2010.05.13 -Ronald & Hank Jr. Hearing: Ron negotiating for 15yr sentence, Trial 7/19

[doobiedoo52]

If Ron goes to trial last, Ron will have the most witnesses against him. It will be too late for Ron's lies. As long as they are facing charges, they cannot be forced to testify against each other. Anything they say can be used against them in their own trial. If they were called to the stand, they would either have to implicate themselves or plead the 5th. You cannot pick which questions you will answer and which you plead the 5th, it is all or nothing.

Remember in OJ with Mark Furhman when asked about if he lied about using the N-word, he plead the 5th. The last question Gerald Uelman asked Furhman was "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?" He asked that question because he knew that Furhman by pleading the 5th about lying, had to plead the 5th to every question.

Therefore, if Misty and/or Tommy are convicted before Ron's trial, they will be called to testify against him. If they are lucky enough to testify before sentencing, they may even be more apt to talk to try to help their sentence. But since they will not be facing any charges regarding the drugs, they cannot plead the 5th. Same thing with Hope. Hope has been convicted and her testimony is the only hope she has of the DA requesting a change in her sentence.

IMO, Ron's attorney announcing that he is trying to negotiate a plea deal is two-fold. The first to play to potential jurors. Ron's attorney is sending the message, with help from some media who do not report accurately, that the DA is rying to negotiate with Ron and need his testimony to convict the big, bad Crolins.

The second and most important is a message to Misty/Tommy. Ron is telling them thru his attorney that the DA wants to deal with Ron. But Ron being the great guy has not taken the deal and won't as long as they don't talk.

IMO, Ron thinks he has the upperhand but he has the worst hand.

I guess my point was--he will testify against them, but he won't have any trial because he takes the plea bargain. Therefore, no one will testify against him period.

 

[TrialAddict]

Would it be better, if Tommy and Misty's lawyer try to make a deal? If they do, what happens to, Ron's deal if he can't testify, because they plead guilty? Or does, Ron still get to testify even if they plead guilty? I am so confused about the testifying part in all this mess.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Is the mandatory/minimum 25/15 years just for the trafficking charges? If so they are the ones that will be dropped in the deal aren't they? The lesser charges may carry a max of 5 years each. Tommy is being charged with a lesser charge and is looking at 3-5 years I think.

I'm not clear about this which is why I'm asking. I've been in a DayQuil/NyQuil fog for the past week and can't seem to focus on details, KWIM?

 

[azwriter]

How come no one is making a plea deal for their testimony against Ron?

Serious question, I just haven't the time to think about that question anymore today, so I'm throwin' it out there...and I'll read what y'all think tomorrow... lol. see ya later! :wave:

Oh, don't let me throw y'all off-topic here though...:blushing:

Good question, as usual, Emma. But, who knows maybe there is a plan for testimony against Ron in the works. We just haven't been let in on it yet. The way things are going in this case (the drug case) maybe it will be Donna who will raise her hand and tell what she knows.
I do know, however, what Ron will testify to on the fate of his daughter, Haleigh.
"I was at work." jmo

 

[azwriter]

Right, there is a plea deal just like the family was told to plan a funeral.

Ron is going to testify against others just like Ron was doing all the drug sales to get close to Misty and get information about Haleigh.

Doctor, nothing personal but that second sentence really does sound stupid when I see it written out .

jmo

 

[azwriter]

Sounds like it's a done deal already...............

Ronald Cummings Accepts Plea Deal For Drug Charges
Cummings Will Need To Testify Against Ex-Wife As Part Of Deal

[SIZE=-2]POSTED: 6:05 am EDT May 14, 2010
UPDATED: 7:19 am EDT May 14, 2010

PALATKA, Fla. --
It looks as though Ronald Cummings will need to testify against his ex-wife Misty Croslin.

Cummings accepted a plea deal in exchange for his testimony.

He will serve 15 years on drug charges and will also need to testify against Misty Croslin's brother, Hank "Tommy" Croslin, regarding drug charges.

http://www.wesh.com/news/23550990/detail.html[/SIZE]

When the headline reads "LE Offers Cummins Plea Deal on Drug Charges" I will believe it. When, LE stands in front of a microphone and announces the deal they have reached with Ron, then I will believe it.
Notice nowhere in the article does it site this information comes from LE.

 

[azwriter]

Could Ron be an informant for LE and that is why his trial could be last? I am new here and hoping I did this right. Thanks

Welcome to WS maryland. Yep, you're doing it the right way.

 

[1Chump]

I guess my point was--he will testify against them, but he won't have any trial because he takes the plea bargain. Therefore, no one will testify against him period.

Ron cannot testify without a deal. Otherwise they could use his testimony against him.

Misty/Tommy would know Ron has a plea before their trial because he would be put on the witness list. Once, Ron is on the witness list, they have the right to depose him under oath.

Ron cannot be put under oath without full immunity on Haleigh. Because the minute Ron is under oath, he will be asked questions about Haleigh. There is no way for Ron to control the deposition questions or have any idea what he will be asked.

So I just do not see any way that Ron can testify against Misty/Tommy.

The DA does not need Ron to convict Misty/Tommy on the drug charges. Most importantly, the DA is not going to give Ron full immunity on Haleigh.

 

[1Chump]

When, LE stands in front of a microphone and announces the deal they have reached with Ron, then I will believe it.
Notice nowhere in the article does it site this information comes from LE.

I agree with that part. I do not agree with "When the headline reads "LE Offers Cummins Plea Deal on Drug Charges" I will believe it."

I do not trust the reporting in this case. I have to hear it directly from LE or the prosecutor.

 

[kolokolo]

Plea Deal in Cummings Drug Case

http://www.thesky973.com/pages/7040540.php

What is RC going to testify too related to the drug charges against Misty and Tommy?

What? Misty and Tommy's suppliers out-rank RC's suppliers?

What? Misty and Tommy broke into a pharmacy and stoled pills?

What? Misty and Tommy sold pills to under-age children?

RC and his attorney are just stalling, he knows what's coming down. RC is just trying to put the scare into Misty and Tommy. He probably has figured out that Tommy has rolled on him. JMHO

 

[TrialAddict]

Ron cannot testify without a deal. Otherwise they could use his testimony against him.

Misty/Tommy would know Ron has a plea before their trial because he would be put on the witness list. Once, Ron is on the witness list, they have the right to depose him under oath.

Ron cannot be put under oath without full immunity on Haleigh. Because the minute Ron is under oath, he will be asked questions about Haleigh. There is no way for Ron to control the deposition questions or have any idea what he will be asked.

So I just do not see any way that Ron can testify against Misty/Tommy.

The DA does not need Ron to convict Misty/Tommy on the drug charges. Most importantly, the DA is not going to give Ron full immunity on Haleigh.

Ron can be questioned about Haleigh in this drug case?

 

[doobiedoo52]

Ron cannot testify without a deal. Otherwise they could use his testimony against him.

Misty/Tommy would know Ron has a plea before their trial because he would be put on the witness list. Once, Ron is on the witness list, they have the right to depose him under oath.

Ron cannot be put under oath without full immunity on Haleigh. Because the minute Ron is under oath, he will be asked questions about Haleigh. There is no way for Ron to control the deposition questions or have any idea what he will be asked.

So I just do not see any way that Ron can testify against Misty/Tommy.

The DA does not need Ron to convict Misty/Tommy on the drug charges. Most importantly, the DA is not going to give Ron full immunity on Haleigh.

I don't think RC would need immunity on Haleigh. I don't think any testimony in her case will be allowed---it is not a part of the drug case. JMO

 

[1Chump]

Ron can be questioned about Haleigh in this drug case?

In a deposition they can pretty much ask anything they want. It is not just to get their statement on record but to find out what they know. It does not mean Ron has to answer the questions. But not answering could cause more problems.

In this case, they could easily justify questions related to Haleigh as part of their defense.

They could claim that Ron forced/threatened them and their families with Haleigh to get them to sell drugs on his behalf. That woud open up questions to Haleigh.

Misty's attorney. "Any reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the cases are linked," Fields said.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Let's look at this logically. The most likely killer of a small child is a family member, step parent or neighbor. That is why LE starts an investigation at the inside and works outside.
1. The last thing a DA would want in preparing to go to trial is a year-long set of video clips from LE saying that "Misty holds the key" and "Misty and Tommy admit they were there when Joe killed Haleigh." Thus, if RC was a real suspect in Haleigh's murder, there wouldn't be some switcheroo/ codeword foolishness going on in the media. There would be no talk at all about Joe or Tommy or perhaps even Misty.
2. RC was either at work or not. There will be some kinds of records, witnesses, and perhaps surveillance video at work or on the route to and from work--whether he went the usual way or not. His cell phone will show where he was when he tried to call Misty, how many times he called, and when he called. In addition, there is the AC man who would know whether Ron was there during his visit to the mobile home and whether he talked to him in person or by phone. All of this is pretty much neutral evidence that doesn't depend on Misty, Tommy or any of Ron's relatives.
3. If Ron's alibi didn't hold up, the very fact that he tried to alibi himself would put him at the center of the case, not Misty. He would at that point be (like Scott Peterson, for example) someone who was trying to hide his whereabouts at the time a family member went missing and therefore put himself squarely at the top of the suspect list.
4. If LE had Ron at the center of the case, it would KILL THE CASE IN COURT to have had the wrong people (Tommy, Misty and Joe) publicly held up as the persons of interest, complete with sound bites from LE. The DA would never allow LE to make public statements (in the media or in court) putting the Croslins at the center of the case and saying the Ron was getting a plea bargain. That would be the state manufacturing reasonable doubt.
5. If RC was the one who killed Haleigh, why wouldn't Misty and Tommy just implicate him, tell the story, get the plea deal and be done with it? No matter how much Misty "loves" Ron, her attorney would have told her that he is going to prison for the drugs anyway and she might as well just tell the truth, if that in fact had actually happened, and be the person who got the "witness" deal.
6. Certainly, Tommy has absolutely no incentive--none at all, zero, nada--to do life in prison to protect Ron. Because if Ron, the child's father, had killed her, he would get maximum time. Anyone else might get sentence as accessories or simply be pictured as frightened witnesses, given RC's gun collection and habit of making threats. So the Ron story might have been a "get out of jail free card." But Tommy can't sell that story because it didn't happen. He knows RC was at work and can prove it.
7. I don't know anything about Florida law. So bear with me. If Misty, Tommy and Joe (or any two of these people) were engaged in a conspiracy at the time of the murder or were committing a felony at the time of the murder, in many states all three of them would be convicted of murder. There are many people in prison because one person in a group shot and killed someone while committing a robbery with a gun. That alone would give Misty and Tommy reason to keep quiet about whatever happened with Joe. On the other hand, if RC killed Haleigh in a rage, they would only be witnesses or at best accessories after the fact; if she accidentally took a pill, then the worst case scenario would involved manslaughter, child abuse or neglect, making false reports, abusing a corpse, etc. It wouldn't be MURDER of a child, with likely life in prison.
8. The "enraged that the gun wasn't there" story strikes me as only part of the truth. Then why kill a child? Was the killer high? Was the killer also a pedophile without a record? Did Misty or Tommy catch Joe assaulting Haleigh? I am still not convinced there wasn't a sexual assault.
9. There are, apparently, some forensics available that support the idea that the child was killed in the mobile home and which would explain how and why LE decided a while back that this was not a stranger abduction.

So: RC wasn't involved. Haleigh was murdered in the mobile home by one or more of the three. We still don't know why she died or who all was involved in the murder or where, exactly, they put her.

 

[Maven2379]

Let's look at this logically. The most likely killer of a small child is a family member, step parent or neighbor. That is why LE starts an investigation at the inside and works outside.
1. The last thing a DA would want in preparing to go to trial is a year-long set of video clips from LE saying that "Misty holds the key" and "Misty and Tommy admit they were there when Joe killed Haleigh." Thus, if RC was a real suspect in Haleigh's murder, there wouldn't be some switcheroo/ codeword foolishness going on in the media. There would be no talk at all about Joe or Tommy or perhaps even Misty.
2. RC was either at work or not. There will be some kinds of records, witnesses, and perhaps surveillance video at work or on the route to and from work--whether he went the usual way or not. His cell phone will show where he was when he tried to call Misty, how many times he called, and when he called. In addition, there is the AC man who would know whether Ron was there during his visit to the mobile home and whether he talked to him in person or by phone. All of this is pretty much neutral evidence that doesn't depend on Misty, Tommy or any of Ron's relatives.
3. If Ron's alibi didn't hold up, the very fact that he tried to alibi himself would put him at the center of the case, not Misty. He would at that point be (like Scott Peterson, for example) someone who was trying to hide his whereabouts at the time a family member went missing and therefore put himself squarely at the top of the suspect list.
4. If LE had Ron at the center of the case, it would KILL THE CASE IN COURT to have had the wrong people (Tommy, Misty and Joe) publicly held up as the persons of interest, complete with sound bites from LE. The DA would never allow LE to make public statements (in the media or in court) putting the Croslins at the center of the case and saying the Ron was getting a plea bargain. That would be the state manufacturing reasonable doubt.
5. If RC was the one who killed Haleigh, why wouldn't Misty and Tommy just implicate him, tell the story, get the plea deal and be done with it? No matter how much Misty "loves" Ron, her attorney would have told her that he is going to prison for the drugs anyway and she might as well just tell the truth, if that in fact had actually happened, and be the person who got the "witness" deal.
6. Certainly, Tommy has absolutely no incentive--none at all, zero, nada--to do life in prison to protect Ron. Because if Ron, the child's father, had killed her, he would get maximum time. Anyone else might get sentence as accessories or simply be pictured as frightened witnesses, given RC's gun collection and habit of making threats. So the Ron story might have been a "get out of jail free card." But Tommy can't sell that story because it didn't happen. He knows RC was at work and can prove it.
7. I don't know anything about Florida law. So bear with me. If Misty, Tommy and Joe (or any two of these people) were engaged in a conspiracy at the time of the murder or were committing a felony at the time of the murder, in many states all three of them would be convicted of murder. There are many people in prison because one person in a group shot and killed someone while committing a robbery with a gun. That alone would give Misty and Tommy reason to keep quiet about whatever happened with Joe. On the other hand, if RC killed Haleigh in a rage, they would only be witnesses or at best accessories after the fact; if she accidentally took a pill, then the worst case scenario would involved manslaughter, child abuse or neglect, making false reports, abusing a corpse, etc. It wouldn't be MURDER of a child, with likely life in prison.
8. The "enraged that the gun wasn't there" story strikes me as only part of the truth. Then why kill a child? Was the killer high? Was the killer also a pedophile without a record? Did Misty or Tommy catch Joe assaulting Haleigh? I am still not convinced there wasn't a sexual assault.
9. There are, apparently, some forensics available that support the idea that the child was killed in the mobile home and which would explain how and why LE decided a while back that this was not a stranger abduction.

So: RC wasn't involved. Haleigh was murdered in the mobile home by one or more of the three. We still don't know why she died or who all was involved in the murder or where, exactly, they put her.

BBM

I haven't heard LE say anything about Tommy and Misty being there when Joe killed Haleigh. We've heard Tommy's lawyer say that, we've heard Flora Hollars say that, but as far as I know, LE has not.

LE has said several times Misty is the key, and the latest statement is, that there are multiple persons of interest, I don't recall them naming anyone specifically.

 

[scrabble]

For the life of me, I will never fathom or wrap my head around how anyone can take the life of a child.

 

[epiphany]

Sounds like ToC better request a new attorney, then.

 

[scrabble]

Ron's eyes look like venom to me.

 

[Kat]

Let's look at this logically. The most likely killer of a small child is a family member, step parent or neighbor. That is why LE starts an investigation at the inside and works outside.
1. The last thing a DA would want in preparing to go to trial is a year-long set of video clips from LE saying that "Misty holds the key" and "Misty and Tommy admit they were there when Joe killed Haleigh." Thus, if RC was a real suspect in Haleigh's murder, there wouldn't be some switcheroo/ codeword foolishness going on in the media. There would be no talk at all about Joe or Tommy or perhaps even Misty.
2. RC was either at work or not. There will be some kinds of records, witnesses, and perhaps surveillance video at work or on the route to and from work--whether he went the usual way or not. His cell phone will show where he was when he tried to call Misty, how many times he called, and when he called. In addition, there is the AC man who would know whether Ron was there during his visit to the mobile home and whether he talked to him in person or by phone. All of this is pretty much neutral evidence that doesn't depend on Misty, Tommy or any of Ron's relatives.
3. If Ron's alibi didn't hold up, the very fact that he tried to alibi himself would put him at the center of the case, not Misty. He would at that point be (like Scott Peterson, for example) someone who was trying to hide his whereabouts at the time a family member went missing and therefore put himself squarely at the top of the suspect list.
4. If LE had Ron at the center of the case, it would KILL THE CASE IN COURT to have had the wrong people (Tommy, Misty and Joe) publicly held up as the persons of interest, complete with sound bites from LE. The DA would never allow LE to make public statements (in the media or in court) putting the Croslins at the center of the case and saying the Ron was getting a plea bargain. That would be the state manufacturing reasonable doubt.
5. If RC was the one who killed Haleigh, why wouldn't Misty and Tommy just implicate him, tell the story, get the plea deal and be done with it? No matter how much Misty "loves" Ron, her attorney would have told her that he is going to prison for the drugs anyway and she might as well just tell the truth, if that in fact had actually happened, and be the person who got the "witness" deal.
6. Certainly, Tommy has absolutely no incentive--none at all, zero, nada--to do life in prison to protect Ron. Because if Ron, the child's father, had killed her, he would get maximum time. Anyone else might get sentence as accessories or simply be pictured as frightened witnesses, given RC's gun collection and habit of making threats. So the Ron story might have been a "get out of jail free card." But Tommy can't sell that story because it didn't happen. He knows RC was at work and can prove it.
7. I don't know anything about Florida law. So bear with me. If Misty, Tommy and Joe (or any two of these people) were engaged in a conspiracy at the time of the murder or were committing a felony at the time of the murder, in many states all three of them would be convicted of murder. There are many people in prison because one person in a group shot and killed someone while committing a robbery with a gun. That alone would give Misty and Tommy reason to keep quiet about whatever happened with Joe. On the other hand, if RC killed Haleigh in a rage, they would only be witnesses or at best accessories after the fact; if she accidentally took a pill, then the worst case scenario would involved manslaughter, child abuse or neglect, making false reports, abusing a corpse, etc. It wouldn't be MURDER of a child, with likely life in prison.
8. The "enraged that the gun wasn't there" story strikes me as only part of the truth. Then why kill a child? Was the killer high? Was the killer also a pedophile without a record? Did Misty or Tommy catch Joe assaulting Haleigh? I am still not convinced there wasn't a sexual assault.
9. There are, apparently, some forensics available that support the idea that the child was killed in the mobile home and which would explain how and why LE decided a while back that this was not a stranger abduction.

So: RC wasn't involved. Haleigh was murdered in the mobile home by one or more of the three. We still don't know why she died or who all was involved in the murder or where, exactly, they put her.

One of the most thorough well thought out post that I've seen in ages. On the whole website not just this forum. I admire your analytical logical mind thank you PG.

We need a legal eagle to address whether or not RC can be questioned about any aspect of Haleigh since these two cases are not related.

However, since MC's defense at this point in time appears to be heading towards a strategy that his client was arrested and charged with drug trafficking because of Haleighs' case. IMHO there might be a distinct possibility that the defense opens the door in that situation and the depo's could be taken to support that defense and that also opens the doors for the prosecutors should they chose to approach the drug case in that way.

I look forward to hearing from one of our attn's on this aspect. The above is just my layman's opinion.

 

[Axey]

I don't think they will be able to take Ronald's deposition in a criminal case. Someone would have to file a civil case for him to be deposed (think OJ's trials).