I just posted a statute about being compelled to testify in a criminal case, you cannot refuse to answer based on incriminating yourself. They can't use what you say against you to prosecute you, but they can pursue other means. No 5th amendment answers to questions asked by the state in a felony case:
[SIZE=-1]http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...4/titl0914.htm
914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.--No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to convict him or her of a crime or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed. [/SIZE]
Thanks, impatientredhead.
For those with Weestlaw access, here a recent FL case explaining the statute mentioned above, the "automatic immunity" it provides (as the court in the case mentioned below describes said provision,) and about how a
writ of habeus corpus for testimony, which orders one to appear and to testify is not covered by this statute:
SNIPPED:
"...In order to obtain the presence of the defendant in state court, the state attorney obtained a state writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for the defendant and an order from the undersigned directing federal authorities to honor the state writ. The defendant argues that this writ compelled the defendant to testify and therefore triggered the immunity from section 914.04 . The language of the writ, however, specifically binds only the state and federal authorities and contains no compulsory language addressed to the defendant testifying. No court has specifically held that such a writ is the same as a subpoena with regard to section 914.04 or otherwise. Therefore, the Court concludes that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum does not, by itself, trigger section 914.04... ."
See U.S. v. Wims, 2005 WL 1315784, N.D.Fla.,2005.
For those with access to Westlaw, see here:
http://web2.westlaw.com/result/defa...me/53/default.wl&ifm=NotSet&cfid=1&rs=WLW8.11
So the FL rule of thumb is that if you represent a witness who may have things to say that would tend to incriminate him/her, if you don't insist upon a paper subpoena that triggers the limited immunity set forth by the statute above, there's no immunity, as is what happened in the case I mention above.
Ergo, if the state prosecutor in the Casey Anthony criminal case decides to issue a writ of habeus corpus for the Anthony family members' appearances and testimony for trial, without or instead of a subpoena, then the Anthonys could invoke the 5th Amendment until such time as a paper subpoena were issued to compel their testimony, which would then trigger the immunity statute impatientredhead provided above.
It can get pretty technical, but the easy thing to remember is that no state can limit the protections offered by the US 5th Amendment, but they can provide "additional protections" or immunity, such as the FL statute impatientredhead looked up, which kicks in so long as a paper subpoena or subpoena deuces tecum was issued, even if the witness hasn't specifically invoked the US 5th Amendment.
, so , please feel free to jump in here and correct away!)
