lolwatagain
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2017
Fantastic! They're allowing time for people to come forward with their stories. Hopefully all of it will get him put away for a long time, and hopefully banned from getting online permanently with this nasty crap.
Look, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm going to have to temper expectations here.FYI: Discovery is still outstanding in case which means depending on what turns up additional charges could be added
It is unlikely that additional charges will be added for a number of reasons. First, California's criminal code doesn't allow the prosecutor to amend the indictment to change the charges.
An indictment or accusation cannot be amended so as to change the offense charged, nor an information so as to charge an offense not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination. A complaint cannot be amended to charge an offense not attempted to be charged by the original complaint, except that separate counts may be added which might properly have been joined in the original complaint.
Second, just adding the charges at the preliminary hearing would result in a violation of the 5th amendment right to be indicted by a Grand Jury.
In one case, Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960), the defendant was convicted of unlawful interference with interstate commerce in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The indictment charged that the victim's contract was to supply ready-mix concrete from his Pennsylvania plant to be used in the erection of a steel mill in Allenport, Pennsylvania. Performance of the contract involved, according to the indictment, shipment of sand from various points in the United States to the victim's ready-mix concrete plant. The trial court permitted the government to offer evidence of the effect upon interstate commerce not only of the sand thus brought into Pennsylvania but also the interstate shipment of steel from the steel mill to be constructed from the ready-mix concrete.
The Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction on the ground that he was convicted of a different crime from that charged, in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury:
The grand jury which found this indictment was satisfied to charge that Stirone's conduct interfered with interstate importation of sand. But neither this nor any other court can know that the grand jury would have been willing to charge that Stirone's conduct would interfere with interstate exportation of steel from a mill later to be built with Rider's concrete. . . Although the trial court did not permit a formal amendment of the indictment, the effect of what it did was the same.
Stirone, at 217.
So I think any additional charges would have to be brought separately in front of a Grand Jury. It's possible that the state could bring additional charges in front of a Grand Jury, but it is not likely that we will see them brought in this case. But there's nothing stopping the prosecutor from bringing new charges in a new case when the fat fucker is already in prison, as long as they are within the statute of limitations.
That being said, based on what was previously described in the thread, it sounds like it would be well over 600 images, and while I wouldn't think that he would try to argue that every one of those images is somehow of an adult ion the preliminary hearing, the prosecution may rely on the testimony to establish the age of the victims in the photos.