TexasCHLforum.com

Good news for Horn. Of course, the story manages to get something wrong...most likely for emotional effect:

Accompanied by community activist Quanell X, the widow of one of the men killed showed up at the Harris County Courthouse on Friday hoping to testify before the grand jury, but was she was not asked to.

They were engaged but not yet married, so she is not his "widow". I further find the girlfriend's statement that...

"(Horn) was never in any danger and was in his own home until he came out and shot them in the back," Stephanie Storey said. "I want him convicted. Period."

...to be almost certainly hypocritical, since I'd bet good money that she wouldn't be demanding that her former fiancée be convicted for burglery and/or deported as an illegal alien had he been apprehended in the act rather than shot.

Molon_labe wrote:

Skiprr wrote:Horn just cleared by Grand Jury: http://www.click2houston.com/news/16749 ... 0206302008

Awesome!

My buddy says this is good news and bad news...good news is, he is off..bad news is, they can keep coming back at him forever. He told me it would have been better for him to have gone to trial and be found NOT GUILTY then he can NEVER be tried again for the same crime..as it stands now..they can keep coming at him till a grand jury can make it stick

Is this true?

Yes. As discussed previously in this thread, double jeopardy does not apply until an actual trial is held. You can be indicted before a grand jury (and no-billed) an infinite number of times for the same crime, in theory. In practice, what DA, who will eventually have to be re-elected, wants to give his electoral opponent the ammo to defeat him by wasting the money (time) of trying to get a grand jury to indict an un-indictable case (like I think Horn's is)? I think Horn can safely put this one behind him in terms of the legal system. I cannot speak towards the family/friends of the scum he had to stop from committing their crime. He may never be able to stop looking over his shoulder for them.

Molon_labe wrote:My buddy says this is good news and bad news...good news is, he is off..bad news is, they can keep coming back at him forever. He told me it would have been better for him to have gone to trial and be found NOT GUILTY then he can NEVER be tried again for the same crime..as it stands now..they can keep coming at him till a grand jury can make it stick. Is this true?

Your buddy is right that they can keep coming at him, but the DA won't go back to the grand jury unless there is new evidence. Yes, he could have gone to trial and never be tried again, but the trial would be such an ordeal that I would hate to see him go through the expense and emotional stress. Joe Horn should be okay now.

WildBill wrote:Your buddy is right that they can keep coming at him, but the DA won't go back to the grand jury unless there is new evidence. Yes, he could have gone to trial and never be tried again, but the trial would be such an ordeal that I would hate to see him go through the expense and emotional stress. Joe Horn should be okay now.

Criminally, yes. But he might not be so lucky in terms of civil law. Remember how O.J. was finally found "guilty" (so to speak) of something?

And that is where the Castle Doctrine (or at least the language of the actual Bill) comes in.
In theory, they should have any civil case thrown out, since his shooting was ruled justified.

Of course, I'm assuming it was "ruled" justified by him being no-billed by the Grand Jury.










IIRC, IANAL, IOW, YMMV

DParker wrote:

WildBill wrote:Your buddy is right that they can keep coming at him, but the DA won't go back to the grand jury unless there is new evidence. Yes, he could have gone to trial and never be tried again, but the trial would be such an ordeal that I would hate to see him go through the expense and emotional stress. Joe Horn should be okay now.

Criminally, yes. But he might not be so lucky in terms of civil law. Remember how O.J. was finally found "guilty" (so to speak) of something?

True, that statute is not under the castle doctrine, but who's gonna sue him? They're family? The most likely don't have enough money to even think about getting an attorney (which is sad) and they're illegal immigrants (which is not sad) so a civil lawsuit is gonna probably not happen, it's possible, but not likely.

Houston Chronicle article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

Statement from acting DA Ken Magidson (PDF file): http://images.chron.com/content/news/ph ... oehorn.pdf

Pinkycatcher wrote:True, that statute is not under the castle doctrine, but who's gonna sue him? They're family? The most likely don't have enough money to even think about getting an attorney (which is sad) and they're illegal immigrants (which is not sad) so a civil lawsuit is gonna probably not happen, it's possible, but not likely.

Not likely, but still quit possible...that was my only point. Of course, we should never underestimate the likelyhood of some otherwise obscure lawyer taking on a potentially high-profile case pro bono just for the publicity value.

And let's not forget that Quanell X promised to rouse some rabble if the GJ no-billed Horn. The Chronicle reported on the 26th (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/side/5857710.html):

The activist added that, if grand jurors decide not to indict Horn, they will be sending a message to the nation "that Houston is the wild, wild West."

If Horn is not indicted, Quanell X said, he will lead a protest march that begins at Horn's home.

If he keeps to his word, things won't quiet down for Horn in the immediate future. And we'll have to see how far QX is willing to push it. (My bet is not very far: he'll move on the next media-covered opportunity at hand; but we'll see.)

And I think QX will get sent packing just like last time...the croud in favor of Joe overwhelmed QX 8 or so bodyguards he had with him that he couldn't stay more than 5 min...the ran him out...they will do it again

I can't tell ya how pleased i am with this. This sends a very clear message to everyone that this type of behavior (burglary) will not be tolerated and will be met with force with the law against the burglars.

Yeah, slam dunk I'd say. Good for Joe!

LedJedi wrote:I can't tell ya how pleased i am with this. This sends a very clear message to everyone that this type of behavior (burglary) will not be tolerated and will be met with force with the law against the burglars.

Well isn't this interesting...

Again, I believe everyone here familiar with the incident knows how "not" to be too verbose in your communications with the 911 communications specialist...

Joe Friday said it best, right??? "Just the facts ma'am..."

IIRC
IANAL, BIPOOTV
FWIW
IOW
YMMV

(See what you started DJ!!!)

stevie_d_64 wrote:IIRC
IANAL, BIPOOTV
FWIW
IOW
YMMV

(See what you started DJ!!!)

ahthankyou.