911 Tape-State & Federal Laws

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Deja Nu, Oct 12, 2003.

  1. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    For informational purposes, thought I would post a few state and federal laws applicable to the issue of Spade's revelations of evidence to support tampering of the 911 tape. These are just a few of the laws that would apply, feel free all you legal researchers to add on to this thread!
     
  2. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Colorado Law

    C.R.S. §18-8-610. Tampering with physical evidence.

    (1) A person commits tampering with physical evidence if, believing that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he:

    (a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its verity or availability in the pending or prospective official proceeding; or

    (b) Knowingly makes, presents, or offers any false or altered physical evidence with intent that it be introduced in the pending or prospective official proceeding.

    (2) "Physical evidence", as used in this section, includes any article, object, document, record, or other thing of physical substance.

    (3) Tampering with physical evidence is a class 6 felony.

    Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 466, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: §40-8-610. L. 89: (3) amended, p. 840, § 87, effective July 1.

    ANNOTATION

    Law reviews. For article, "Incriminating Evidence: What to do With a Hot Potato", see 11 Colo. Law. 880 (1982). For article, "The Search for Truth Continued: More Disclosure, Less Privilege", see 54 U. Colo. L. Rev. 51 (1982). For article, "The Search for Truth Continued, The Privilege Retained: A Response to Judge Frankel", see 54 U. Colo. L. Rev. 67 (1982).

    "Physical evidence" includes false affidavit presented to a grand jury. People v. Board, 656 P.2d 712 (Colo. App. 1982).

    Evidence sufficient for jury to infer that defendant believed official proceeding was about to be instituted against her. People v. Frayer, 661 P.2d 1189 (Colo. App. 1982), aff'd, 684 P.2d 927 (Colo. 1984).

    © 2001 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Portions copyright © eHelp Corporation. All rights reserved.
     
  3. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Federal Laws

    Evidence Tampering/Obstruction of Justice:

    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
    Sec. 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

    -STATUTE-
    . . .
    (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to -

    (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

    (2) cause or induce any person to -

    (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

    (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

    (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

    (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

    (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
    . . .
    (e) For the purposes of this section -

    (1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

    (2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
    . . .
    (g) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.

    (h) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.

    (i) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

    -SOURCE-

    (Added Pub. L. 97-291, Sec. 4(a), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1249; amended Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 61, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 100-690, title VII, Sec. 7029(a), (c), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4397, 4398; Pub. L. 101-650, title III, Sec. 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 103-322, title VI, Sec. 60018, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(O), (U), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1975, 2148; Pub. L. 104-214, Sec. 1(2), Oct. 1, 1996, 110 Stat. 3017; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Sec. 604(b)(31), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3508.)

    AMENDMENTS

    1996 - Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 104-294 inserted ''and'' after semicolon at end. Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 104-214 added subsec. (i). 1994 - Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 60018, amended follows: ''(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112 of this title; and''. Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 30016(1)(U), substituted''fined under this title'' for ''fined not more than $250,000'' in
    concluding provisions. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 330016(1)(O), substituted ''fined under this title'' for ''fined not more than $25,000'' in concluding provisions. 1988 - Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100-690, Sec. 7029(c), substituted ''threatens, or corruptly persuades'' for ''or threatens''. Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 100-690, Sec. 7029(a), added subsec. (h). 1986 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 61(2), (3), added subsec. (a) and redesignated former subsec. (a) as (b). Subsecs. (b) to (g). Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 61(1), (3),redesignated former subsec. (a) as (b), inserted '', delay, or prevent'', and redesignated former subsecs. (b) to (f) as (c) to (g), respectively.

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Conspiracy to Defraud a U.S. Agency (police investigations):
    18 USC Sec. 371 (01/22/02)

    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY

    Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

    -STATUTE-

    If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

    -SOURCE-
    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

    -HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES-

    Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 88, 294 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, Sec. 37, 35 Stat. 1096; Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, Sec. 178a, as added Sept. 27, 1944, ch. 425, 58 Stat. 752).

    This section consolidates said sections 88 and 294 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

    To reflect the construction placed upon said section 88 by the courts the words ''or any agency thereof'' were inserted. (See Haas v. Henkel, 1909, 30 S. Ct. 249, 216 U. S. 462, 54 L. Ed. 569, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112, where court said: ''The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of government.'' Also, see United States v. Walter, 1923, 44 S. Ct. 10, 263 U. S. 15, 68 L. Ed. 137, and definitions of department and agency in section 6 of this title.)

    The punishment provision is completely rewritten to increase the penalty from 2 years to 5 years except where the object of the conspiracy is a misdemeanor. If the object is a misdemeanor, the maximum imprisonment for a conspiracy to commit that offense, under the revised section, cannot exceed 1 year.

    The injustice of permitting a felony punishment on conviction for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is described by the late Hon. Grover M. Moscowitz, United States district judge for the eastern district of New York, in an address delivered March 14, 1944, before the section on Federal Practice of the New York Bar Association, reported in 3 Federal Rules Decisions, pages 380-392.

    Hon. John Paul, United States district judge for the western district of Virginia, in a letter addressed to Congressman Eugene J. Keogh dated January 27, 1944, stresses the inadequacy of the 2-year sentence prescribed by existing law in cases where the object of the conspiracy is the commission of a very serious offense.

    The punishment provision of said section 294 of title 18 was considered for inclusion in this revised section. It provided the same penalties for conspiracy to violate the provisions of certain counterfeiting laws, as are applicable in the case of conviction for the specific violations. Such a punishment would seem as desirable for all conspiracies as for such offenses as counterfeiting and transporting stolen property in interstate commerce.

    A multiplicity of unnecessary enactments inevitably leads to confusion and disregard of law. (See reviser's note under section 493 of this title.)

    Since consolidation was highly desirable and because of the strong objections of prosecutors to the general application of the punishment provision of said section 294, the revised section represents the best compromise that could be devised between sharply conflicting views. A number of special conspiracy provisions, relating to specific offenses, which were contained in various sections incorporated in this title, were omitted because adequately covered by this section. A few exceptions were made, (1) where the conspiracy would constitute the only offense, or (2) where the punishment provided in this section would not be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. Special conspiracy provisions were retained in sections 241, 286, 372, 757, 794, 956, 1201, 2271, 2384 and 2388 of this title. Special conspiracy provisions were added to sections 2153 and 2154 of this title.

    AMENDMENTS

    1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted ''fined under this title'' for ''fined not more than $10,000''.
     
  4. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    But don't these laws only apply to evidence that makes it into a court of law?
     
  5. ravens_tears

    ravens_tears Member

    BobC, it is this section that points out that the "evidence" does not necessarily have to have made it into a court of Law. It is sufficient that the evidence exists and is relevant to a investigation/possible criminal act

    I would also venture to speculate that, as everyone knows that 911 calls are always recorded by LE for possible reference later in investigation and are often times admitted into court as evidence that "proving" the call is evidence of some sort is a moot legal point. By definition of it's nature, it is evidence. Regardless of the reasons it's been tampered with, it has been tampered with and it is a prosecutable offense.

    ** Keeping in mind of course that this is my personal understanding and in my humble opinion **
     
  6. Spade

    Spade Member

    POSITIVE

    I want to repeat that 2 labs are POSITIVE that the 911 tape was tampered with by dragging a magnet over the post-hangup attempt portion. AND that this was done to the copy of the tape that the Boulder DA's office made the CD from.

    DejaNu.. Rest easy, the chain of custody of the tape and CD media has been carefully documented starting from the original envelope with the Boulder DA return address.

    Several reports are being prepared that will document all the processes the labs have employed. These reports and the original media will be turned over to a LE related laboratory who will then try to duplicate the findings. Darnay's ex-pro-bono-paralegal and Dave the Swamp's audio expert will have to wait their turn.
     
  7. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Okay--fair enough. Question number two: What if, say, a person at the DA's office didn't want the Ramseys to have the important part of the tape--the end--so they only gave Wood the part that was already common knowledge?

    Just playing devils' advocate.
     
  8. Spade

    Spade Member

    BobC

    The Ramsey's through Jenkins, received the 911 tape in May 1999 as part of the deal to get Burke in front of the Grand Jury. If his voice wasn't on the tape they wouldn't have won the court hearing that gave the tape to them.

    In December 2002, Lin Wood and the NY Post attorneys heard the 911 tape at the Boulder DA's office. Although nothing exists in writting, the NY Post felt that it was understood with Wood that Burke's voice was on the tape; albeit that Wood has the out that he thought the voices had been planted there by the BPD. IMO Wood's allegations have all been BS.
     
  9. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Oh I don't doubt for a second Burke's voice is on the original. The second I heard the R's were suddenly admitting Burke was up that morning I knew they wouldn't be doing that unless it was true.
     
  10. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Raven, you are correct in your response to Bob's question about application of these laws to evidence only admitted. Since Keenan insists that the case is still in the active investigation stage, the 911 tape is tangible evidence in that
    investigation and these laws apply to this kind of evidence even before indictments come down or prosecution begins. I edited the second federal law I posted for brevity's sake, but the full text makes reference to this fact. And we don't know, maybe Spade has figured it out though, WHEN the attempted erasure occurred date-wise.

    Bob, note that any charges brought for evidence tampering, conspiracy,obstruction, etc. with regard to this tape will happen OUTSIDE the homicide case, not as part of a homicide prosecution. It will be separate criminal legal
    action/prosecution.

    Spade, thanks for your reassurances re test result certification and chain of custody proof. I admit I am nervous about these issues because they are the only argument that defense could raise and with "proof positive" such a defense could go nowhere. It reminds me of the bloody glove bullchit defense in the OJ case...This is such a HUGE turn of events in this case that it dwarfs anything else that the other side has done, including the ridiculous Carnes' ruling! I am also anxious that proper and aggressive media coverage be given to this when it's ready to go to LE for charges. Perhaps that reporter who did Tricia's interview would be a good choice. With the DA's office obviously in the loop of culpability, it's all the reason needed to remove the homicide case from them and that's what our petition is intended to do. Maybe public release of this info could be coordinated with filing the petition to Owens.
     
  11. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Okay but let's go beyond that and assume for a minute that someone at Keenan's office erased that part of the tape. How does one prove who did it, and for what reason?
     
  12. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Bob, you ask great questions, but I hesitate to post too much in response so that I don't end up aiding the culprits, know what I mean? I will tell you that the edited federal statute I posted included language in the full text that some of the certain forms of proof as you asked, including state of mind, are not required in the prosecution of charges. You can read the full text of the federal statutes at any online site and I would encourage you to do so. Generally speaking, your queries can be answered with definitive proof of chain of custody evidence and a timeline of lateral transferences of the 911 tape to each party. Those parties would include the Ramseys, LW, BPD and all individuals at the BDA's office. Given the BDA's coziness toward the Rs and LW, I would look carefully for any signs of conspiracy to obstruct....

    Your questions and many others will form the foundation for the criminal investigation that will precede charges, and I trust whatever LE agency will perform that investigation will do a thorough job.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice