Trial date set for Sidney and Tammy Moorer? #2

[LBDunes]

I agree. I think public pressure also played a role. IMO

I don't know about public pressure? I mean I don't think the public specifically wanted the M's charged, as much as the concern for whoever may have been responsible. Also, I don't consider all the social media craziness public pressure. I think there was more of that than public pressure in the real world per se. Most of the social media really has very little or nothing to do with the charges. Certainly the social media has not been as thoughtful as the folks that post here for sure.

 

[jillycat]

IMO, they did not have to NP the main charge. The success is unknown for the charge that was NP. That would have been up to the jury. I have to ask what would they have to have for the murder charge to satisfy your criteria?

A nolle prosequi means one of three things: The state knows it doesn't have proof of the charges; the evidence proves innocence; or the evidence proves/shows a fatal flaw in the state's claim. It's a request to the court by the state when the state's case has failed. Based on that, we really do know what would have happened if the murder charge went to a jury.

So my 'criteria' is the same as that of our courts - have the evidence you need to arrest, charge, try, and convict the person you claim did the crime, period. I have no idea what else they needed to prosecute this case. But when you have as little as the state has - and I mean from the vantage point of a defense team and a judge and jury - not having a body or any evidence of a crime can only make your case worse, not better.

This is not a statement that I think all prosecutors needs bodies and DNA to get convictions. It's a statement about this case and this Solicitor's office hanging its hoped for success on a hoped for roll by Sidney Moorer. They had to abandon ship when their future tripping wishful thinking strategy fell apart. Whether or not the kidnapping case can make it to trial and be prosecuted and won remains to be seen. But so far, the state has been having its backside handed to it.

 

[meinmyrtlebeach]

I don't know about a "rush" to judge and then not look at all avenues. I know a young man that went to high school with Heather. They sorta dated/hung out a little bit in and after high school and he was contacted by detectives within the first week. He was also contacted again some time later, even after an arrest had been made. Nothing more than to go over regular details such as last time he'd seen her/talked to her etc. Anyone who tries to say they honed in on the M's and noone else is either lying to themselves or has no idea what goes on behind the scenes in an investigation.

 

[Aeronomy]

Motion 5 is interesting. The defense is prepared to offer evidence of 3rd party guilt. Wonder who they are getting ready to throw under the bus?

Motion 5 is interesting, but I'm more interested in the first part. I'd REALLY like to know more about the reason Jackson v. Denno is referenced! Did I miss a confession??

 

[Dixie E]

Motion 5 is interesting, but I'm more interested in the first part. I'd REALLY like to know more about the reason Jackson v. Denno is referenced! Did I miss a confession??

I think they are going to bring in LE as the third party. Esp. DE. I hope that prosecution has a solid case. Judge Dennis will be hard on the prosecution just like he was at the bond hearing. That you can count on. IMO. They are going to walk. Hopefully, it remains that S gets tried alone. I want to see T sweat it out alone. Neither one is going to throw the other under the bus. They have already proven that and I don`t ever see it happening in the future.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Criminal defense attorney Stuart Axelrod says all of that evidence will likely be thrown out, and the kidnapping charge will likely be dismissed.

“You have to be able to prove to a jury that somebody was held against their will in a kidnapping case, and it can be ever so slightly, but somebody has to be able to say it or you have a picture of them duct taped to a chair,” said Axelrod.

Got Axelrod? :gaah:

Criminal defense attorney says kidnapping charges against Sidney and Tammy Moorer should be dismissed
By Taylor Herlong
Published: April 15, 2016, 10:03 pm Updated: April 15, 2016, 10:22 pm

MYRTLE BEACH, SC (WBTW)- Sidney Moorer is scheduled to appear for a pre-trial hearing Monday on charges related to Heather Elvis’ disappearance.

Last month, the solicitor dropped murder charges against Tammy and Sidney Moorer, but the couple still faces a kidnapping charge.

Criminal Defense Attorney Stuart Axelrod says he’s been following the case for years, and he simply doesn’t see how the case can move forward.

“They don’t have a body, they had the murder charge, they dismissed the murder charge, and now they’re going to try to go forward on a kidnapping charge,” said Axelrod.

[...]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...No-Discussion-Thread*&p=12472286#post12472286

 

[Hoosgirl]

Criminal defense attorney Stuart Axelrod says all of that evidence will likely be thrown out, and the kidnapping charge will likely be dismissed.

“You have to be able to prove to a jury that somebody was held against their will in a kidnapping case, and it can be ever so slightly, but somebody has to be able to say it or you have a picture of them duct taped to a chair,” said Axelrod.

Got Axelrod? :gaah:

Well, at least the prosecutor is following the gag order.

I think the state deliberately left the door open to refile the murders charges by going NP. If they really had no case, they would have just dropped it altogether. I'd like to think they are going ahead with kidnapping because they do feel they have a strong case. I guess we will see.

 

[magnolia]

I believe the knowledge of the older married man having an affair with a much younger single woman sparked a certain amount of public animosity. The social media comments made by TM about Heather sparked an inferno. The fire was sizzling before the evidence started trickling in. IMO

Both families complained about harassment. I believe the complaints by both sides were very real. It seemed like a volatile situation for awhile. All the craziness was not confined to social media. IMO

 

[bestill]

I'm praying for justice for Heather but I'm not going to lie, I'm concerned that they are going to get away with this.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Motion 5 is interesting, but I'm more interested in the first part. I'd REALLY like to know more about the reason Jackson v. Denno is referenced! Did I miss a confession??

Jackson v. Denno - The defense joins with the State in its request for the Court to conduct a hearing to determine the admissibility of any statements made by the defendant.

Plea Negotiations - The defense will be prepared to show that in the instant case, an offer made to the defendant should be admissible.

https://mgtvwbtw.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/moorer-motion5.pdf

Jackson-Denno hearing refers to a court proceeding determining whether a defendant’s confession was voluntary or involuntary. The concept of Jackson-Denno hearing was evolved from the case, Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1964). The court also determines if the confession can be admissible as evidence. Generally, Jackson-Denno hearing is held outside a jury’s presence. Jackson-Denno hearing is criminal in nature. Hence, the scope of a Jackson-Denno hearing is so unique that defendants who seek relief may be treated differently from civil cases.

A Jackson-Denno hearing is constitutionally mandated for a defendant who timely urges that his/her confession is inadmissible because it is not voluntarily given. The burden of proof applicable to a Jackson-Denno hearing is same as that of a competency hearing. The burden of proof should be by preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. [People v. Arendes, 92 Misc. 2d 372 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977)]

http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jackson-denno-hearing/

So, the D wants to put it on the table that the State was trying to give Sidney a deal if he either confessed or turned on TM. The opposite is probably the case for TM.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm praying for justice for Heather but I'm not going to lie, I'm concerned that they are going to get away with this.

They just might. If the state doesn't have the evidence they need then no amount of prayer is going to create a case out of thin air. Sadly, as we know, some people do get away with their crimes. Most don't, but some do. If one believes in the law of Karma one will understand there is really no 'getting away' with murder, as Karma attaches to the soul and is not something that can be legislated or controlled by man.

 

[magnolia]

Criminal defense attorney Stuart Axelrod says all of that evidence will likely be thrown out, and the kidnapping charge will likely be dismissed.

“You have to be able to prove to a jury that somebody was held against their will in a kidnapping case, and it can be ever so slightly, but somebody has to be able to say it or you have a picture of them duct taped to a chair,” said Axelrod.

Got Axelrod? :gaah:

My question is, why did the state move forward on a case that will likely be dismissed ? I don't get it.

 

[LBDunes]

My question is, why did the state move forward on a case that will likely be dismissed ? I don't get it.

The state has not shown it's case in full. Axelrod is a criminal defense attorney. What else would he say? He knows about as much as we do about the state's case. So, imo, maybe the state has more than it has shown so far in these bond hearings. I still say what was shown is pretty compelling circumstantial evidence. The case moved forward because those pieces of the puzzle led them to the M's. It's funny, I think I have this frustration, with the statement, "a rush to judgement". Every time I hear that it reminds me of Johnny Cochran and the OJ case. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't feel they rushed to prosecute him. I also do not feel it applies in this case. In the end I may be wrong, but I guess we shall see when the case is presented.

 

[jillycat]

The state has not shown it's case in full. Axelrod is a criminal defense attorney. What else would he say? He knows about as much as we do about the state's case. So, imo, maybe the state has more than it has shown so far in these bond hearings. I still say what was shown is pretty compelling circumstantial evidence. The case moved forward because those pieces of the puzzle led them to the M's. It's funny, I think I have this frustration, with the statement, "a rush to judgement". Every time I hear that it reminds me of Johnny Cochran and the OJ case. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't feel they rushed to prosecute him. I also do not feel it applies in this case. In the end I may be wrong, but I guess we shall see when the case is presented.

The M's defense team are are criminal defense attorneys too, so their own lawyer-speak about the state's "bias" and "immensely inadequate investigation" tell us their central argument at this stage. "Rush to judgment" was simply a term I used in one my recent posts to characterize the general direction of the defense.

Prior to that, I referred to the state's failure as a result of a "rushed investigation" where they got their warrants but didn't have enough to actually move their case to trial.

No matter what we call it, the state had to give up murder, IE, and one count of obstruction. So I honestly don't see how what they had was compelling.

Recognizing that the trail from the affair to the phones and the car and her disappearance leads to a logical conclusion of murder isn't the same thing as a successful test under the rules of evidence. Nothing screams that like the dismissal of the murder charges.

I have a very hard time with the idea that the state is charging people and dismissing charges as part of some sort of one trial at a time "strategy" to get them on murder later. I do not believe that if the state waits long enough, SM will roll or the state will find some more evidence or the body. This defies how our system works. And I don't believe that if the rest of this case falls apart it can be blamed on a corrupt judge. I believe that at some point the state has to own its investigation and failure to compel the court or a jury.

I do however believe that sometimes, even with the best of evidence and prosecution effort, people get away with their crime. Obviously, the M's were either smart enough or had sufficient help and/or luck to leave no trace of a crime and to hide her body so well that she will likely never be found.

So yes, Axelrod is saying what he's saying because he's a criminal defense attorney who knows well what it takes to convict someone.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

My question is, why did the state move forward on a case that will likely be dismissed ? I don't get it.

They have some circumstantial evidence that may be enough to convince a jury to convict IMO but, no hard/direct evidence! With that, it may help a murder charge down the road (IF some new evidence comes up)... wishful thinking.

I was thinking that it could have something to do with the statute of limitation for kidnapping, but there is no limitations in the state of South Carolina.

There are no statutes of limitations for any criminal prosecutions in South Carolina. In other words, you may be prosecuted for committing a crime at any time. Title 16 of the Code of Laws lists the various crimes in South Carolina.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...s-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/criminal-defense-statute-o

 

[PeterThomasFan]

The M's defense team are are criminal defense attorneys too, so their own lawyer-speak about the state's "bias" and "immensely inadequate investigation" tell us their central argument at this stage. "Rush to judgment" was simply a term I used in one my recent posts to characterize the general direction of the defense.

Prior to that, I referred to the state's failure as a result of a "rushed investigation" where they got their warrants but didn't have enough to actually move their case to trial.

No matter what we call it, the state had to give up murder, IE, and one count of obstruction. So I honestly don't see how what they had was compelling.

Recognizing that the trail from the affair to the phones and the car and her disappearance leads to a logical conclusion of murder isn't the same thing as a successful test under the rules of evidence. Nothing screams that like the dismissal of the murder charges.

I have a very hard time with the idea that the state is charging people and dismissing charges as part of some sort of one trial at a time "strategy" to get them on murder later. I do not believe that if the state waits long enough, SM will roll or the state will find some more evidence or the body. This defies how our system works. And I don't believe that if the rest of this case falls apart it can be blamed on a corrupt judge. I believe that at some point the state has to own its investigation and failure to compel the court or a jury.

I do however believe that sometimes, even with the best of evidence and prosecution effort, people get away with their crime. Obviously, the M's were either smart enough or had sufficient help and/or luck to leave no trace of a crime and to hide her body so well that she will likely never be found.

So yes, Axelrod is saying what he's saying because he's a criminal defense attorney who knows well what it takes to convict someone.

BBM

A perfect example of some trace evidence the state should have are tire and foot impressions from PTL!

They should also have several full bags of debris from the area. I'm not saying it would definitely include any conclusive evidence, just wondering if they actually collected anything before the search party and others contaminated the "crime scene"?

I cannot wait to see the complete evidence list. Pictures with guns and Facebook rants don't make for compelling evidence.

 

[Dixie E]

BBM

A perfect example of some trace evidence the state should have are tire and foot impressions from PTL!

They should also have several full bags of debris from the area. I'm not saying it would definitely include any conclusive evidence, just wondering if they actually collected anything before the search party and others contaminated the "crime scene"?

I cannot wait to see the complete evidence list. Pictures with guns and Facebook rants don't make for compelling evidence.

I have always wondered that myself. I remember reading somewhere where there were brake marks. I wonder if they took photos of them and compared them to the tires on S truck. Can`t wait to see how this all plays out.

 

[jillycat]

BBM

A perfect example of some trace evidence the state should have are tire and foot impressions from PTL!

They should also have several full bags of debris from the area. I'm not saying it would definitely include any conclusive evidence, just wondering if they actually collected anything before the search party and others contaminated the "crime scene"?

I cannot wait to see the complete evidence list. Pictures with guns and Facebook rants don't make for compelling evidence.

And if the car is the elephant in the living room so to speak, I would think that not securing it is a problem.

I don't think they found anything at the landing. At least nothing that indicates what happened, or that anything happened. This may well be because what happened wasn't at the landing.

 

[Madeleine74]

They didn't 'secure' the car because they (LE) didn't know a crime had been committed at that point. The car was locked. T.E. was the registered owner of said car. He was called because the car appeared to be abandoned and had been called to get it. T.E. also didn't know a crime had been committed. (Is the expectation that LE must be psychic?)

This can be addressed with proper questioning by the state:

Q: Officer SoandSo, at the time you called T.E. to let him know a car registered in his name was sitting at PTL, did you know that his daughter had been kidnapped? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, at that time had anyone reported a missing woman, a woman associated with that car? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, at that time had anyone reported hearing any kind of disturbance, a scream, a woman crying, or anything like that? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, was the car locked? (yes). Did you open the car yourself? (no). Did you start touching things in the car? (No) Did you know that the young woman who used that particular car was missing? (no)
Q: Officer SoandSo, when an abandoned vehicle is called in and the registered owner is found and comes to get the car do you seize the car and tow it to the CSI vehicle compound just in case something may have happened to the person who normally drives the car? (No) Why not? (We would only do this if there was a report of a possible crime committed and that would be based on directions from Sgt ThisnThat.)

Reasonable actions and nonactions...

 

[jillycat]

They didn't 'secure' the car because they (LE) didn't know a crime had been committed at that point. The car was locked. T.E. was the registered owner of said car. He was called because the car appeared to be abandoned and had been called to get it. T.E. also didn't know a crime had been committed. (Is the expectation that LE must be psychic?)

This can be addressed with proper questioning by the state:

Q: Officer SoandSo, at the time you called T.E. to let him know a car registered in his name was sitting at PTL, did you know that his daughter had been kidnapped? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, at that time had anyone reported a missing woman, a woman associated with that car? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, at that time had anyone reported hearing any kind of disturbance, a scream, a woman crying, or anything like that? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, was the car locked? (yes). Did you open the car yourself? (no). Did you start touching things in the car? (No) Did you know that the young woman who used that particular car was missing? (no)
Q: Officer SoandSo, when an abandoned vehicle is called in and the registered owner is found and comes to get the car do you seize the car and tow it to the CSI vehicle compound just in case something may have happened to the person who normally drives the car? (No) Why not? (We would only do this if there was a report of a possible crime committed and that would be based on directions from Sgt ThisnThat.)

Reasonable actions and nonactions...

And so the result of not 'securing'/'processing' the scene at that time is....the same. No matter how 'reasonable' people were.