I am just curious how the judge will sign an arrest warrant without first recieving a “True Biil” from a Grandl Jury. I do realize that in 2 states they don’t require grand juries but 48 state and the DC require a Grand Jury Indictment prior to an arrest warrant. In those states that don’t require grand jury upon arrest the DA must provide evidence at a probable cuase hearing which is the first hearing after the arrest which the judge must determine iif there is adequate evidence that he committed the crime.
As a general rule, the prosecutor must notify the defendant and allow him to testify at the grand jury telling his side of the story. The defendent is allowed to testify and is allowed to consult with his attorney who is not present at the grand jury. Any testimony given at a grand jury can be used against the witness at trail. The prosecuter can cross examine the defendant and then the prosecuter reads the law and leaves the grandjury to decide to indict or not. When they indict it is called a true bill meaning the DA has enough evidence to charge the defendant.
As a general rule if the defendent has a logical explanation the grandj ury will side with him. In your case you have evidence that the husband lives in his ex-wife’s house for over a week. That doesn’t prove that the divorce is a fraud.
I don’t know what type of evidence the DA is going to subpoena. Nor do I know what evidence the PI will provide. A subponea is a document ordering someone to appear in court. Since the only people with knowledge of the divorce are the husband and the wife beside the court itself whose documents are readily available to the DA. The husband and wife are just going to testify that they are legally divorced. I am not really sure what purpose the subpeonas are going to accomplish other than waste everybodies time.
I am not sure the DA even has probable cause that fraud was even committed.
The fact that the husband is still living in the house with his wife is not grounds to invalidate the divorce in most states including NY & NJ as they can live together before and after the divorce. And even in the states that require seperate living quarters that is before the divorce will be granted not after. So if the PI can submitt evidence that they lived together during the 180-365 day prior to the date the divorce was granted in a state that requires seperation during that period then the divorce maybe invalidated, but that should be handled in divorce court which is civil court not criminal court.
As far as having a different address on his tax return and government id, this is only that he has a place to stay in case his wife kicks him out.
Just like the Rittenhouse case as long as the defendent has a logical explanation the jury and judge are going to side with him. You are falling for the same logic as the DA in the Riienhouse case just becuase you say it’s fraud doesn’t mean it’so.Unless your talking about some make believe evidence that your PI has uncovered.
Menu