Found Deceased TX - Heidi Broussard, 33, murdered, baby stolen, Austin, 12 Dec 2019 *friend charged* #12

[PommyMommy]

Says PTR. I’ll try to get a screenshot in a bit!

Gotcha covered!



https://www2.traviscountytx.gov/courts/files/uploads/crimsettingsbydefendant.pdf

 

[PommyMommy]

FEB 3, updated FEB 4, 2020
Attorneys make first appearance in Heidi Broussard capital murder case, complain they're not getting sufficient evidence from DA
[...]

The court appearance was the first in the capital murder case against Magen Fieramusca, who is accused of being driven to kill her close friend due to a compulsive desire to have a baby. The 33-year-old was not present at the hearing.

[...]

Attorneys representing Fieramusca said in a news conference that they had not received any evidence in the cases against the woman.

A defense motion filed last week asked for sanctions on the DA’s office if it does not "produce all evidence in its possession and in the possession of any and all of the law enforcement agencies which investigated these allegations" by 5 p.m. Monday, according to KVUE ABC in Austin.

Judge Geoffrey Puryear did not grant the motion and said he trusted prosecutors to make evidence available to the defense, KVUE reported. Prosecutors have filed more than 50 pieces of discovery in the case so far, court documents show.

 

[Niner]

Thanks PommyMommy!

 

[LongLittleDoggoe]

Gotcha covered!

View attachment 229850

https://www2.traviscountytx.gov/courts/files/uploads/crimsettingsbydefendant.pdf

Thanks!!!

 

[Momof4RN]

Magen Fieramusca’s attorneys argue to review more evidence in Heidi Broussard case

Feb 3, 2020

"When you charge somebody with something like capital murder, that's a big deal. You are essentially defaming them in the public eye. Obviously, this case has a lot of eyes, a lot of attention, and our client deserves her day in court," Erskine said.

Later Friday evening, Erskine released another statement regarding what was disclosed to his team:

"Last week we filed formal discovery motions to address the government’s failures in the disclosure process. Late Friday the government trickled in limited information and filed a response to our discovery demands. Prosecutors suggesting the 50 evidence items uploaded Friday evening was significant, yet failed to acknowledge most included innocuous documents such as a Detective’s to-do list. The government insisted they would provide information as it became available, which begs what information was available to the grand jury.

During today’s hearing prosecutors argued this limited disclosure placed them in compliance. It does not. The government’s limited disclosed information does not contain sufficient links or evidence that would substantiate an indictment for any charges, let alone Capital Murder. Their insistence that this information is forthcoming is not a relief, but instead a burden. The government rushed to indict Ms. Fieramusca last week in order to avoid an examining trial which would have required them to call witnesses to substantiate probable cause or risk letting Ms. Fieramusca out on bond. This rush stymied our client’s ability to learn about any evidence against her and simultaneously created a continued pretext for the government’s slow discovery process while Ms. Fieramusca remains in custody.

Our insistence on these issues is to ensure the government is held accountable, and we will continue in our efforts to vigorously represent Ms. Fieramusca, as she looks forward to her day in court."

@Seattle1 any chance u can translate that statement for me in layman’s terms? I get the part that they feel the evidence they received was not enough and they clearly want what the grand jury saw/heard. But what’s the deal with the rush mean? And calling upon witnesses? Tia

 

[Momof4RN]

Gotcha covered!

View attachment 229850

https://www2.traviscountytx.gov/courts/files/uploads/crimsettingsbydefendant.pdf

Thanks @PommyMommy! Looking forward to 3/11. Any chance u know what PTR is?

 

[PommyMommy]

Thanks @PommyMommy! Looking forward to 3/11. Any chance u know what PTR is?

Pre-trial readiness or review, I believe. MOO

 

[BeachSky]

I’m going to have to gear myself up for this one...
Honestly don’t think I can stomach this monster being defended or
having any rights.
It sounds like defense is possibly pushing for a speedy trial?

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

@Seattle1 any chance u can translate that statement for me in layman’s terms? I get the part that they feel the evidence they received was not enough and they clearly want what the grand jury saw/heard. But what’s the deal with the rush mean? And calling upon witnesses? Tia

The only type of evidence that MF's defense can pound their fists about and expect immediate discovery from the DA's office would be any evidence that's helpful to the defendant or strongly points to MF's innocence (i.e., exculpatory evidence).

Even though the Texas Grand Jury operates differently than many other states, I think that MF's attorneys were not being reasonable in both their abrupt motion for discovery or their request that the Court impose sanctions on the State. Clearly, Judge Geoffrey Puryear was not moved by their motions and found in favor of the DA's office.

I don't think the abrupt demand for discovery was reasonable because the Grand Jury had barely issued the indictments against MF around 2:30 pm on Jan 28 and MF's attorney filed their motion demanding discovery about 1:00 pm on Jan 30! And this was after they'd already called the DA's office on Tuesday afternoon (Jan 28), and where the DA had already assured them they' were committed to processing all available discovery in an efficient and practicable manner.

I think that took a lot of nerve by MF's attorney because it's not like the prosecutor was sitting around doing nothing -- he was most likely working with the grand jury up until the indictment handed down.

If you look at the motion by MF's attorney, it looks like they're also asking for a lot of pre-indictment evidence that they are not entitled to. In fact, Judge Puryear went on record to say he won’t require the State to disclose what information was provided to the grand jury for MF's capital murder indictment.

I understand that MF's defense attorneys are anxious about having to defend a woman that's facing the most serious charges imaginable but it was MF that put herself (and her attorneys) in this situation. I hope now that MF's lawyers had some media time, they will calm down and let the process work as intended. There's simply no room for drama with this case.

MOO

 

[Niner]

PTR - I thought it meant PreTRial....

 

[Lillymac]

PTR - I thought it meant PreTRial....

Pretrial court appearance. Guess she'll be in court maybe..jmo

 

[Momof4RN]

The only type of evidence that MF's defense can pound their fists about and expect immediate discovery from the DA's office would be any evidence that's helpful to the defendant or strongly points to MF's innocence (i.e., exculpatory evidence).

Even though the Texas Grand Jury operates differently than many other states, I think that MF's attorneys were not being reasonable in both their abrupt motion for discovery or their request that the Court impose sanctions on the State. Clearly, Judge Geoffrey Puryear was not moved by their motions and found in favor of the DA's office.

I don't think the abrupt demand for discovery was reasonable because the Grand Jury had barely issued the indictments against MF around 2:30 pm on Jan 28 and MF's attorney filed their motion demanding discovery about 1:00 pm on Jan 30! And this was after they'd already called the DA's office on Tuesday afternoon (Jan 28), and where the DA had already assured them they' were committed to processing all available discovery in an efficient and practicable manner.

I think that took a lot of nerve by MF's attorney because it's not like the prosecutor was sitting around doing nothing -- he was most likely working with the grand jury up until the indictment handed down.

If you look at the motion by MF's attorney, it looks like they're also asking for a lot of pre-indictment evidence that they are not entitled to. In fact, Judge Puryear went on record to say he won’t require the State to disclose what information was provided to the grand jury for MF's capital murder indictment.

I understand that MF's defense attorneys are anxious about having to defend a woman that's facing the most serious charges imaginable but it was MF that put herself (and her attorneys) in this situation. I hope now that MF's lawyers had some media time, they will calm down and let the process work as intended. There's simply no room for drama with this case.

MOO

Ah Thank you! I knew you’d have a great take on that in a way I could clearly understand. And yes please no shenanigans.

 

[Colorado303]

The only type of evidence that MF's defense can pound their fists about and expect immediate discovery from the DA's office would be any evidence that's helpful to the defendant or strongly points to MF's innocence (i.e., exculpatory evidence).

Even though the Texas Grand Jury operates differently than many other states, I think that MF's attorneys were not being reasonable in both their abrupt motion for discovery or their request that the Court impose sanctions on the State. Clearly, Judge Geoffrey Puryear was not moved by their motions and found in favor of the DA's office.

I don't think the abrupt demand for discovery was reasonable because the Grand Jury had barely issued the indictments against MF around 2:30 pm on Jan 28 and MF's attorney filed their motion demanding discovery about 1:00 pm on Jan 30! And this was after they'd already called the DA's office on Tuesday afternoon (Jan 28), and where the DA had already assured them they' were committed to processing all available discovery in an efficient and practicable manner.

I think that took a lot of nerve by MF's attorney because it's not like the prosecutor was sitting around doing nothing -- he was most likely working with the grand jury up until the indictment handed down.

If you look at the motion by MF's attorney, it looks like they're also asking for a lot of pre-indictment evidence that they are not entitled to. In fact, Judge Puryear went on record to say he won’t require the State to disclose what information was provided to the grand jury for MF's capital murder indictment.

I understand that MF's defense attorneys are anxious about having to defend a woman that's facing the most serious charges imaginable but it was MF that put herself (and her attorneys) in this situation. I hope now that MF's lawyers had some media time, they will calm down and let the process work as intended. There's simply no room for drama with this case.

MOO

Do we know how much actual criminal litigation experience MF’s lawyers have? IMO they seem like wet behind the ears eager beavers ready to put their stamp on the world. Full of idealistic rage, determination and certainty that typically dissipates w/real experience.

 

[Factoria]

The only type of evidence that MF's defense can pound their fists about and expect immediate discovery from the DA's office would be any evidence that's helpful to the defendant or strongly points to MF's innocence (i.e., exculpatory evidence).

Even though the Texas Grand Jury operates differently than many other states, I think that MF's attorneys were not being reasonable in both their abrupt motion for discovery or their request that the Court impose sanctions on the State. Clearly, Judge Geoffrey Puryear was not moved by their motions and found in favor of the DA's office.

I don't think the abrupt demand for discovery was reasonable because the Grand Jury had barely issued the indictments against MF around 2:30 pm on Jan 28 and MF's attorney filed their motion demanding discovery about 1:00 pm on Jan 30! And this was after they'd already called the DA's office on Tuesday afternoon (Jan 28), and where the DA had already assured them they' were committed to processing all available discovery in an efficient and practicable manner.

I think that took a lot of nerve by MF's attorney because it's not like the prosecutor was sitting around doing nothing -- he was most likely working with the grand jury up until the indictment handed down.

If you look at the motion by MF's attorney, it looks like they're also asking for a lot of pre-indictment evidence that they are not entitled to. In fact, Judge Puryear went on record to say he won’t require the State to disclose what information was provided to the grand jury for MF's capital murder indictment.

I understand that MF's defense attorneys are anxious about having to defend a woman that's facing the most serious charges imaginable but it was MF that put herself (and her attorneys) in this situation. I hope now that MF's lawyers had some media time, they will calm down and let the process work as intended. There's simply no room for drama with this case.

MOO

The reality is that MF's attorneys haven't got much to go on... So, of course they're going to attack whatever miniscule tidbit they can find within the confines of the law. Just grandstanding, IMO. Prosecution has their client on video at/near HB's residence; a witness to MF (and perhaps an accomplice ~ unwitting or not) picking up HB & MB at/near their home; HB found deceased in the trunk of their client's car a week later; baby M found in her home; those bizarre internet searches... They've got nothing to defend that wretched hunk of flesh that's supposed to be a human, so what they're left to work with is trying to find crap to help dismiss the overwhelming evidence against their client.

 

[Seattle1]

Do we know how much actual criminal litigation experience MF’s lawyers have? IMO they seem like wet behind the ears eager beavers ready to put their stamp on the world. Full of idealistic rage, determination and certainty that typically dissipates w/real experience.

What we know so far about MF's legal team is that they requested a delay in her Jan 2 initial hearing-- which was granted to Feb 3.

In the meantime, their client was indicted for capital murder on Jan 28, and within days of both the indictment and the hearing, they asked a judge to impose sanctions against the DA's office for not moving fast enough with information (i.e., discovery)!

Perhaps they are hoping their actions will contribute to public sentiment in Travis County and incite the jury pool -- as if they can go to any other county in Texas that is not mindful of MF's evil act against a mother and her child.

In Texas, the penalty phase (life or death) will be decided upon by the jury where there's never been a problem sentencing a woman to death.

One would think MF's team would be working on a plea to save her life rather than erroneously motioning for sanctions.

(IMO, some motions are simply about being heard and papering a trail for future appeals but I really take exception to the request for sanctions).

 

[UnderstandBlue]

<sbm>

In Texas, the penalty phase (life or death) will be decided upon by the jury where there's never been a problem sentencing a woman to death.

One would think MF's team would be working on a plea to save her life rather than erroneously motioning for sanctions.

(IMO, some motions are simply about being heard and papering a trail for future appeals but I really take exception to the request for sanctions).

Agree on motions buying time.

Travis County isn't the death penalty center of the state, really, although I remember one woman who got it in the 90s for killing a child.

The state in general, I agree - especially Harris County. But if it's a Travis County jury it will be one to watch in terms of rarity. But what about this case hasn't been?

 

[InvSmith]

The reality is that MF's attorneys haven't got much to go on... So, of course they're going to attack whatever miniscule tidbit they can find within the confines of the law. Just grandstanding, IMO. Prosecution has their client on video at/near HB's residence; a witness to MF (and perhaps an accomplice ~ unwitting or not) picking up HB & MB at/near their home; HB found deceased in the trunk of their client's car a week later; baby M found in her home; those bizarre internet searches... They've got nothing to defend that wretched hunk of flesh that's supposed to be a human, so what they're left to work with is trying to find crap to help dismiss the overwhelming evidence against their client.

If there is an accomplice that turns out to be male then this is going to complicate things. Depending on any image of the individual(s) in the car will be vital. I can only assume based on the charges that she did this alone.

 

[InvSmith]

The only type of evidence that MF's defense can pound their fists about and expect immediate discovery from the DA's office would be any evidence that's helpful to the defendant or strongly points to MF's innocence (i.e., exculpatory evidence).

Even though the Texas Grand Jury operates differently than many other states, I think that MF's attorneys were not being reasonable in both their abrupt motion for discovery or their request that the Court impose sanctions on the State. Clearly, Judge Geoffrey Puryear was not moved by their motions and found in favor of the DA's office.

I don't think the abrupt demand for discovery was reasonable because the Grand Jury had barely issued the indictments against MF around 2:30 pm on Jan 28 and MF's attorney filed their motion demanding discovery about 1:00 pm on Jan 30! And this was after they'd already called the DA's office on Tuesday afternoon (Jan 28), and where the DA had already assured them they' were committed to processing all available discovery in an efficient and practicable manner.

I think that took a lot of nerve by MF's attorney because it's not like the prosecutor was sitting around doing nothing -- he was most likely working with the grand jury up until the indictment handed down.

If you look at the motion by MF's attorney, it looks like they're also asking for a lot of pre-indictment evidence that they are not entitled to. In fact, Judge Puryear went on record to say he won’t require the State to disclose what information was provided to the grand jury for MF's capital murder indictment.

I understand that MF's defense attorneys are anxious about having to defend a woman that's facing the most serious charges imaginable but it was MF that put herself (and her attorneys) in this situation. I hope now that MF's lawyers had some media time, they will calm down and let the process work as intended. There's simply no room for drama with this case.

MOO

I agree. I think LE is still in the investigative mode and probably released evidence of the kidnapping and tampering with a corpse but have every right to continue their investigations and release that information when it does not harm the case on the murder charge.

 

[InvSmith]

I agree. I think LE is still in the investigative mode and probably released evidence of the kidnapping and tampering with a corpse but have every right to continue their investigations and release that information when it does not harm the case on the murder charge.

You are right. I would like to know if anyone else is involved. I am sure the investigation continues.

 

[InvSmith]

There is no way her charges were not discussed as the kidnapping is all in one with the capital murder and the infant's case is kidnapping.