Wednesday, August 15, 2007

I need some lawyers to educate me on the Grand Jury

I do not want a bunch of "anonymous said" people answering this post.

I have a legal question for anyone who understand the legal process.

I hope that one of the lawyers who reads this blog can answer my question.

Please look at the 1st two counts of the Indictments against Matt Kelty.

Do these indictments mean that the Grand Jury feels that Matt Kelty's testimony directly contradicts the testimony of Fred Rost and Don Willis?

I am not a lawyer and I hope that Mr. Barranda and Doug over at Masson's Blog can tell me more about this.

Other readers may understand the legal process more then I do and I would like to know more...

Mike Sylvester

9 comments:

Jimmy Dean said...

"I do NOT believe that Matt Kelty committed perjury; however, if it were proven that he did commit perjury then I would not support him."

Why are you still supporting him?

Angry White Boy said...

Mike,

The bottom line here is fairly simple. You can assume that Sigler presented the case in a partisan fashion, designed to lead the grand jury into thinking an indictment was appropriate.

Matt was asked:
Q: Don Willis, do you know him?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Has he ever provided any support to your campaign other than what has been - what has been delineated in your reports?

A: Not that I know of.


Plausible deniability? Define support for me. Does that mean cash? Does that mean an in-kind contribution? All of the above? Did Matt know or did someone in the campaign know and not tell Matt?

Actually, at this point what the grand jury thinks/thought doesn't matter; they only indicted him. In the end, what happens in criminal trial is what will count.

NATION said...

Criminal trial...that just doesn't sound good

Angry White Boy said...

You can thank Andy Downs and Kevin Knuth for that

barranda said...

Mike,

I'll give my two cents with the caveat that I am not a criminal lawyer, and that my opinion in this case is not legal advice.

At any rate, AWB is correct. Sigler's questioning of MK (and his entire function in the grand jury proceedings) was designed as a partisan (non-adversarial) inquisitorial process.

Also note that Sigler stated in his press conference that the perjury charges were related solely to the testimony to the grand jury.

Finally, to indict, the grand jury must find that it was more probable than not that a crime had been convicted. Thus, it is all but a guarantee that the grand jury simply did not believe the testimony of MK.

We do NOT know whether MK's testimony contradicted FR's or DW's, since we don't know who testified, let alone the substance of the testimony. In fact, both could have corroborated his testimony, but another witness could have undermined all of that. For example, and this is entirely a hypothetical, Glenna Jehl (and i have no idea if she even testified) could have stated something along the lines of: "we all knew that Willis and Rost paid for the poll." If such testimony were given, the jury could find that it was more probable than not that MK was not truthful when he stated that he was not aware of a contribution from Willis.

The second count is more intriguing. It seems to be based on circumstantial evidence, if not mere speculation. It appears the grand jury was simply skeptical that a major contributor would commission a poll without MK's knowledge. This seems like it will be almost impossible to prove, even if it were true...and I have my doubts on this one.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Jimmy Dean:

Because I do not think he commited perjury. Matt striked me as being a very honest guy.

Nothing has been proven and I think people are generally innocent until proven guilty.

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...

"The second count is more intriguing. It seems to be based on circumstantial evidence, if not mere speculation. It appears the grand jury was simply skeptical that a major contributor would commission a poll without MK's knowledge. This seems like it will be almost impossible to prove, even if it were true...and I have my doubts on this one."

Barranda, why is this so speculative. If Rost hypothetically testified that he and Kelty planned the poll before hand, this would make Kelty's statement false AND it would make this perjury claim every bit as black and white as the other. One of the two individuals would have to be lying.

barranda said...

8:06 Anon:

If such testimony were given, then undoubtedly that would be direct evidence. However, I doubt that they had such direct evidence. If they did, I think MK would be moving out of the city of FW right now.

I'm not saying that it happened or it didn't. This one seems less plausible than the first count.

There is a clear distinction between the two. The first count deals with MK's knowledge of the poll at the time he filed his report. The second deals with his knowledge as he was sitting in the courtroom.

Anonymous said...

You won't see MK leaving the city for any reason. If he did, it would show his guilt. He will not admit he knowingly did anything wrong. He has his entire life wrapped up in this campaign and he won't let a little thing like felonies stop him.