Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Day 519 - Rumors denied w/updates

photo swiped from heraldo
Heraldo had it first - Gallegos on Channel 3 in another incomprehensible interview blaming the media for his inability to make a decision in the Cheri Moore case - Gallegos said a Criminal Grand Jury has not been empaneled in the case, and declined to confirm whether he’d made the final decision to utilize a Grand Jury. Gallegos stated that "media attention slows it down."

Gallegos, as I've said before, is caught between a rock and a hard place. He wants to please his handlers and charge the EPD Officers, but he can't. And he knows it.

If I understand it correctly - Here's the problem:

A District Attorney presents charges one of two ways:
1. As an alternative to a preliminary hearing, the DA empanels a Criminal Grand Jury to investigate in secret with no defense attorney present.
2. The DA just files charges and there is a preliminary hearing open to the public, and the defense can actually respond to questions.

You only empanel a grand jury when you don't want all the evidence to be heard by the public - in this case everything is out there and has been for a long time - the investigation was closed well before the coroners inquest. There's no need for secrecy.

If this were 10 or 11 months ago, prior to everyone testifying and prior to the coroner's inquest, Gallegos could justify empaneling a Criminal Grand Jury, ostensibly because there was sensitive information that he didn't want out there.

But now, the investigations are complete, and have been for quite some time - unless there's some secret witness hiding in the wings, there's nothing new here and no need to hide anything from the public.

What he seems to be doing is passing the buck - he doesn't want to make a difficult decision so he is hoping the Criminal Grand Jury can pull the rabbit out of the hat for him...

Gallegos' statement in the interview is telling - he says he has three choices:
1. File a complaint
2. Not file a complaint
3. Form a Criminal Grand Jury

Actually, he has at least two more:
1. Clear the Officers
2. Hand the case over to the Attorney General

It would be stupid to empanel a Criminal Grand Jury if you aren't planning to file charges, so...

Is he looking for a 1st degree murder charge? First Degree means he has to prove that it was premeditated - obviously not the case here because they were going to get her out of her apartment and take her to a Mental Health Facility - no intent to kill.

Is he looking for a 2nd degree murder charge? Second Degree means it was not premeditated, but he still has to prove an intent to kill - again, clearly not the case here

For either First or Second Degree murder, he has to prove intent to kill.

Is he looking for a Voluntary Manslaughter charge? For that he would have to prove heat of passion - there was none.

Is he looking for a Involuntary Manslaughter charge? A misdemeanor* - This is the one thing that could apply - involuntary manslaughter could be a lawful act conducted in an unlawful manner - BUT - the statute of limitations ran out last year. Now perhaps he has something else in mind, maybe he has come up with something he thinks will fly.

* NOTE: - Nope - I'm wrong about that - reading the wrong subsection - this would actually be a straight felony under, I think 192 a, b or c, not a wobbler, not a misdemeanor, so this must be where he thinks he has something. (And thanks to those who contacted me to let me know I was off.)

But why all the theatrics? WHY? What is there that justifies putting everyone through this when he can just make a decision - and he could have passed it off to the Attorney General and washed his hands of it.
***
TS DA says no request yet for grand jury in Moore case

13 comments:

  1. Looks like Gags is wondering who leaked the facts this time. How many employee phone records will he pore over this time?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Involuntary manslaughter is a wobbler - can be either a misdo or felony so the statute hasn't run. I believe you can get to voluntary by an "imperfect self defense" theory. Tha is the officers believed they were acting in self defense but the belief was unreasonable. There is NO evidence to support either first or second degree. Any way you slice it it's still baloney. Even in Humboldt you are not going to find 12 people who will convict cops under these circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PVG is a spinless arse hole... Thats' all i have to say about that

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just like the officers who fired 9 shots into Cherie Moore's body,who made a decision to go into her apartment and kill her prior to entering the building,after a measily 2 and half hour standoff.The same officers who refused to give her the medication she was lacking and asking for,the same officers who told her friend who had been in talks with her to quit having any more conversations with her.
    ListenPaul is fuckin' up here,no question,but this lays at the hands of the Eureka Police Department.They are the ones who got us into this mess.The case needs to go to the AG asap,it's the only chance of justice that her family and friends have.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ok, so it sounds like mresquan is not the kind of impartial juror
    the case is going to need.
    Nothing like making up your mind
    based on what gets in the media.
    As to the main point, AK has been
    working on how to go to a grand jury for months, acting all secret squirrely about it.
    PVG will decline comment rather than actually deny it, because if he denies AK is working on it, it's a really obvious lie when AK
    shows up in front of a gj, unless PG wants to say that there was no
    preparation in the previous
    500+++++ days leading up to the grand jury. which would be true if the DA himself were "handling" the file.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think what everyone reacts to in this case, mresquan, is that they went in so soon, that they didn't wait for days. It's easy for us to make judgements about that, but we weren't there, and we don't know why that decision was made. Maybe no one does, really.

    But the fact remains, she pointed a gun (flare gun or not) at them. Had she not done that, she would be alive. As to whether or not they should have felt threatened by a flare gun, Mark, there is no way they could know that she didn't have a .22, a .38. or an assault rifle in addition to the flare gun. They can't make those kinds of assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Konkler - you forget that Dikeman called for the case to be giiven to the AG in May of last year. Glad to see you write that he was correct in that assessment and that the matter was so politicized that Gags could not make a fair decision.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's more that after the initial decision would be made,by waiting this long,it has to make a decision to appeal much easier and drawing this out even longer,whether he can make a fair decision or not.
    And Rose,it's the cutting off of contacts,and the failure to interact with Mental health that irks me most.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark - I couldn't understand your last post at all other than you don't like EPD cutting out Moore's ability to have outside contact and EPD interacting with mental health.

    I totally disagree with you about cutting off her outside contacts. This is what has to happen and does everywhere on the planet. I wish that mental health could have given some advice to EPD, that would have been very good. However, I do believe that if Mental Health does play a role in these types of events then they will open themselves up to being sued to and that they will not go for it.

    We do not get a perfect world, or a perfect police department. Do not obfuscate whether or not they could have done a better job in many folks opinion with whether or not they committed a crime. Vast differences between the two.

    But what the hek do you mean by:“It's more that after the initial decision would be made,by waiting this long,it has to make a decision to appeal much easier and drawing this out even longer,whether he can make a fair decision or not.” I simply don’t understand what you are trying to say.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Added to post above - NOTE: - I'm wrong about it being a misdemeanor, and thus about the statute of limitations - reading the wrong subsection - this would actually be a straight felony, not a wobbler, not a misdemeanor, so this must be where he thinks he has something. (And thanks to those who contacted me to let me know I was off.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just look at that picture! "no, i didn't hide the peas under the table, i swear!"
    IMHO

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mark is still just an AH ! The hints/rumors about the grand jury has been around for months. If he's going to do it then just do it. The sooner he does it the sooner it will be over and the sooner he will look the dumbass that he really is.

    Remember Mr. Duke University DA ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mark, I just don't get why you think they went in there intending to kill her. If you believe that, then you should want the entire police force disbanded, not just here, but everywhere.

    And what happens then?

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.