Kyron Horman, 7 years old PORTLAND, OR #8 7/20/10 - 7/23/10

[Tracygirl]

Is the DA in the same approx building as the DA. If so, perhaps Kaine was giving testimony or his deposition?

[Gypsy DD]

Yesterday, or whatever day it was, when Kaine left the police station at 9pm after speaking with them for 3 hours he looked relieved, not angry.

Now today we have LE not needing money all of a sudden.

I think even though they are saying no, that they are close to an arrest or grand jury indictment. 

Yes ..that is what I am thinking.  I believe there is a GJ convined..the GJ  gave their opinion, then verdict.  Once that happens the Sherrifs dept needs funding..but not as much as the DA and his team plus his detectives.  Thus the DA says at the meeting for funding today..  ..he hopes for a good resolution ( my interpretation..the location and retrival of Kyron) and legal..meaning ( we know who the perps are, we have evidence, we will secure a guilty verdict). 

[doubledecker]

With so much time passed and few leads on his whereabouts, Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk told our sister station KATU News Thursday, that even if there is no arrest imminent  in Kyron's dissapearance, his staff are now preparing an investigation that is trial ready for when an arrest occurs

____________

how do you prepare an investigation that is trial ready if you do not know who you are arresting or what happened? 

and why would police suddenly not need money to keep investigating...

again... makes no sense what they are saying.

[Gypsy DD]

Is the DA in the same approx building as the DA. If so, perhaps Kaine was giving testimony or his deposition?

i AM CONFUSED ..THE DA would be wherever he is ..did you mean some where  else?

[Patricia Mocha Latte]

Yesterday, or whatever day it was, when Kaine left the police station at 9pm after speaking with them for 3 hours he looked relieved, not angry.

Now today we have LE not needing money all of a sudden.

I think even though they are saying no, that they are close to an arrest or grand jury indictment. 

Yes ..that is what I am thinking.  I believe there is a GJ convined..the GJ  gave their opinion, then verdict.  Once that happens the Sherrifs dept needs funding..but not as much as the DA and his team plus his detectives.  Thus the DA says at the meeting for funding today..  ..he hopes for a good resolution ( my interpretation..the location and retrival of Kyron) and legal..meaning ( we know who the perps are, we have evidence, we will secure a guilty verdict). 

Great insight if that is the case. I seems that it very well might be.

[Tracygirl]

Is the DA in the same approx building as the DA. If so, perhaps Kaine was giving testimony or his deposition?

i AM CONFUSED ..THE DA would be wherever he is ..did you mean some where  else?

lol sorry I have a headache. Should be is LE in the same building as the DA or near by.

[KittyMom]

Yesterday, or whatever day it was, when Kaine left the police station at 9pm after speaking with them for 3 hours he looked relieved, not angry.

Now today we have LE not needing money all of a sudden.

I think even though they are saying no, that they are close to an arrest or grand jury indictment. 

Yes ..that is what I am thinking.  I believe there is a GJ convined..the GJ  gave their opinion, then verdict.  Once that happens the Sherrifs dept needs funding..but not as much as the DA and his team plus his detectives.  Thus the DA says at the meeting for funding today..  ..he hopes for a good resolution ( my interpretation..the location and retrival of Kyron) and legal..meaning ( we know who the perps are, we have evidence, we will secure a guilty verdict). 

I think he looked relieved as well.  And I'm hoping that LE will make arrest(s) soon and Kyron will be found. 

[Patricia Mocha Latte]

With so much time passed and few leads on his whereabouts, Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk told our sister station KATU News Thursday, that even if there is no arrest imminent  in Kyron's dissapearance, his staff are now preparing an investigation that is trial ready for when an arrest occurs

____________

how do you prepare an investigation that is trial ready if you do not know who you are arresting or what happened? 

and why would police suddenly not need money to keep investigating...

again... makes no sense what they are saying.

It seems as if they are beating around the bush with the "even if's". I suspect and it is very likely that they know quite a bit more than they are willing to let out and release to the public right now.

[Gypsy DD]

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/07/22/ann-rule-called-the-horman-within-a-week-of-kyrons-disappearance/

Ann Rule Called the Hormans Within Two Weeks of Kyron’s Disappearance


I really hope that she called to offer support, not to feel out a book.  I'd lose respect for her if that is the case.

There was an interview with Ann Rule on this case.  She said it was unlikely she would write a book because she felt it would all end up being so black and white..so no surprises in her book.  I think she meant the dirty laundry has been aired, the perp is pretty well known..and so once the case is settled and Kyron is found..well there wouldn't be much for her to write a book about.

That is not to say that ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX AND CABLE/ SATELITE CHANNELS AREN'T GOING TO MILK THIS..AND YES THEY CAN ..WITHOUT THE FAMILY'S OKAY..AS LONG AS THEY ONLY PRESENT THE LEGAL FINDINGS.

[Tamikosmom]

Seems like each one of these articles are worded slightly different:

http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/news/topstories/story/Sheriffs-office-declines-extra-money-for-now-for/5iFW97qmWUCsNb5npZp9Ig.cspx


Sheriff's office declines extra money - for now - for the Horman investigation

Last Update: 1:00 pm

In a surprise move, Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton tabled extra funding for the Kyron Horman investigation.

Earlier this week, it was announced that the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney's office were seeking over $438,000 in additional funds to help with the investigation into the missing 7-year-old.

District Attorney Mike Schrunk was seeking over $196,000 in funds for the case, while Dan Staton and the Sheriff's Office were asking for nearly $243,000 that would have gone to cover overtime costs of the investigation.

Early Thursday county commissioners were set to approve the funding, but a surprise move by Staton tabled funding for his office.

Staton said he didn't need the money as of now, in part because of a four-person budget cut that left the agency with extra money. The money will reside in the county contingency fund, used for emergency investigations like this one.

The sheriff's office has spent $365,000 on the Kyron Horman investigation so far, Staton said.

Staton said in no way does the tabling of the issue mean investigators are close to an arrest. The issue could still be brought up again in the future, he said.

I would assume that the grand jury's ruling will be the deciding factor regarding an arrest without a body.

Janet

Edit-fix typo.  MuffyBee

[Gypsy DD]

Is the DA in the same approx building as the DA. If so, perhaps Kaine was giving testimony or his deposition?

i AM CONFUSED ..THE DA would be wherever he is ..did you mean some where  else?

lol sorry I have a headache. Should be is LE in the same building as the DA or near by.

I certainly understand that..hope you feel better soon.

[Gypsy DD]

Seems like each one of these articles are worded slightly different:

http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/news/topstories/story/Sheriffs-office-declines-extra-money-for-now-for/5iFW97qmWUCsNb5npZp9Ig.cspx


Sheriff's office declines extra money - for now - for the Horman investigation

Last Update: 1:00 pm

In a surprise move, Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton tabled extra funding for the Kyron Horman investigation.

Earlier this week, it was announced that the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney's office were seeking over $438,000 in additional funds to help with the investigation into the missing 7-year-old.

District Attorney Mike Schrunk was seeking over $196,000 in funds for the case, while Dan Staton and the Sheriff's Office were asking for nearly $243,000 that would have gone to cover overtime costs of the investigation.

Early Thursday county commissioners were set to approve the funding, but a surprise move by Staton tabled funding for his office.

Staton said he didn't need the money as of now, in part because of a four-person budget cut that left the agency with extra money. The money will reside in the county contingency fund, used for emergency investigations like this one.

The sheriff's office has spent $365,000 on the Kyron Horman investigation so far, Staton said.

Staton said in no way does the tabling of the issue mean investigators are close to an arrest. The issue could still be brought up again in the future, he said.

I would assume that the grand jury's ruling will be the deciding factor regarding an arrest without a body.
Edit-fix typo-MuffyBee
Janet

We are on the same page.

[Tracygirl]

I think this may give information regarding the GJ process in the state of Oregon. So many words and my headache is bothering my eyes today.

http://www.open-oregon.com/New_Pages/media_handbook/chapter_06.html

Chapter 6: State Criminal Procedure

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The state criminal procedure includes a set of legal proceedings for both a felony case and a misdemeanor case.

 

Felony Proceedings
Legal proceedings in a felony case typically follow a series of steps from arrest through review by the Oregon Supreme Court. Though proceedings are generally initiated with the arrest (Step 1) , they can also be initiated with the filing of information (Step 3), or the return of an indictment by the grand jury (Step 5). If proceedings are initiated at Step 3 or Step 5, a warrant for the arrest of the defendant is usually issued when the information or indictment is filed.

 

1.Arrest: A person can be arrested — taken into custody — for the purpose of charging that person with an offense. A police officer can make an arrest if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony. A police officer can issue a citation in lieu of physical arrest for a Class C felony, unless the crime involves domestic abuse.
2.Release Decision: This determination establishes the form of release most likely to assure the defendant's court appearance. Oregon law provides that any person charged with a crime other than murder or treason must be given the opportunity to be released under either:
Personal Recognizance — release upon a promise to appear;
Conditional Release — release that imposes regulations on the activities and associations of the defendant; or
Security Release — release conditioned on a promise to appear that is secured by cash, stocks, bonds, or real property. (This is what historically would have been referred to as posting bail. A defendant is entitled to be released upon posting a security deposit that is 10 percent of the total security amount).
A judge is likely to impose the least onerous condition reasonably likely to assure the defendant's later appearance. A defendant in custody shall have the immediate right to security release or shall be taken before a magistrate without undue delay for a release decision. Release authority may be delegated to a release assistance officer. After conviction, the trial judge has discretion whether to grant release pending appeal.
3.Information: A written accusation is filed with the court charging a person with the commission of a felony offense. If signed by the district attorney, the information is a "district attorney's information." If signed by anyone else (such as a victim), it is a "complainant's information." This is a preliminary document that serves to commence an action, but it is not the final accusatory instrument that will serve as the basis for the ultimate prosecution in circuit court. An information must be accepted and endorsed by the district attorney.
4.Arraignment: A person is arraigned in public hearing in court, usually the defendant's first appearance before a judge. The defendant is advised of the charge and of his or her rights, including the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney, and the right to have a preliminary hearing within five days if the defendant is in custody or within 30 days if the defendant is not in custody (unless the grand jury considers the case sooner). If the defendant is indigent and requests an attorney, the judge will appoint one.
5.Grand Jury: A group of seven jurors evaluates evidence and determines whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant filing formal charges against the defendant. The grand jury meets in private and is sworn to secrecy regarding the proceedings. At least five of the seven grand jurors must agree before a formal charge is filed. The district attorney generally presents evidence to the grand jury, calling witnesses one at a time, but the district attorney is not present during the grand jury's deliberations. The grand jury may return an indictment if it believes the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction by a trial jury.
6.Indictment: This accusatory instrument (formal charge) is filed by the grand jury. This document names the accused and contains a statement of the acts constituting the offense charged. If the grand jury determines there is not sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings, it returns a not true bill which terminates the case.
7.Preliminary Hearing: A public court hearing determines whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant holding the defendant for further proceedings. The judge must be satisfied from the evidence that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. If sufficient evidence is not presented to support a criminal charge, the defendant is discharged.
8.District Attorney's Information: This document can be filed for a felony charge if the judge at a preliminary hearing has ruled that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense. The filing of a district attorney's information is an alternative to indictment by the grand jury. The Oregon Constitution provides that, without a waiver, no one can be prosecuted on a felony charge unless there has been either a preliminary hearing or the case has been considered the grand jury. A defendant may waive these rights and agree to the filing of a district attorney's information to expedite the proceedings.
9.Arraignment and Plea (following indictment or preliminary hearing): The defendant first appears in court at an arraignment on an indictment or on district attorney's information. If the defendant is without counsel, the defendant is given an opportunity to obtain counsel before proceeding with the arraignment. If the defendant is indigent, an attorney will be appointed if the defendant requests counsel. The accusatory instrument is read to the defendant and the defendant is given a copy of it and asked how he or she pleads to the charge. Often, a defendant will be allowed a reasonable time to consider the matter before entering a plea. The defendant's plea can be guilty, not guilty, or no contest. A defendant may plead no contest only with the consent of the court; a no contest plea has the same legal effect as a plea of guilty.
10.Discovery: A district attorney and the defendant's attorney are made aware of potential evidence possessed by the other party through discovery. The disclosures required include such things as police reports, the names, addresses, and statements of witnesses, photographs, results of physical and mental examinations, and scientific tests.
11.Pre-Trial Motions: The state or the defendant may request that the court make certain rulings before trial that have a bearing on the case. A variety of issues can be raised pre-trial. Often, the various pre-trial issues raised by the parties are heard at one time in a pre-trial omnibus hearing. The court might consider issues such as suppression of evidence, admissibility of statements by the defendant, and challenges to the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument.
12.Trial: Determination is made as to whether the state has proved the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial, a formal public court proceeding. Both the state and the defendant are entitled to a public trial with 12 impartial jurors. (If both the state and the defendant agree, there can be fewer than 12 jurors. In all other cases, at least 10 of the jurors must agree on the verdict. Both the state and the defendant may waive trial by jury and consent to a trial by the judge. In a jury trial, the judge rules on all questions of law and procedure arising during the trial, and instructs the jurors as to the legal principles they are to apply. The jury decides the factual issues and makes the ultimate decision to whether the state has proved the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
13.Sentencing: A penalty is imposed upon a convicted defendant at the sentencing. It is the duty of the judge to pass sentence if a defendant has pleaded guilty or has been found guilty. The law establishes maximum sentences for each felony offense. However, sentencing guidelines limit a court's discretion in most felony cases to a sentence below the statutory maximum. Sentencing guidelines apply to crimes committed on or after November 1, 1989, and take into consideration the severity of the crime and the defendant's criminal history. In 1994, Oregon voters passed several ballot measures that set mandatory prison terms for certain crimes.
14.Appeal to Oregon Court of Appeals: Decisions made in trial court can be challenged in an appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Oregon Court of Appeals is the appellate court having initial jurisdiction to review cases from the trial courts. A convicted defendant has an absolute right to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The state can appeal certain pre-trial rulings and sentencing decisions, but cannot appeal a finding of not guilty. The Court of Appeals does not hold trials or hear testimony. It hears legal arguments and reviews the record that has been made in the trial court. Appellate review is generally limited to questions of law and procedure rather than factual findings. That is, possible erroneous rulings by the trial judge are considered, not the jury's evaluation of the evidence. If it is decided that the trial court made an error that affected a defendant's right to a fair trial, the conviction is reversed and the case is generally returned to the trial court for a new trial. There are 10 judges on the Court of Appeals. Cases are generally heard by three-judge panels.
15.Review by Oregon Supreme Court: A decision of the Court of Appeals may be re-examined the Oregon Supreme Court, the highest appellate court in the state court system. The seven-member court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Court of Appeals. If either the state or the defendant is not satisfied with a decision from the Court of Appeals, a petition can be filed asking the Supreme Court to review the decision. The Supreme Court determines which cases merit review. If review is granted, the court will hear legal arguments, review the record of the case, and issue an opinion that affirms or reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also reviews all death penalty cases.
 

Misdemeanor Proceedings
Legal proceedings in a misdemeanor case typically follow a series of steps starting with the arrest of the defendant. The proceedings could also be initiated with the filing of a complaint (Step 3), followed by the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. Except as described below, the descriptions of procedures followed in a misdemeanor case are the same as those discussed under felony procedures.

1.Arrest: A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for any misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence, or if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person committed a Class A misdemeanor. A police officer can issue a citation in lieu of physical arrest for a misdemeanor, unless the crime involves domestic abuse.
2.Complaint: This written accusation, verified by oath and filed with the court, charges a person with an offense other than a felony.
3.District Attorney's Information: This written accusation is similar to a complaint but signed by the district attorney. Either a complaint or a district attorney's information can commence an action and serve as a basis for the prosecution of a misdemeanor case. There is no requirement that there be either a preliminary hearing or grand jury consideration as in felony cases. A complaint can be signed by any person, but must be accepted and endorsed by the district attorney before filing.
4.Arraignment and Plea: Same as for felonies.
5.Discovery: Same as for felonies.
6.Pre-Trial Motions: Same as for felonies.
7.Trial: There are six people on a jury for a misdemeanor charge, and a unanimous verdict is required.
8.Sentencing: No pre-sentence report is required in a misdemeanor case. Sentencing guidelines and mandatory sentences do not apply to misdemeanors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
previous 

[Tamikosmom]

Kyron's dad at sheriff's office 3 hours
Posted on July 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Updated yesterday at 12:46 PM

PORTLAND – The father of missing seven-year-old Kyron Horman attended three hours of meetings at the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office Tuesday.

KGW’s live truck was parked outside the sheriff’s office as Kaine Horman entered the building around 6 p.m. and left around 9 p.m. However, Kaine told KGW on the way out that he did not wish to comment on the three hours of meetings he had just attended.

Lt. Mary Lindstrand, a spokeswoman with the sheriff’s office, also told KGW she would not comment on why Kaine was there Tuesday.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Kyrons-dad-attends-3-hours-of-meetings-at-sheriffs-office-98945234.html

[flutter1]

Does the grand jury make the decision if there is or is not enough evidence to charge Terri Horman in the disappearance of Kyron Horman?

Janet

Yes, the GJ can make the decision.  The DA presents the evidence and witnesses and the GJ decides if there is enough evidence to indict.  Terri, or the defendent, does not testify.  Sometimes GJs act in secret, sometimes they are not, but in any case, the evidence presented is sealed until the actual trial is completed.

More info here  http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/04jul/secrecy.html

[Tracygirl]

This seems to be a bit easier to read and understand.

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System
What is the purpose of the grand jury?
The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.

The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.

Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.

In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith.


Does every jurisdiction use a grand jury?
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a grand jury indictment for federal criminal charges. Only about half the states now use grand juries.


What is the typical term of a grand jury?
In virtually every federal jurisdiction, there is at least one grand jury sitting every day. Generally, most federal indictments involve grand juries that sit for five days a week for a period of one month. For cases involving complex and long-term investigations (such as those involving organized crime, drug conspiracies or political corruption), "long term" grand juries will be impaneled. Such "long term" grand juries typically sit fewer days each week, and their terms can be extended in six month increments for up to three years. The schedules vary among the states that still have grand juries.


How are grand jurors selected?
In most jurisdictions, grand jurors are drawn from the same pool of potential jurors as are any other jury panels, and in the same manner. The pool generally consists of names culled from various databases, such as national voter lists, motor vehicle license lists and public utilities lists.


Does anyone screen grand jurors for biases or other improper factors?
No. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for biases or other improper factors.


How independent is the grand jury?
The grand jury is independent in theory, and although the instructions given to the grand jurors inform them they are to use their judgment, the practical realities of the situation mitigate against it.

The grand jury hears only cases brought to it by the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor decides which witnesses will receive immunity. The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor on a theory he or she articulates. The grand jury members are generally permitted to ask questions at the end of a witness's testimony. The prosecutor generally decides if he or she has enough evidence to seek an indictment. Occasionally the grand jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any additional witnesses, but since their job is only to judge what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so.

The prosecutor drafts the charges and reads them to the grand jury. There is no requirement that the grand jury be read any instructions on the law, and such instructions are rarely given.


Why are grand jury proceedings secret?
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding. Secrecy was originally designed to protect the grand jurors from improper pressures. The modern justifications are to prevent the escape of people whose indictment may be contemplated, to ensure that the grand jury is free to deliberate without outside pressure, to prevent subornation of perjury or witness tampering prior to a subsequent trial, to encourage people with information about a crime to speak freely, and to protect the innocent accused from disclosure of the fact that he or she was under investigation.


Why can a grand jury witness talk about his or her testimony?
In the federal courts, the witness is not sworn to secrecy, and may disclose whatever he or she wishes to whomever he or she wishes. The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable, and in part to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony. There is a basic revulsion in the United States about secret testimony.


Are there any other exceptions to grand jury secrecy?
At one time, the defendant in a criminal trial was never given access to the grand jury testimony that resulted in the indictment. By the 1980s, in most jurisdictions, if a witness who testified before the grand jury was called to testify at the eventual trial, the defendant was given a copy of that witness's grand jury testimony to use for possible impeachment. Some jurisdictions also give the defendant a list of everyone who testified before the grand jury, and several give the defendant a full transcript of all relevant grand jury testimony. In the federal system, no such list is provided, and the grand jury transcripts of only those persons who testify on behalf of the prosecutor at trial are given to the defendant.

Who must testify before a grand jury?
A prosecutor can obtain a subpoena to compel anyone to testify before a grand jury, without showing probable cause and, in most jurisdictions, without even showing that the person subpoenaed is likely to have relevant information. In the federal system the prosecutor is not required to demonstrate any relevance. The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination.


Can a lawyer be called to testify about his or her client?
A lawyer might be called; but the lawyer/client privilege shields him or her from being compelled to testify about a conversation with a client unless the conversation related to an ongoing or future crime or fraud of the client.


Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?
In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.


What is a grant of immunity?
A grant of immunity to a grand jury witness overcomes the witness's privilege against self-incrimination, and the witness is then required to testify. The prosecutor is prohibited from using that testimony or leads from it to bring charges against the witness. If a subsequent prosecution is brought, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that all of its evidence was obtained independent of the immunized testimony. In practice, it is difficult to successfully prosecute someone for criminal activity they discussed in immunized testimony unless the prosecution had a fully prepared case before immunity was granted.

Many states grant the witness "transactional immunity," barring prosecution for a transaction discussed in the immunized testimony regardless of whether there are independent sources of evidence.


Can a witness refuse to appear before the grand jury?
Not without risking being held in contempt of the court that issued the subpoena to compel their testimony.


What happens if a witness is found in contempt?
A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury. A witness who testifies falsely may be separately prosecuted for perjury.


If the grand jury refuses to return an indictment, can the prosecutor come back and try again, or is that barred by double jeopardy?
Double jeopardy does not apply to the grand jury. In practice, however, it is uncommon for a prosecutor, having failed once, to try again without good reason. The Department of Justice requires the prosecutor to obtain permission of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to present the case again.


Can a grand jury target offer evidence of his or her own?
For the most part, the subject of a grand jury investigation has no right to testify unless subpoenaed, nor any right to compel the grand jury to hear certain witnesses or evidence. Often, however, if a target requests an opportunity to testify, he or she will be permitted by the prosecutor to do so but without a grant of immunity.

The prosecutor may refuse to present evidence submitted by a target. In federal grand juries, exculpatory evidence need not be presented, although in many states exculpatory evidence must be submitted for the grand jury's consideration. Prosecutors have the right in federal grand juries to introduce hearsay and to otherwise utilize evidence that would not be admissible in a regular trial.


Is there a judge in the grand jury room when testimony is being taken?
No. Normal rules of evidence do not apply to a grand jury investigation, and a judge is generally needed only to rule on privilege issues or issues relating to contempt.


What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?

None. The target's only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony. 

[Tamikosmom]

Seems like each one of these articles are worded slightly different:

http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/news/topstories/story/Sheriffs-office-declines-extra-money-for-now-for/5iFW97qmWUCsNb5npZp9Ig.cspx


Sheriff's office declines extra money - for now - for the Horman investigation

Last Update: 1:00 pm

In a surprise move, Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton tabled extra funding for the Kyron Horman investigation.

Earlier this week, it was announced that the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney's office were seeking over $438,000 in additional funds to help with the investigation into the missing 7-year-old.

District Attorney Mike Schrunk was seeking over $196,000 in funds for the case, while Dan Staton and the Sheriff's Office were asking for nearly $243,000 that would have gone to cover overtime costs of the investigation.

Early Thursday county commissioners were set to approve the funding, but a surprise move by Staton tabled funding for his office.

Staton said he didn't need the money as of now, in part because of a four-person budget cut that left the agency with extra money. The money will reside in the county contingency fund, used for emergency investigations like this one.

The sheriff's office has spent $365,000 on the Kyron Horman investigation so far, Staton said.

Staton said in no way does the tabling of the issue mean investigators are close to an arrest. The issue could still be brought up again in the future, he said.

I would assume that the grand jury's ruling will be the deciding factor regarding an arrest with a body.

Janet

SELF EDIT

with a body s/b without a body (Fixed-MuffyBee)

[AZSunny]

how do I say this... hmmmm....

I know there is a grand jury going on. 

there I said it

Ok I'll bite, how do you know this? Not that I doubt you DD, you know I don't. but how did you find this out?

 I obviously can't say or I would have just said it.  what i don't know is what they might have found out... but with what le is saying and giving that money back etc, and there saying a good resolution and legally and now the da needs money and the cops can give their money back, after they just said they needed more for overtime, and now obviously do not need more for overtime, I really have to wonder what they found out..

something changed...and I honestly believe it could have to do with the grand jury talking to someone.  I know they are talking to someone, I just do not know what they are finding out.

DD, do you know for certain this is one of the cases the Grand Jury heard?

[Tamikosmom]

Does the grand jury make the decision if there is or is not enough evidence to charge Terri Horman in the disappearance of Kyron Horman?

Janet

Yes, the GJ can make the decision.  The DA presents the evidence and witnesses and the GJ decides if there is enough evidence to indict.  Terri, or the defendent, does not testify.  Sometimes GJs act in secret, sometimes they are not, but in any case, the evidence presented is sealed until the actual trial is completed.

More info here  http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/04jul/secrecy.html

Thanks flutter1.

Janet

[Brandi]

I can't recall at the moment, I have a terrible headache today. When a grand jury indictment is being sought the person being named does not have the right to be present or to present their side, is that right? I think it is.

Unlike trials, grand jury proceedings are secret. In many states, it is a crime to reveal information about a grand jury's proceedings. The public, the news media, and the person being investigated have no right to be present. The secrecy of the proceedings is intended to encourage witnesses to speak freely without fear of retaliation, such as threats from someone who does not like their testimony. It also protects the persons being investigated in the event that the evidence is deemed insufficient and an indictment isn't issued.
http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-15-2b-6.html

I am a bit behind, and apologize if this has been answered.