Procedure and legal questions

[akashana]

Obviously I meant witness! Anyone know how I can edit the title? I'm feeling a little dumb right now . . .

 

[MAMABEAR]

Sorry, can't help you with the edit part. I think this will be interesting.

 

[songline]

Obviously I meant witness! Anyone know how I can edit the title? I'm feeling a little dumb right now . . .

PM one of the MOD's they can fix anything.
I know it is misspelled it happens.

 

[sharpar]

A hostile witness is one that is uncooperative with counsel directing questions to the
witness / The attorney is able to alter the method of questioning to the witness. They are able to ask leading questions - questions that witness may answer
with yes or no . That is my layperson understanding - the legal eagles may be able
to elaborate .

 

[songline]

YES you have a point IMO I think the Anthony's are not witnesses of any kind. They are there to throw the entire case way off and get it thrown out....But you know what God is big and it is not over till it is over. I do not think that they will get away with this clean up. BUT I THINK it will take a long time because they are Hostile Witnesses. They are also participants in a cover up.
This was a Family affair and they all need to get an apartment in a cell together. they are all :crazy: :furious:

 

[Brini]

Yes, if the father can be determined. But, there was none on the birth certificate.

The law is pretty tricky that way. If you don't claim paternity, you have few rights. I don't see anyone coming forward to see if Caylee was theirs. Why not? Even if there was the widow of "Eric" with whom KC spoke after his death, wouldn't she call OSCO and say, "yes - my deceased husband was told that Caylee was his child". Someone should step up to the plate and claim her. Who wouldn't want to know?

If a kidnapper had told KC that she was being taught a lesson and to behave herself, then her behavioral response was a huge fu right back. She went wild right at the end there. Spiraling down. Spinning further out of control knowing she was running out of time before all of her past started to catch up with her.

The father hasn't been around since before Caylee's birth. He's not part of the case. Even if he DID know, or care, he doesn't have to come forward. He had no involvement in the crime.

There's no kidnapper. KC wasn't being taught a lesson. She killed her child, because she wanted to be free of the responsibility, and because CA was holding Caylee over her head.

 

[Brini]

Legal question:

Are statements and/or information provided as part of KC's defamation of ZG case all subject to being used in her criminal case?

For example, if a statement is issued in the defamation case that **advertiser censored* ZG kidnapped Caylee but not *this* ZG, then in the criminal case could a defense be used that, for example, one of the friends kidnapped Caylee with no mention of ZG? Or could the criminal case attempt to use insanity as a defense stating that KC was psychotic and believed because of her illness that a ZG existed and had kidnapped Caylee?

I'm just wondering how much latitude there is for differences between the cases, or if the two cases must align, and all statements/info in the defamation case are subject to being brought up by the SA in the criminal case.

Thanks in advance!

JB isn't that dumb. He knows that KC has no psychiatric history, and no signs of symptoms of any Axis I disorder.

She can't just be crazy when she wants to commit a crime.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I posted the following in the "Trial without the A's testimony" thread amd then I saw this one and thought I probably should have posted it here. Sorry if this not usual procedure.

Here's what I posted:

I think CA will have a very hard time confining herself to short answers. The prosecutor will have to cut her off. At some point Cindy won't be able to contain herself and will keep right on talking despite being cut off.

My question is - can the judge hold her in contempt if she just won't shut up? What happens? Will she be escorted off the stand and to jail? Will the judge order a recess? Will she be fined? Has anyone ever seen a witness in any other trial who doesn't really answer the questions and won't shut up?

 

[nssherlock]

I posted the following in the "Trial without the A's testimony" thread amd then I saw this one and thought I probably should have posted it here. Sorry if this not usual procedure.

Here's what I posted:

I think CA will have a very hard time confining herself to short answers. The prosecutor will have to cut her off. At some point Cindy won't be able to contain herself and will keep right on talking despite being cut off.

My question is - can the judge hold her in contempt if she just won't shut up? What happens? Will she be escorted off the stand and to jail? Will the judge order a recess? Will she be fined? Has anyone ever seen a witness in any other trial who doesn't really answer the questions and won't shut up?

Maybe they can treat her as a hostile witness and frame the question to require just a yes or no answer........"Just the way she likes it" tee hee

 

[Themis]

If the prosecutor asks the court to give CA directions with respect to answering questions and if the Court does give CA orders and she disobeys them, she can be held in contempt of court. It is disobeying the Court's order that draws the contempt charge.

 

[Themis]

A hostile witness is one that is uncooperative with counsel directing questions to the
witness / The attorney is able to alter the method of questioning to the witness. They are able to ask leading questions - questions that witness may answer
with yes or no . That is my layperson understanding - the legal eagles may be able
to elaborate .

That's pretty good, Sharpar.
A hostile witness can also be so biased that they attempt to use each opportunity to answer a question as an opportunity to go far beyond and answer to the question asked and use it to campaign for their own propaganda.

 

[NocturnalLady]

If the prosecutor asks the court to give CA directions with respect to answering questions and if the Court does give CA orders and she disobeys them, she can be held in contempt of court. It is disobeying the Court's order that draws the contempt charge.

So if CA gets cut off by the prosecutor but won't quit talking then the prosecutor will ask the judge to advise the witness to answer the questions and to stay on topic (essentially). If the judge does this and CA keeps talking out of turn then the judge will find her in contempt.

Is that right?

 

[Themis]

I asked the question below in another thread, but, maybe it should be here.


I have a question. Somewhere, it was mentioned that JB told one (or more) of KC's friends to either buy a prepaid cell phone, or, he gave them one to use to talk to her during the time she was out on bond (presumably so that the calls wouldn't be traceable). If he did either, told or gave, would this not be illegal - the attorney is making an effort to obstruct LE's investigation?

If someone suspects a certain location or piece of equipment has listening devices for law enforcement purposes, it is not illegal to choose not to generate conversation that device can pick-up. Nothing illegal about doing that or advising that. However, if the conversation has already been intercepted, then trying to do something to destroy it would be destroying existing evidence; obstruction of justice. See the difference?

 

[Themis]

So if CA gets cut off by the prosecutor but won't quit talking then the prosecutor will ask the judge to advise the witness to answer the questions and to stay on topic (essentially). If the judge does this and CA keeps talking out of turn then the judge will find her in contempt.

Is that right?

Short answer: Yes.
The judge would probably warn her first and then if she continued in knowing violation of the judge's orders, in court, in the presence of the judge, the judge could summarily hold her in contempt. It is only when out-of-court contempt takes place, outside the presence of the court, that an evidentiary hearing must first take place.

 

[NocturnalLady]

That's pretty good, Sharpar.
A hostile witness can also be so biased that they attempt to use each opportunity to answer a question as an opportunity to go far beyond and answer to the question asked and use it to campaign for their own propaganda.

I can't see CA doing anything else on the stand. She just has to "explain" her elaborate theories whether it has anything to do with what she was asked or not.

Based on the depo's I think it will be really tough to get yes/no answers from the A's or to get them to stay on topic.

I guess given that I don't see how they won't be declared hostile witnesses. I have mixed feelings about that because I think juries sometimes think prosecutors are bullying witnesses and "being mean" when they have to be more agressive in their questioning.

 

[NocturnalLady]

Short answer: Yes.
The judge would probably warn her first and then if she continued in knowing violation of the judge's orders, in court, in the presence of the judge, the judge could summarily hold her in contempt. It is only when out-of-court contempt takes place, outside the presence of the court, that an evidentiary hearing must first take place.

So what would happen? A fine? Or would they actually escort her to jail to cool off?

 

[Themis]

I am only speculating here, but I believe that the FBI has several reports that they have not released, for whatever reason, to anyone other than maybe a verbal confirmation to the SA. I recall JB asking the judge for certain things and the SA stating they did not have them. The judge stated he did not have jurisdiction over the FBI labs and that JB needed to contact them and ask for them. Now, if JB has not done this, or has not done it properly, he may well be frustrated. In the 2/18 doc dump, it showed that the garbage bags and duct tape found at the A home, as well as a few other items, were turned over to the FBI lab at Quantico. I can't recall seeing any results on those items yet. I also wonder how long the FBI can and will hold onto these results before turning them over formally. And, I am dying to know if they have found something that is conclusive evidence of KC's guilt.

If JB wants something from the Feds he can make a Freedom of Information Act Request and if it isn't forthcoming through that method because of their pending law enforcement investigation, he can bring the proper motion in Federal District Court. In the meantime, if the SA intends to use any of that information, the SA will list federal agents and employees on the witness list and disclose the discovery documents as per the time the Florida statutes say discovery is due. If the SA misses the disclosure deadlines they risk having that material not admitted in the case. Another "sanction" is to give the defense additional time to address the untimely discovery documents. It wouldn't be sporting to pull JB's chain because it's too easy to get him riled. I wouldn't. In a DP case, if I were the SA, I would focus on keeping the record of the case as clean as possible.

 

[Themis]

So what would happen? A fine? Or would they actually escort her to jail to cool off?

Either or both.

 

[Themis]

I can't see CA doing anything else on the stand. She just has to "explain" her elaborate theories whether it has anything to do with what she was asked or not.

Based on the depo's I think it will be really tough to get yes/no answers from the A's or to get them to stay on topic.

I guess given that I don't see how they won't be declared hostile witnesses. I have mixed feelings about that because I think juries sometimes think prosecutors are bullying witnesses and "being mean" when they have to be more agressive in their questioning.

If I were the SA, I would be hoping that CA and GA would display the same behavior in front of the judge and jury that they displayed in the deposition. In fact, I would be looking for any hook possible to play those depo tapes to the jury.

 

[MAMABEAR]

If I were the SA, I would be hoping that CA and GA would display the same behavior in front of the judge and jury that they displayed in the deposition. In fact, I would be looking for any hook possible to play those depo tapes to the jury.

Have I told you lately?---> :nluv:

Thank You so much for being with us wid all your smarts.:blowkiss: