CJfromWV

Farmington, WV

#4694 Oct 13, 2013
"Citing case law in the plea agreement with Shoaf, Monongalia County Prosecuting Attorney Marcia Ashdown used a 1985 criminal case, Heath v. Alabama, that addressed the sovereignty of states. In it, it is made clear that double jeopardy does not apply from state to state, but only from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within a state. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for a crime which he or she previously had been convicted of and sentenced for in another state." from an Observer-Reporter article Sept 2013

Does this mean that PA could potentially try both girls for this murder after the WV trial and sentencing is finished or at least Shelia?
CJfromWV

Farmington, WV

#4695 Oct 13, 2013
"In the case of Neese’s disappearance, law enforcement officials said she left willingly with her friends on the night of her murder. However, a little used legal term known as inveigling made the case for kidnapping, one of the charges Eddy is facing. On Friday, Eddy was indicted by a grand jury in Monongalia County on one count of kidnapping, one count of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. First-degree murder carries an automatic sentence of life imprisonment in West Virginia.

According to authorities, Neese was inveigled, or lured by false representation or deceit, to join Shoaf and Eddy for a ride across the state border where they allegedly planned to kill her, and apparently that was enough for the state of West Virginia to maintain jurisdiction over Shoaf and Eddy." http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/2013...

Also from that article. I had never heard the term "inveigling" before. Interesting...
Katy Did

Mentor, OH

#4696 Oct 13, 2013
James wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure that knowing about the crime would put you in jail. I am not sure there is any law that compells a person to have come forward and report what they know of crimes to the police. I think(do not know)lying to the FBI is a crime but that would mean that FBI would have to have asked and then had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a deliberate crime of lying had been commited, I just do not think that even if the cousin knew what the tweet referred to Skylar's murder and the person said nothing that would constitue a crime.
There I go making an ass of myself again. ;)

It's a crime in Ohio. I do not know if a similar statute exists for West Virginia.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.22

I also shouldn't assume AE knew what SE was referring to in her tweet. It's not as if the thousands of other tweets made any sense.
Gina

Morgantown, WV

#4697 Oct 13, 2013
CJfromWV "I had never heard the term "inveigling" before. Interesting... "

Nobody has ever used the word on here before so it is a new one for us and it is interesting. I had to look it up I admit. Here is the definition for all.

in·vei·gle , in·vei·gling 1. To win over by coaxing, flattery, or artful talk.

Interesting indeed as far as this case goes. The deceit and evil keep deepening day by day.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#4698 Oct 14, 2013
_UGH YYYY_ wrote:
I wonder if either of the girls knew about the mine shaft nearby?
I assume the mine shaft is more than just a stone's throw away. If they couldn't dig a hole, they probably couldn't carry the body such a distance either even if they had known of the shaft. It'd probably quickly overwhelm them, especially if they're trying to get out of there as fast as possible.(And of course they couldn't put a bloody body in the car either.)
Joe Cool

Nottingham, PA

#4699 Oct 14, 2013
landlord_2 wrote:
<quoted text>The Morris Run Road and where Skylar was killed is very secluded. It is not known as a party place. There is another Road about half mile back at Wva State line that is very well known for people to gather for partys. I also think that SE and RS even though they are total Morons would not have planned to kill Skylar and leave her in a place where people gather to party. If that had been the case Skylar would have been found in a day or two...not six months.
Yes, you are corret! That would be "Dippin' Hole Road" as it was fondly called ever since I was child (I am 54). BEfore the mines took over the property, there was a nice little 'beach' area where folks would go swimming, hence "dippin' hole." As a teen in the 70's we would party there, go parking, etc. so it has been a well-known party road for almost 40 years!
Joe Cool

Nottingham, PA

#4700 Oct 14, 2013
Joe Cool wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are corret! That would be "Dippin' Hole Road" as it was fondly called ever since I was child (I am 54). BEfore the mines took over the property, there was a nice little 'beach' area where folks would go swimming, hence "dippin' hole." As a teen in the 70's we would party there, go parking, etc. so it has been a well-known party road for almost 40 years!
The recorded message from a "family friend" of SE's on CB's site refers to Dippin' Hole Road. This is the ONLY credence I give that recorded conversaton, because only folks familiar with the area know that term for the road. But I will have to go back and listen to that message again, because i don't remember why they mentioned it.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4701 Oct 14, 2013
James wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think that this statement will be allowed to be put into evidence? Since it really could mean anything would that not mean that its prejudicial impact would vastly outweigh its probative value?
A jury would be using a statement that could be about bungee jumping as you say to convict someone of murder and possibly life in prison.
Of course it has both probative value and prejudicial effect; it corroborates Shoaf's testimony/version of events, and it basically puts a bullseye on Eddy's forehead. However, neither reality has consistently been upheld as dispositive insofar as admissibility is concerned. In many cases, absolutely irrefutable admissions and evidence will often make the defendant appear irrevocably tainted or guilty (we don't often see these, because they get pled out since there is no way a good attorney would throw their client to the wolves in the face of such damning testimony or evidence). Likewise, lots of testimony or evidence that corroborates a co-conspirator's or a witness' testimony (less often in the latter example since a witness generally isn't viewed with the same vitriol and suspicion that a co-d/co-c often is) is ruled inadmissible due to its prejudicial effect. Most good evidence is prejudicial to varying degrees; it wouldn't be good evidence if it weren't.

The question would be how Clawges (and more likely, the WV appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, since the issue isn't well-litigated) will view the Twitter posts. If he can be convinced (say, through expert testimony, other case law, or the ever-popular "learned treatise") that Eddy can be proven to have made the posts (and I don't know HOW or IF that can be done, or has been done previously), then they're coming in, IMHO. They show planning, premeditation, and (though not an evidentiary standard) an utter lack of remorse. Clawges is already on record saying one defendant is getting, in his opinion, too good of a deal. He may not be hard to convince.

Certainly, the tweets could mean anything. But they could also mean what most of us think they mean. If that's the case, let the jury have the question of what was intended (since if it WAS innocent then it wouldn't be prejudicial), and let the defense put on evidence or testimony to refute the state's theory. Eddy can testify to what she meant--it's her constitutional right. If she chooses to remain silent and not take the stand (ALSO her right), and the defense has no expert testimony, case law, or secondary source to try and persuade the court that any such stuff presented by the state is erroneous, then they can roll the dice with either decision.
CJfromWV

Farmington, WV

#4702 Oct 14, 2013
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/10/14/motions-hea...

Motions hearing tomorrow morning.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4703 Oct 14, 2013
CJfromWV wrote:
"Citing case law in the plea agreement with Shoaf, Monongalia County Prosecuting Attorney Marcia Ashdown used a 1985 criminal case, Heath v. Alabama, that addressed the sovereignty of states. In it, it is made clear that double jeopardy does not apply from state to state, but only from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within a state. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for a crime which he or she previously had been convicted of and sentenced for in another state." from an Observer-Reporter article Sept 2013
Does this mean that PA could potentially try both girls for this murder after the WV trial and sentencing is finished or at least Shelia?
Jeez, that's what I've been saying all along. WV *cannot* waive PA's right (or the Feds' right) to charge either defendant relating to this case. Those jurisdictions--separate sovereigns--would each have to waive prosecution themselves...and a WV court wouldn't be the place they would do it.

The separate sovereigns rule holds that two distinct and separate powers (such as individual states, or the Federal government and an individual state) can each try someone for a crime if they have jurisdiction to do so. For example, if you purposefully poison your spouse in WV and he/she travels to PA and then dies there, you can be charged with murder IN BOTH JURISDICTIONS (states). This has happened before, and RECENTLY, so there is indeed precedent for this occurring. Look up United States v. Lara from 2004 for one example. A separate sovereign is a separate (and distinct) sovereign, whether it be another state, the Feds, or an Native American nation. Lara claimed double jeopardy barred prosecution by the feds for the same crime (assault on a LEO), but the Supreme Court ruled double jeopardy didn't apply in Lara's case(s) since "the successive prosecutions were brought by separate and distinct sovereign bodies."

The Federal government (and/or another state) could subsequently prosecute for the same criminal acts without invoking double jeopardy if the actions of the accused violated a Federal law or a state statute---even if the crime is the same, and is borne out of the same set of circumstances.

HOWEVER, under the "Petite Policy," aka the Dual/Successive Prosecution Policy, the Federal government will USUALLY waive prosecution where a defendant has been tried at the state level for the same offense...even if the person is ACQUITTED at the state level. The DOJ will vacate any Federal interest in prosecuting, in most cases--though there ARE limited exceptions to this.

I'm not sure if PA has a policy similar to Petite, or what its exceptions (if any) might be...but I can see a case like this getting looked at VERY closely to determine whether it might be in the interests of justice to undertake a dual prosecution.

All my opinion, of course, based on my schoolin', but I wouldn't necessarily put a bet on WV being the only jurisdiction that charges these two...especially if the sentences are light or Eddy catches a lesser included offense conviction. The PA (and Federal) penalties for a kidnapping resulting in the death of the victim are quite severe---especially if you're over 18 (you can get a needle from Uncle Sam).

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4704 Oct 14, 2013
Katy Did wrote:
<quoted text>
There I go making an ass of myself again. ;)
It's a crime in Ohio. I do not know if a similar statute exists for West Virginia.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.22
I also shouldn't assume AE knew what SE was referring to in her tweet. It's not as if the thousands of other tweets made any sense.
Oh, I don't know...didn't AE respond with something like "that was good planning," or words to that effect?

By the way, it's a federal crime to lie to the FBI---but lying to "lesser" authorities often is not a crime at the state level (though it seems that in some jurisdictions it is). Note that lying is NOT always the same thing as giving false info, ha ha. Just ask our politicians.

You can be sure, however, that if you lie to your local fuzz and they find out you lied, that they will paint a big target on you--and it's only a matter of time before you do "something" that they CAN get you for. It's about respect. If you don't want to answer, invoke your 5th Amendment privilege and/or call Saul (i.e. lawyer up). Don't lie to people trying to do their job and provide justice to a victim or their family (or society, depending on the crime).

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4705 Oct 14, 2013
Gina wrote:
CJfromWV "I had never heard the term "inveigling" before. Interesting... "
Nobody has ever used the word on here before so it is a new one for us and it is interesting. I had to look it up I admit. Here is the definition for all.
in·vei·gle , in·vei·gling 1. To win over by coaxing, flattery, or artful talk.
Interesting indeed as far as this case goes. The deceit and evil keep deepening day by day.
It's one of those "terms of art" that often appear in court documents but usually get changed to a more common word like "deceived" or even a colloquialism like "horns-waggled" before the general public gets a hold of it. Fraud relies on inveigling, but I would bet my bottom dollar that 99.99%(or more) of the people who you give both terms to would know what the first meant but not the second.

As far as I'm concerned, Eddy's middle name could be/should be Inveigle. Or Smirk. We'll see how long the smile lasts...
What

Clarksburg, WV

#4706 Oct 14, 2013
Predictions for tomorrow's hearing:

*Disclaimer --- This is a PREDICTION and only solely my opinion

- Judge will extend time for trial (predicting it to start between April-June of 2014)
- Judge will move location of trial due to local interest and fame of Eddy/Shoaf

- Judge will NOT throw out Shoaf's testimony
- Judge will NOT grant any form of bail to Shelia Eddy
James

Ottawa, Canada

#4707 Oct 14, 2013
I Am Vengeance wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it has both probative value and prejudicial effect; it corroborates Shoaf's testimony/version of events, and it basically puts a bullseye on Eddy's forehead. However, neither reality has consistently been upheld as dispositive insofar as admissibility is concerned. In many cases, absolutely irrefutable admissions and evidence will often make the defendant appear irrevocably tainted or guilty (we don't often see these, because they get pled out since there is no way a good attorney would throw their client to the wolves in the face of such damning testimony or evidence). Likewise, lots of testimony or evidence that corroborates a co-conspirator's or a witness' testimony (less often in the latter example since a witness generally isn't viewed with the same vitriol and suspicion that a co-d/co-c often is) is ruled inadmissible due to its prejudicial effect. Most good evidence is prejudicial to varying degrees; it wouldn't be good evidence if it weren't.
The question would be how Clawges (and more likely, the WV appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, since the issue isn't well-litigated) will view the Twitter posts. If he can be convinced (say, through expert testimony, other case law, or the ever-popular "learned treatise") that Eddy can be proven to have made the posts (and I don't know HOW or IF that can be done, or has been done previously), then they're coming in, IMHO. They show planning, premeditation, and (though not an evidentiary standard) an utter lack of remorse. Clawges is already on record saying one defendant is getting, in his opinion, too good of a deal. He may not be hard to convince.
Certainly, the tweets could mean anything. But they could also mean what most of us think they mean. If that's the case, let the jury have the question of what was intended (since if it WAS innocent then it wouldn't be prejudicial), and let the defense put on evidence or testimony to refute the state's theory. Eddy can testify to what she meant--it's her constitutional right. If she chooses to remain silent and not take the stand (ALSO her right), and the defense has no expert testimony, case law, or secondary source to try and persuade the court that any such stuff presented by the state is erroneous, then they can roll the dice with either decision.
Thank You I Am Vengenance, it will be very interesting how this one is ruled though I would be concerned that if the tweet "We really went on three" is allowed that it would bascially be giving SE's defense a valid reason to appeal.

Does using "learned treatise" in relation to this tweet mean that the state would use this not to prove that SE's made this claim as to prove she held the knife but would be used solely to bolster RS's claim that they went on three as would be stated in her confession and this way by-pass the hearsay rule that could be applied by the defense against the tweet.
James

Ottawa, Canada

#4708 Oct 14, 2013
Katy Did wrote:
<quoted text>
There I go making an ass of myself again. ;)
It's a crime in Ohio. I do not know if a similar statute exists for West Virginia.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.22
I also shouldn't assume AE knew what SE was referring to in her tweet. It's not as if the thousands of other tweets made any sense.
It was a valid question that has been raised before by others and like your link proved it is not that clear from State to State how it can be applied. That is why in my orginial post that I said I believe that it was not a crime but I was not certain. I find it difficult to get used to the fact that every State can have different standards as in Canada the Criminal Code is basically the only standard,(not making any judgement just something I had to wrap my head around) so can understand confusing one State's laws with another.

So you were far from making an ass out of yourself.
WVU

Morgantown, WV

#4709 Oct 15, 2013
I Am Vengeance wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez, that's what I've been saying all along. WV *cannot* waive PA's right (or the Feds' right) to charge either defendant relating to this case. Those jurisdictions--separate sovereigns--would each have to waive prosecution themselves...and a WV court wouldn't be the place they would do it.
The separate sovereigns rule holds that two distinct and separate powers (such as individual states, or the Federal government and an individual state) can each try someone for a crime if they have jurisdiction to do so. For example, if you purposefully poison your spouse in WV and he/she travels to PA and then dies there, you can be charged with murder IN BOTH JURISDICTIONS (states). This has happened before, and RECENTLY, so there is indeed precedent for this occurring. Look up United States v. Lara from 2004 for one example. A separate sovereign is a separate (and distinct) sovereign, whether it be another state, the Feds, or an Native American nation. Lara claimed double jeopardy barred prosecution by the feds for the same crime (assault on a LEO), but the Supreme Court ruled double jeopardy didn't apply in Lara's case(s) since "the successive prosecutions were brought by separate and distinct sovereign bodies."
The Federal government (and/or another state) could subsequently prosecute for the same criminal acts without invoking double jeopardy if the actions of the accused violated a Federal law or a state statute---even if the crime is the same, and is borne out of the same set of circumstances.
HOWEVER, under the "Petite Policy," aka the Dual/Successive Prosecution Policy, the Federal government will USUALLY waive prosecution where a defendant has been tried at the state level for the same offense...even if the person is ACQUITTED at the state level. The DOJ will vacate any Federal interest in prosecuting, in most cases--though there ARE limited exceptions to this.
I'm not sure if PA has a policy similar to Petite, or what its exceptions (if any) might be...but I can see a case like this getting looked at VERY closely to determine whether it might be in the interests of justice to undertake a dual prosecution.
All my opinion, of course, based on my schoolin', but I wouldn't necessarily put a bet on WV being the only jurisdiction that charges these two...especially if the sentences are light or Eddy catches a lesser included offense conviction. The PA (and Federal) penalties for a kidnapping resulting in the death of the victim are quite severe---especially if you're over 18 (you can get a needle from Uncle Sam).
Very informative! However they will never get the death penalty since they were under 18 at the time of the crime. It violates their 8th amendments. Some folks pages back though they could get the dp.
Wonderer

Madison, WV

#4710 Oct 15, 2013
Has anyone heard anything about when the Motion Hearing was suppose to start? or if it is in fact going to be today?
Anon

Baton Rouge, LA

#4711 Oct 15, 2013
Shelia Eddy's trial has been set for February 11. Motions for change of venue and venire were differed
Trial

Morgantown, WV

#4712 Oct 15, 2013
WBOY 12News
BREAKING: A Monongalia County judge has set Shelia Eddy's trial for February 11, but deferred his ruling on where the trial will take place and where the court will pool jurors.
rebe

Morgantown, WV

#4713 Oct 15, 2013
I'm assuming that the other motions were thrown out??? In the news update there was no mention of shoafs testimony or the prosecution misconduct. Anyone know about these?? The trial was set sooner than I thought it would be.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Morgantown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Huggins's daughter 2 hr C est moi 17
City Election 9 hr Schwettyballs 16
Morgantown Together as corrupt as it gets 9 hr Schwettyballs 3
Justin knisell Sat Farmer_johnson 1
Bill Maloney Is A Crook Apr 18 Corrupt Patrol 1
Collasantes Burnt Pizza Now Standard Apr 15 Just a guess 16
Sapphire Gentleman's Club what about the girls ... (May '10) Apr 15 yup 14
More from around the web

Morgantown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]