty and he knows it. And my experience watching the rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong try to railroad the Duke Lacrosse kids will never leave me either. I understand manipulation of the media and the public , rigged line-ups, "tricks" to suppress the presence of multiple DNA from other men, intimidation of witnesses. Believe me please, I'll never forget it.

But these celebrity/high profile cases have soured me. Something is seriously askew. Justice is not The Big Game. If Kyron matters, there should not be happy pom-poms on both sides. He SHOULD matter. Therefore the TRUTH should matter more than legal tricks.

What set me off in this case was the attempt to subject Baby K to visitation WITHOUT ANY of the usual tests and safeguards...when that child may have witnessed something horrific. Wanting an exemption for Terri...yet, demanding visitation with the child. Protecting Terri...but by demanding exemptions for her...certainly not protecting the child.

But here's what troubles me about our system. If Terri is guilty, let them argue she is ill, or addicted, or had a terrible childhood, or she snapped. What I despise is the games wherein the defense knows the truith...and thinks it's their job to muddy the waters or confuse the jury to get that "not guilty" verdict.

Terri does not have a constitutional right to kill a child she despised and have slick lawyers help her succeed in getting away with it. And that's what IMO, we see in these cases far too often. Terri's lawyers, if guilty, should fight to get the best situation for her...but have they no interest in justice for Kyron either?

Is it their job to free her, return Baby K to her...and roll the dice as to how Baby K or another child survives if Terri starts to despise them? Do they pick up their paychecks and never look back...never think of the consequences that a vicious murderer has gone free? Never think of the impact on society, the grieving parents, or Baby K? Especially, if their skill kept pertinent information from the jury...or picked a jury predisposed to set Terri free.

Something is off these days...even if I am clumsy at describing it. But like , I think many of us know it WITHOUT DOUBT when we see it.

 

[ThoughtFox]

One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned." I believe he is probably spinning in his grave because the Department of Justice says that somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of people imprisoned today have been falsely convicted.

Don't you think the unfair statistics were much higher during Jefferson's day? And in fact, they didn't imprison people so much, as hang them. In Jefferson's day (and many years after that), you could hang someone for stealing a horse.

In Jefferson's day, most of the United States and territories didn't have a fair court system, but vigilante justice and no trial by jury. So of course there was injustice.

Women, children, and slaves had no rights in Jefferson's day.

Forensic science was nearly non-existent except for common sense sleuthing, and the ability to railroad people was rampant. There were no Miranda Rights back then.

I don't believe our justice system is broken now, nor do I think Prosecutors have an unfair advantage over the defense. Prosecutors in a criminal case have the burden of proof, while the Defense just has to raise reasonable doubt. That is a big reason I don't see TH's rights being violated, since she doesn't have to say one word in her own defense if she chooses not to.

 

[AlexisFresca]

I'm thinking there ARE lots of guilty (wo)men going free, but of course it doesn't stop the innocent from sometimes being convicted. We can only do our best.

True. And there are no easy answers; if there were, our system would be better than it is now. This has been an issue for so many decades, regarding our prison/court system, how to make it more effective, and so on.

As for Terri Horman, I really don't see any of her Constitutional Rights being violated. She is certainly exercising her right to remain silent, even though she's not been arrested yet. Must say, I shudder to think how Houze will defend her at trial. uke: I remember reading he has a knack for getting guilty people off in the past based on technicalities (procedures followed incorrectly, for example). I pray with all my heart that LE conducts this case by the book and close to the letter of the law, to prevent this from happening.

 

[JBean]

I don't like that either.

Please understand I am not asking Houze to collude with the prosecution if Terri is guilty and he knows it. And my experience watching the rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong try to railroad the Duke Lacrosse kids will never leave me either. I understand manipulation of the media and the public , rigged line-ups, "tricks" to suppress the presence of multiple DNA from other men, intimidation of witnesses. Believe me please, I'll never forget it.

But these celebrity/high profile cases have soured me. Something is seriously askew. Justice is not The Big Game. If Kyron matters, there should not be happy pom-poms on both sides. He SHOULD matter. Therefore the TRUTH should matter more than legal tricks.

What set me off in this case was the attempt to subject Baby K to visitation WITHOUT ANY of the usual tests and safeguards...when that child may have witnessed something horrific. Wanting an exemption for Terri...yet, demanding visitation with the child. Protecting Terri...but by demanding exemptions for her...certainly not protecting the child.

But here's what troubles me about our system. If Terri is guilty, let them argue she is ill, or addicted, or had a terrible childhood, or she snapped. What I despise is the games wherein the defense knows the truith...and thinks it's their job to muddy the waters or confuse the jury to get that "not guilty" verdict.

Terri does not have a constitutional right to kill a child she despised and have slick lawyers help her succeed in getting away with it. And that's what IMO, we see in these cases far too often. Terri's lawyers, if guilty, should fight to get the best situation for her...but have they no interest in justice for Kyron either?

Is it their job to free her, return Baby K to her...and roll the dice as to how Baby K or another child survives if Terri starts to despise them? Do they pick up their paychecks and never look back...never think of the consequences that a vicious murderer has gone free? Never think of the impact on society, the grieving parents, or Baby K? Especially, if their skill kept pertinent information from the jury...or picked a jury predisposed to set Terri free.

Something is off these days...even if I am clumsy at describing it. But like , I think many of us know it WITHOUT DOUBT when we see it.

Personally, I am not exactly sure if a random jury would truly repesent a jury of MY peers if I were on trial. I have no problem with both sides using jury consultants, because ultimately both sides have the same tools available and so it should be a level playing field.

As for the rest, the problem I see is the operative phrase "if guilty"
We don't know if she is guilty until she has a trial,so each and every defendant must be treated the same before trial. IOW,an attorney must fight vigorously on behalf of their client regardless of guilt or innocence, because the presumption is innocence.

I totally understand what you are saying,but a good attorney will look at the case and depending on the evidence, will guide the client towards the best outcome for the client.

ETA:
As an aside,someone just reminded me that during the Peterson trial we were not even allowed to call scott a murderer until AFTER he was convicted.

 

[stmarysmead]

We live in a nation where "identity politics" has become a divisive but effective tool. We are encouraged to side with someone because they are like us and therefore needful of our support no matter what. This happens IMO on both sides of the political spectrum.

I believe this is prevalent in our justice system as well. The real "victim" is obscured as the accused is cast as some sort of "victim" and, on that basis, the jury is asked to nullify.

The real victim is forgotten in the process.

Anything can be justified if the person on trial can be cast as a "victim"...and other "victims" decide to give that person a free pass. I can see Terri as the "controlled" wife...the victim of Kaine...being "forgiven" and voted not guilty even if the evidence is DAMNING...by a juror who thinks Kaine reminds her of her ex-husband who "controlled" her. I read such things all over the Internet.

Finding just the right jury that is susceptible to "identifying" with whatever type of "victim" the accused is going to be trotted out as...is not the Founders idea of 12 men honest and true. A jury of your peers should not be a jury TO WHOM YOU DEFINITELY APPEAL.

That's how I feel anyway.

 

[SurfieTX]

I'm just going to say it. Kaine is NOT helping by stating that "the judge" thinks that finding Kyron is the top priority and that the divorce is "part of the investigation." The only judge he has been in front of is about his divorce/civil matter, and so far, no one has been charged with anything about Kyron. Houze is an expert at getting people off on technicalities, and he WILL do that if he can. And he might just be able to do that based on Terri's right to the 5th.

I am empathetic and understanding to Kaine's and Desiree's hurt, struggle and wont for the truth. I really am. However, it is equally important to not sabotage the criminal investigation and prosecution for whatever happened or is happening to this precious little boy.

ETA: These judges have and will have a very heavy load upon them, as this case will most certainly set a precedent regarding civil/criminal rights during potential concurrent proceedings. As we have seen, Rackner, Houze and Bunch are quoting cases left and right to bolster their opinions and positions.

 

[Chablis]

I'm just going to say it. Kaine is NOT helping by stating that "the judge" thinks that finding Kyron is the top priority and that the divorce is "part of the investigation." The only judge he has been in front of is about his divorce/civil matter, and so far, no one has been charged with anything about Kyron. Houze is an expert at getting people off on technicalities, and he WILL do that if he can. And he might just be able to do that based on Terri's right to the 5th.

I am empathetic and understanding to Kaine's and Desiree's hurt, struggle and wont for the truth. I really am. However, it is equally important to not sabotage the criminal investigation and prosecution for whatever happened or is happening to this precious little boy.

ETA: These judges have and will have a very heavy load upon them, as this case will most certainly set a precedent regarding civil/criminal rights during potential concurrent proceedings. As we have seen, Rackner, Houze and Bunch are quoting cases left and right to bolster their opinions and positions.

Kaine is the angry father of a missing child that Terri is lying about and was last seen with. That still does not violate her rights. All these things are tied together, what is the problem, that Kaine is angry and exposing the truth about Terri?