The case against the alleged murderer of Coast Guard Petty Officer Amy Ignatowski, will be presented to the Grand Jury Tomorrow, Thursday, July 24th,2008 according to an email, I received from the Assistant District Attorney, in Corpus Christi, Texas, today.

The alleged killer, Micah Lee Spanutius, 21,has been free since posting bail, shortly after being arrested. Initial bail was set by the Texas magistrate at 100,000.00, which is believed to have been posted by the suspect's father.

Jack

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cgrdcs,

Father's are to protect the kids. In this case he put up bail hoping and praying his son isn't guilty of such a crime

Hard to believe that the bail amount was so low. If it had been 100K cash bond yes, but not a 100K bail bond. Parents must have some money though.

quote:

Micah Lee Spanutius

Hard to believe they bail charged murderers at all. Most murder suspects once charged are remanded.

well, he's innocent until proven guilty by a grand jury I guess...

Coastie0002

The Grand Jury, will be hearing the case to determine IF there is enough evidence to bring this man to trial. It does not rule on the guilt or innocence of the accused, only is there evidence to believe that THIS accused should be tried for the crime.

Jack

With a good lawyer I'll bet he'll get off.

I have just received an email, that the case will not be heard by the Grand Jury, until next Thursday.

The lead detective took some time off this week and was not available to help present the case.

IMHO, considering the weather conditions in the general area, Hurricane Dolly, he may have family or property in the area to take care of.
Understandable.

Jack

the statement is "under the law, one is presumed innocent until proved guilty. This is different from being guilty - it just means one cannot be sent to prison until it is proven.

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by coastie0002:
well, he's innocent until proven guilty by a grand jury I guess...

...might I suggest a little study on your part regarding the difference between a Grand Jury and a (petite) Jury. Not to mention 81s other correction of you wording. I can also add, that the DA PROOVEs a person guilty, the petite Jury FINDS that the DA did indeed do that.

quote:

Originally posted by 9294381:
the statement is "under the law, one is presumed innocent until proved guilty. This is different from being guilty - it just means one cannot be sent to prison until it is proven.

Bill

Wow! You seem to think being presumed Not Guilty is some kind of a technicality. More than a few men and women, even on Death Row have been, later, shown to been Not Guilty.

I hope you have had time to re-think this idea and can agree that being presume Not Guilty is; and should be, the bedrock of our Nation's Law. It is no accident our founding fathers decided it should be the burden (note the word: burden) of the State to, prove "beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, someone is Guilty.

Is there anyone here who has never been accused of doing something by his or her mother, father, wife, husband, friend or state) that was completely innocent?

Looking to render attitudes that you're just a victim, not a perpetrator again, Gaylord?

Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with the issue of bail which is where we started out on this. Presumption of innocence is a 6th Amendment right of due process. Bail is an 8th Amendment issue only when bail is used as a punitive measure. Bail is used to assure an appearance. Nowhere in the Constitution is bail guaranteed. What is guaranteed is proportionality. As an example you could not require remand for jay walking.

gaylord,

I am sure no one here gives a ratz azzz about your thoughts on guilt or innocence in this matter. The topic here is the bail amount which is way too low in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by gaylordstevens:

quote:

Originally posted by 9294381:
the statement is "under the law, one is presumed innocent until proved guilty. This is different from being guilty - it just means one cannot be sent to prison until it is proven.

Bill

Wow! You seem to think being presumed Not Guilty is some kind of a technicality. More than a few men and women, even on Death Row have been, later, shown to been Not Guilty.

I hope you have had time to re-think this idea and can agree that being presume Not Guilty is; and should be, the bedrock of our Nation's Law. It is no accident our founding fathers decided it should be the burden (note the word: burden) of the State to, prove "beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, someone is Guilty.

Is there anyone here who has never been accused of doing something by his or her mother, father, wife, husband, friend or state) that was completely innocent?

I believe the correct burden of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt. This is the highest burden of proof in court cases. In my civil cases, the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, which is the lowest level. In some of my cases, once my agency has satisfied its prima facie burden of proof in court, the petitioner is required to rebut our evidence by clear and convincing evidence, which is higher than a preponderance, but below proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, in civil appeals to the appellate courts (upon which I work), the trial court's decision must be supported by substantial or competent evidence of record. Simple, isn't it?

PA Retiree - you are correct. I did share an immediate reaction the bail seemed low.

If this person is guilty of some act that led to someone's death, I hope they receive their just punishment. I have never suggest someone "get away" with anything but I think due process should be followed - even in the spirit of this venue.

Still, we should also remember a team that came under a very dark cloud when so many rushed to judgement when the charge of rape was made. These, boys then, men now, still bare the scars of being charged -- as do we all.

I'm sure there are some who feel the idea of due process is an unimportant thing, but it is in venues such as this that we hone upon the citizen that we are, and it is this person who walks into a courtroom and bare the burden of deciding what is fair and just under the Constitution.

With apologies to Vince Lombardi Due Process is not an important thing it is the only thing when it comes to the law. However, bail and Due Process are two different animals.

quote:

However, bail and Due Process are two different animals.

........as in public or personal opinion AND finding of a jury.

quote:

Posted Sun 27 July 2008 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:

........as in public or personal opinion AND finding of a jury.

Gee Phil nice to see you in the office and working on a Sunday...since you only post from there normally.

quote:

......as in public or personal opinion AND finding of a jury. Confused

The is appropriate as I am confused by the statement? Are you saying public opinion and finding a non-biased jury are part of due process? Of course the defense has the right to ask for a change of venue to assure a fair trial. This would be at the discretion of the trial judge and possibly an appellate judge.