Obstruction of Justice;Accessory to a crime: Is there a case against the Anthony's #3

[SuziQ]

The orange which I screwed up as I thought it was red is 2008 law.

Please, I am just understanding the "multi-quote" thing.:blush:

Those family exclusions to avoid prosecution are limited to crimes much less serious than those we are dealing with. Good Bye loophole.:blowkiss:

So the family loophole went bye bye in 2008? Do you know if this happened because of the Couey case? The reason I'm asking is, a few sleuther's have used Couey's family as an example as to why the A's wouldn't be charged. The law change would explain why the Couey family wasn't charged and the A's will be. The circumstances were the same the laws were just different in the Couey case. Good god, I'm rambling in circles....

 

[SuziQ]

(snipped)
Also, let's not forget, Yet another loophole!:run:
If they testify , they can invoke the 5th, and THEN be granted immunity, by the State, so as to put them back in the witness seat in a flash. :gavel: The 5th becomes moot and they have to testify! The prosecution has things like this up their sleeve. That would be an interesting way for immunity issues to ultimately play out! I'd save immunity as a nice resent::gift: till that circumstance arises.

Very sneaky, I like that.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

So the family loophole went bye bye in 2008? Do you know if this happened because of the Couey case? The reason I'm asking is, a few sleuther's have used Couey's family as an example as to why the A's wouldn't be charged. The law change would explain why the Couey family wasn't charged and the A's will be. The circumstances were the same the laws were just different in the Couey case. Good god, I'm rambling in circles....

I am in that circle.:Banane45:

Okay, Couey or no Couey, they are very vulnerable legally.
Let me think on the rest. You know I'm a stickler for leaving no statute unturned.
I won't let you down.:blowkiss: We're gonna figure out the legislative background. Now I'm curious anyway. :blowkiss:

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Very sneaky, I like that.

I really think it's a possibility and yes, it's , ummmmm, could we say something like savvy instead of sneaky? But yes, it is a real attention-getter when pulled off. :blowkiss: And also sneaky.

DIdn't Baez say he wanted to play hardball. That's what it is.

 

[amethyst221]

So the family loophole went bye bye in 2008? Do you know if this happened because of the Couey case? The reason I'm asking is, a few sleuther's have used Couey's family as an example as to why the A's wouldn't be charged. The law change would explain why the Couey family wasn't charged and the A's will be. The circumstances were the same the laws were just different in the Couey case. Good god, I'm rambling in circles....

It could be. The accessory statute as it's reproduced above still has the family exclusion in the first paragraph, but in the next paragraph, dealing specifically with crimes injuring minors, it applies to "any person, " with no exception. If anything could inspire a change in the law, it would be that horrible case.

 

[karenmamo]

I agree that if charged, it would be after Casey's trial.
Should they be? Yes..in my opinion they should be.

 

[SuziQ]

It could be. The accessory statute as it's reproduced above still has the family exclusion in the first paragraph, but in the next paragraph, dealing specifically with crimes injuring minors, it applies to "any person, " with no exception. If anything could inspire a change in the law, it would be that horrible case.

I think everyone was upset over that one. Their hands were tied. Did you know that the FBI agent that questioned CA and GA is the same one who flew to Georgia to question Couey? He's also worked the Trenton case. I would love to pick his brain.

 

[SuziQ]

I am in that circle.:Banane45:

Okay, Couey or no Couey, they are very vulnerable legally.
Let me think on the rest. You know I'm a stickler for leaving no statute unturned.
I won't let you down.:blowkiss: We're gonna figure out the legislative background. Now I'm curious anyway. :blowkiss:

Thank you!

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Thank you!

I am bumping to tomorrow.


I do know that the year of Jessica's law was not the same year that the Statute changed to expand its lack of exclusions for family members.

:sleep:Nitey Nite:blowkiss:

 

[Ezryder9]

I've been thinking about this thread since I first found it this afternoon, and I'm just going to go ahead and throw this out there.

Personally, I hope LE continues to investigate the possible obstruction/accessory angles. If they do, down the road, choose to charge, I hope they go the felony route instead of the misdemeanor route. I feel certain that LE is as disheartened as the rest of us with the waffling of the As, not to mention all the people who may be viewing this entire debacle as a money making venture. Well, IIRC, a person convicted of a felony is prohibited from making money off the case. Therefore, no book, movie, picture, or any other money down the road for the As. Now, if they can just bring Lee into the mix, that circle will be complete. (Yep, I'm back to my cold-hearted thinking again.)

 

[amethyst221]

In response to SQ, about the FBI agent -- No kidding. But I would hate to have his dreams. What a terribly hard job to have. Sometimes it just really hits home, when you realize how difficult it is just to talk about one of these cases involving little kids from afar. It's true of all the members of LE working on the Caylee case. I know they care and badly want to solve it, but it must be hard to get over sifting through that "disposal" site. That's way too close to too much evil. It's so sad.

 

[DotsEyes]

Miracles! You are my new best friend for posting the statutes! LOL

I have to read them carefully now in lieu of the "quasi rumor factoid" (no official announcement of such) that the A's may be facing criminal charges.

 

[amethyst221]

I guess the question whether it might be possible to build a case against them is a separate question from whether LE in fact plans or wants to do so. But it isn't an outrageous concept under Fla. law.

 

[DazzlinDebSD]

I seriously do not think LE is going to charge the Anthony's with anything. LE is sensitive about this case, and Casey is the only person they want to prosecute. I think after they break the news to Cindy and George that it is Caylee's remains, we will all see a different side of these people. They were already broken before this. Cindy will probably end up in a psyche ward, and George may just colapse and have a heart attack. LE knows they are suffering. Maybe we can all step back and pray for them. They refused to give up hope......and they did it for Caylee.

 

[DotsEyes]

Kimmer! Another new best friend! I must have skipped the first post. I need a a cup of coffee and a cigarette now. Feet on desk and read the law! Thanks!

 

[sweetwater]

It is definitely possible that one or more can be charged .
No law stops that.
I doubt with the steady stream of non-cooperation, outright bashing, and their morals and honesty assailed, that politics will play a factor in charging the A's.
I think we are deep in the middle of :"What goes around, comes around."

I have never really understood the strange code of the Anthony lawyers.
The Anthony's have the 5th Amendment privilege availabe when they talk to LE, and when they testify.
They cannot use it as a convenience and using it to avoid discomfort, annoyance , embarrassment, as opposed to limiting its use to its purpose to avoid self-incrimination does not work and they will be ordered to testify.

Also, let's not forget, Yet another loophole!:run:
If they testify , they can invoke the 5th, and THEN be granted immunity, by the State, so as to put them back in the witness seat in a flash. :gavel: The 5th becomes moot and they have to testify! The prosecution has things like this up their sleeve. That would be an interesting way for immunity issues to ultimately play out! I'd save immunity as a nice resent::gift: till that circumstance arises.


:blowkiss:
as always, jmho

Thank you so much, for taking the time to contribute all of this.
I agree that there is no prevailing political climate that would impede the application of every legal tool available to press for justice for Caylee, as well as vindicate all those whose untiring efforts, honor, and dignity have been trampled on and besmirched by the Anthonys.

Thank you!:blowkiss::clap:

 

[cyberborg]

I seriously do not think LE is going to charge the Anthony's with anything. LE is sensitive about this case, and Casey is the only person they want to prosecute. I think after they break the news to Cindy and George that it is Caylee's remains, we will all see a different side of these people. They were already broken before this. Cindy will probably end up in a psyche ward, and George may just colapse and have a heart attack. LE knows they are suffering. Maybe we can all step back and pray for them. They refused to give up hope......and they did it for Caylee.

Good leverage though, I would hold it over them just to keep them quiet, cut the BS and, get them to cooperate with testimony. It is one thing to support your daughter's hoped innocence but another to proactively interfere and spin. They took KC's lies, ran with them hard and then, piled on a whole load more.

 

[DotsEyes]

Okay. Accessory- that was quick. Caylee was under 18; nobody gets a pass. Got it.

"Obstruction" is gumbo of different offenses and includes lying to police.

Question. Does the lie have to be about a material fact? Let's say you lie about your weight. Is it Obstruction if your weight is not a material fact?

 

[tippytoes]

I really think it's a possibility and yes, it's , ummmmm, could we say something like savvy instead of sneaky? But yes, it is a real attention-getter when pulled off. :blowkiss: And also sneaky.

DIdn't Baez say he wanted to play hardball. That's what it is.

Thank you, MiraclesHappen, for your knowledge and most of all, for sharing it and explaining it.

It's comforting to know that the "Good Guys" in this case have laws with teeth. Sometimes it takes threatening with consequences to get people to do the right thing.

As to Baez, I heard him say that he and his new teams intend to "play to win." I didn't appreciate his trivialization of the process, but I am glad the deck is evenly stacked--maybe tilting a little towards the rights of the victim. :winkaway:

Maybe this has been explained, but what if the Prosecution flat out refuses immunity? Would that signal that charges are likely on the horizon? I am intrigued that immunity is being sought--and on what level? State?

[edited to add] THANKS to all the brilliant legal minds who are patient enough to explain the nuances of the law to all of us

 

[SuziQ]

Okay. Accessory- that was quick. Caylee was under 18; nobody gets a pass. Got it.

"Obstruction" is gumbo of different offenses and includes lying to police.

Question. Does the lie have to be about a material fact? Let's say you lie about your weight. Is it Obstruction if your weight is not a material fact?

Not sure, but a simple pen sent Martha away.

IIRC, she got more time for lying about that than she would have gotten for the original crime.

Similar thing happened to Michael Vic.