Ramseys not called to speak
#11
(05-23-2017, 01:11 PM)Toth Wrote: That is the law in NY. If he is indicted and later tried and convicted, the conviction will be expunged upon proper motion.


But WHERE did you see this?
Reply
#12
(05-23-2017, 10:24 PM)Dave Wrote: But WHERE did you see this?

"... For example, New York has consistently held that, in keeping with the privilege against self-incrimination, "a person against whom the inquiry of the grand jury is directed should not be required to attend before that body, much less be sworn by it, and if he is and an indictment be found, it should be set aside upon motion and, if not, if the fact appears upon the trial, it will invalidate a conviction if one be had." People v. Gillette, 126 App. Div. 665, 670, 111 N.Y. Supp. 133, 136 (1908) (conviction for perjury before grand jury reversed because oath invalid). See People v. DeFeo, 308 N.Y. 595, 127 N.E.2d 592 (1955) (reversing contempt conviction for failure of prospective defendant to answer questions); People v. Werkes, 46 Misc. 2d 1020, 261 N.Y.S.2d 726 (Sup. Ct. 1965) (setting aside indictment where defendant was called); People v. Seaman, 174 Misc. 792, 21 N.Y.S.2d 917 (Sup. Ct. 1940); People v. Bermel, 71 Misc. 356, 128 N.Y. Supp. 524 (Sup. Ct. 1911). Other states have reached the same conclusion..."

Again, this is NOT the law in Colorado but I doubt Colorado wanted to take the chance.
Reply
#13
Hi Toth,

Thanks for the citation.  No wonder I couldn't find anything.  This has absolutely  nothing to do with double jeopardy.  It has to do with self-incrimination.  These two things are different clauses in the Fifth Amendment:

"NOR shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"
 
"NOR shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ..." (emphasis added).
Reply
#14
The Daily Camera Ramsey Archive

Ramseys may not testify


By Charlie Brennan and Lisa Levitt Ryckman
Scripps Howard News Service




John and Patsy Ramsey may never be called to testify before the grand jury investigating the 1996 death of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenét.
The panel, which has been considering the case since Sept. 15, has yet to subpoena the Ramseys and may not issue subpoenas before concluding its work, observers said Thursday.
The main reason: If the Ramseys are subpoenaed, prosecutors could be forced to give them copies of all the statements the two have made to investigators. Prosecutors could also be required to turn over documents containing statements the Ramseys made to people who passed them along to investigators. That could be an overwhelming task in a case that has produced a file of roughly 35,000 pages.
A strict reading of grand jury law suggests that subpoenaed witnesses get to see only their own statements to authorities. But a broader reading would be argued by "mostly anybody who is a defense attorney," said Chief Deputy District Attorney Phil Parrott, who runs grand juries in Denver.
Patsy Ramsey's sister, Pam Paugh, said she thinks the grand jury hasn't asked to hear from John or Patsy because they don't think prosecutor Michael Kane has made a case against them.
"I think the grand jury has said, 'You guys don't have your ducks in a row,'" said Paugh. She said she suspects prosecutors will drag out the grand jury proceedings as long as possible rather than admit they have been wrong to pursue the Ramseys.
Meanwhile, Laurie Wagner, one-time spokeswoman for Access Graphics, the Boulder firm where John Ramsey was president at the time of his daughter's slaying, said she has been contacted by investigators recently.

June 4, 1999 |
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)