Terri's Constitutional Rights

[citigirl]

In order for the alleged MFH to be admitted into Kyron's case wouldn't they need to atleast charge her with it? They just can't say "we believe she attempted to hire Jack Frost to murder Mr. Horman" without having enough evidence to actually charge her with it, can they? Don't they need to prove that what they say is true?

I think they can call anyone they want to testify to anything, unless the judge will not allow it because it is tangential or hearsay. I am talking about if there is evidence...I am guessing the judge can throw it out because it is inflammatory, even if it is true, because it will prejudice the jury against Terri.

To which I say, duh. Of course it will prejudice the jury because it is so awful! And why shouldn't the jury weigh this, if true, to decide if TH is capable of disappearing her stepson?

 

[JBean]

No, not right ever. What if LE was wrong about their belief? LE needs to get whatever proof they can and then let the DA make the decision as to whether it's a strong enough case to bring to a jury. Fabricating evidence or planting it is against everything our country is supposed to stand for. It's corruption.

heehee of course I know that Gitana. My point is that if evidence is obtained in any way that violates SOP, ( ie no search warrant or anything else) and the defense attorney reveals it resulting in an acquittal, it is not the defense attorney that is at fault.
This is why following SOP,respecting rights and doing things by the book is cirtical, even if it means a guilty person goes free.

 

[JBean]

Jelly, I could not agree more. I have two words that seared the issue of prosecutorial abuse in my heart: Duke Lacrosse. So please do not misunderstand that my disgust is not limited to the defense and does cut both ways.

But disgusted I am at the state of our "justice" system right now. I would like less manipulation of the law, less gamesmanship, and more concern on both sides for the truth.

And, just to be clear. No, I would never condone manufacturing evidence...or rigging line-ups, or intimidating witnesses, or withholding exculpatory DNA. I saw that in real time and it was horrific.

One of the best books about the Duke case is entitled "It's not about the truth."

The title comes from a statement that Duke Athletic Director Joe Alleva made when he told the Lacrosse Coach Pressler that he wanted his resignation. When Pressler begged him to wait for the DNA results and begged, "We must stand for the truth," Alleva replied, "It's not about the truth anymore." He went on, "It's about the integrity of the university, it's about the faculty, the city, the NAACP, the protesters, and the other interest groups."

In the Duke case , it was the prosecutor who wanted to be reelected and figured thirty years of 3 kids lives was a small sacrifice to win and increase his pension. He was willing to exploit those kids...their lives for his gain.

In this case, defense attorneys pushed to have a toddler forced into visitation with the woman who she may have seen murder her brother violently...and they wanted all the usual tests and safeguards that are done in any NORMAL divorce exempted for their client.

Exempted. EXEMPTED. They wanted no safeguards for Baby K.

Is that...."about the truth?" About the truth of Terri's mental and medical state...about the truth of whether she is "safe" to be around any child? Now emails have surfaced showing intense "hatred " for a 7 year old...and a desire to hurt him.

But let's hand over Baby K. With none of the usual safeguards.

The Defense attorneys IMO were playing games with that child. It was appalling and vile. It is not their job to take chances like that with this Baby's physical and mental health. Terri exempted from the usual tests and safeguards. For what...PR for their client? Grandstanding? Because they read on the Internet that bloggers were questioning why she had not asked?

IMO, that has set the tone for what is to come. I fear it will not be about the truth and therefore it will not be about Kyron.

Or justice.

Thanks for your thoughts SMM. But one thing I do want to clarify is that I am not generally referring to prosecutorial misconduct. I am referring to SOP.
It is as important to the prosecution to get a W as it is to the defense to get a W and largely for the same reasons. Right or wrong good or bad, both sides want to win and not always for noble reasons.

Personally, as long as everyone plays by the rules, I like our justice system and all it's imperfections right now. It's the best thing going on.

 

[gitana1]

I understand that. But... let's take the MFH. Let's say it is impossible to link the MFH to Kyron's disappearance. Houze will surely argue that it isn't probative since it has nothing to do with Kyron. But, for the rest of us, it shows us what lengths TH is willing to go to to get rid of someone she doesn't like.

My dad would have agreed with you 100%. He was called for jury duty once. The prospective jurors were asked whether they could refrain from looking at an any media regarding the case. My dad said, "Oh no. I'll read anything I can get my hands on regarding the case and the defendant. I don't want to vote on a case only to later find that something was hidden from me that may have changed my mind!" The judge was not happy but my dad was excused. He was irritated by all the things that are sometimes withheld from the jury, like about past crimes, etc. I understand. But I also understand why we have the constitutional protections that we have and for the most part, I don't think many guilty parties get away with crimes due to those protections.

 

[gitana1]

heehee of course I know that Gitana. My point is that if evidence is obtained in any way that violates SOP, ( ie no search warrant or anything else) and the defense attorney reveals it resulting in an acquittal, it is not the defense attorney that is at fault.
This is why following SOP,respecting rights and doing things by the book is cirtical, even if it means a guilty person goes free.

Yeah, I knew it was kind of a rhetorical question. Point well taken and I agree with you!

 

[SurfieTX]

Case delayed until Jan. 6th per the judge:

http://www.kptv.com/news/25902944/detail.html

"The judge says it is in Kaine Horman’s best interests to move forward now, but it does not benefit the ultimate goal of finding Kyron. He says handling the divorce proceedings now carries the risk of compromising the criminal investigation."

 

[miabellamoure]

My dad would have agreed with you 100%. He was called for jury duty once. The prospective jurors were asked whether they could refrain from looking at an any media regarding the case. My dad said, "Oh no. I'll read anything I can get my hands on regarding the case and the defendant. I don't want to vote on a case only to later find that something was hidden from me that may have changed my mind!" The judge was not happy but my dad was excused. He was irritated by all the things that are sometimes withheld from the jury, like about past crimes, etc. I understand. But I also understand why we have the constitutional protections that we have and for the most part, I don't think many guilty parties get away with crimes due to those protections.

Your father is man of integrity...my kind of man!

 

[Tink56]

Case delayed until Jan. 6th per the judge:

http://www.kptv.com/news/25902944/detail.html

"The judge says it is in Kaine Horman’s best interests to move forward now, but it does not benefit the ultimate goal of finding Kyron. He says handling the divorce proceedings now carries the risk of compromising the criminal investigation."

Does this relate to TH's withdrawn motion? What does "NOW" mean? Right at this moment or until the criminal case results in someone's arrest or ???

What are Kaine's legal obligations concerning TH? Once they are legally separated,he's no longer responsible for her debts, etc., correct?

I guess this should be on the "Questons for Attorney" thread. I put it over there also.