Carl Brizzi drops charges...

[femurphy77]

I wonder how much money her parents donated to him this time!

Drat, beat me to it!!

 

[perminator]

ive said from the begining i dont think she ever had the baby is there even any proof that she was actually pregnant?

 

[JBusch8899]

Uh.... I think that's called the right to remain silent......

Though, she can be compelled to provide the needed information before a Grand Jury.

 

[AFA1CY]

Though, she can be compelled to provide the needed information before a Grand Jury.

But the police are not a Grand Jury

 

[libertybear]

ive said from the begining i dont think she ever had the baby is there even any proof that she was actually pregnant?

Yes everyone knew she was pregnant she gave birth on the 10th. That is a fact her roomy even says she was pregnant and gave birth in the apartment. She also went to Methodist hospital and doctor's confirmed she had recently had a baby.

 

[JBusch8899]

But the police are not a Grand Jury

Yeah, I know that too.

However, that doesn't prevent a prosecutor from convening a Grand Jury to compel the stated party to answer questions to the whereabouts of her child.

There is no right to remain silent before such a body, save the defendant's consent of a waiver.

 

[Fargo]

There is no right to remain silent before such a body, save the defendant's consent of a waiver.

Yes there is, unless you are granted immunity.

Joe

 

[JBusch8899]

There is no right to remain silent before such a body, save the defendant's consent of a waiver.

Yes there is, unless you are granted immunity.

A Grand Jury is an fact-finding body. There are no Constitutional protections against self incrimination within it, but any testimony cannot be used against oneself in court. That is unless, as I stated earlier, that one forfeits immunity of one's testimony against self incrimination by waiver.

This is expressly why the proceedings of a Grand Jury are strictly secret.

 

[Fargo]

A Grand Jury is an fact-finding body. There are no Constitutional protections against self incrimination within it, but any testimony cannot be used against oneself in court. That is unless, as I stated earlier, that one forfeits immunity of one's testimony against self incrimination by waiver.

This is expressly why the proceedings of a Grand Jury are strictly secret.

In Indiana, explicitly by statute, you still have your right to refuse to testify based on self-incrimination. See IC 35-34-2-6 for the procedure to quash a grand jury subpoena on those grounds. IC 35-34-2-7 outlines what testimony may be refused on self-incimination grounds. The only way around such a motion to quash is by an express grant of immunity by the prosecution via IC 35-34-2-8.

You still have your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself before a grand jury UNLESS you have been affirmatively provided immunity by the prosecution and have been advised of such by the court.

Best,


Joe

IC 35-34-2-6
Motion to quash subpoena duces tecum; use immunity
Sec. 6. (a) Any witness may file a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed to that witness. The motion must include a statement of the facts and grounds in support of the objection to the subpoena. The court shall:
(1) promptly conduct a hearing on the motion; and
(2) at the conclusion of the hearing, enter findings in support of its ruling.
(b) A target who is subpoenaed may move to quash a subpoena based upon his privilege against self-incrimination. The court shall grant the motion, unless the prosecuting attorney makes a written request that the target be granted use immunity in accordance with section 8 of this chapter. Upon request by the prosecuting attorney, the court shall grant use immunity to the target and order him to comply with the subpoena.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.3.
IC 35-34-2-7
Witnesses; refusal to answer; compelling testimony
Sec. 7. (a) If a witness before the grand jury refuses to answer any question or produce any item, the prosecutor may inform the court, in writing, of the question asked or item sought and the reason given for the refusal. The court shall, after a hearing, decide whether the witness is required to answer the question or produce the item and the witness shall be informed immediately of the court's decision.
(b) If the court determines that the witness must answer the question or produce the item and the witness continues to refuse, he shall be brought before the court and the court shall proceed as if the witness had refused in open court.
(c) If the court determines that the witness may properly refuse to answer a question or produce an item based upon his privilege against self-incrimination, the prosecutor may request the court to grant use immunity to the witness under section 8 of this chapter.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.3.

IC 35-34-2-8
Witnesses; use immunity Sec. 8. (a) Upon request by the prosecuting attorney, the court shall grant use immunity to a witness before the grand jury. The court shall instruct the witness by written order or in open court that any evidence the witness gives before the grand jury, or evidence derived from that evidence, may not be used in any criminal prosecution against that witness, unless the evidence is volunteered by the witness or is not responsive to a question by the grand jury or the prosecutor. The court shall then instruct the witness that he must answer the questions asked and produce the items requested.
(b) A grant of use immunity does not prohibit the use of evidence the witness gives in a prosecution for perjury under IC 35-44-2-1.
(c) If a witness refuses to give evidence after he has been granted use immunity, he shall be brought before the court and the court shall proceed as if the witness had refused in open court.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.3.

 

[JBusch8899]

In Indiana, explicitly by statute, you still have your right to refuse to testify based on self-incrimination. See IC 35-34-2-6 for the procedure to quash a grand jury subpoena on those grounds. IC 35-34-2-7 outlines what testimony may be refused on self-incimination grounds. The only way around such a motion to quash is by an express grant of immunity by the prosecution via IC 35-34-2-8.

You still have your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself before a grand jury UNLESS you have been affirmatively provided immunity by the prosecution and have been advised of such by the court.

The stated IC that you have boldfaced, are the procedures to quash a subpoena and the prosecutor's use of the granting of immunity. If the court doesn't grant the motion to quash, there remains no avenue to refuse testimony before the grand jury, negating the requirement of the prosecution's option of immunity.

Also know, that the prosecutor will have opportunity to challenge the quash, stating the state's interest, as in this case: The pursuit of information of the missing baby, as a CHINS.

Also know, that a Grand Jury is not exclusively utilized in criminal proceedings, and that Subpoena duces tecum, is a subpoena compelling the bringing of stated evidence.

 

[Fargo]

The stated IC that you have boldfaced, are the procedures to quash a subpoena and the prosecutor's use of the granting of immunity. If the court doesn't grant the motion to quash, there remains no avenue to refuse testimony before the grand jury, negating the requirement of the prosecution's option of immunity.

Also know, that the prosecutor will have opportunity to challenge the quash, stating the state's interest, as in this case: The pursuit of information of the missing baby, as a CHINS.

Also know, that a Grand Jury is not exclusively utilizeed in criminal proceedings, and that Subpoena duces tecum, is a subpoena compelling the bringing of stated evidence.

As the statute states, the ground for both a motion to quash and refusal to testify are your right against self incrimination. It is explicit in the statute that you still have the right to remain silent rather than incriminate yourself. That is my point in response to your post that:

A Grand Jury is an fact-finding body. There are no Constitutional protections against self incrimination within it, but any testimony cannot be used against oneself in court.

2-6 is the motion to quash a documentary/evidentiary demand, 2-8 is the immunity option. 2-7 is the right to refuse to answer based upon the right to avoid self-incrimination.

My point stands, you still have a right to not testify against yourself in a grand jury proceeding. 2-7 explicitly states that. Whether the grand jury is civil or criminal matters not per the statute. Of course the court can refuse to grant the motion to quash, but I am not aware that "state's interest" has anything to do with that. It is my understanding that the primary concern there is the witness' constitutional rights. CHINS proceedings, on a kid that is almost certainly dead, is not going to override the mother's constitutional protections unless they are rendered moot by a grant of immunity.

BTW, for my own edification, who could convene a grand jury on non-criminal grounds like CHINS? I have no experiencewith such a thing. I would assume it would have to be the court as I don't know that the prosecutor has a hand in CHINS matters but I really don't know.

Best,

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A Grand Jury is an fact-finding body. There are no Constitutional protections against self incrimination within it, but any testimony cannot be used against oneself in court.

Let it find all the facts it wants, the target does not have to help them by testifying.

Where does this come from, JBus? Where did you hear such a thing? Maybe you thought for non-targets???