It doesn’t matter if they resist testifying again. The record of their testimony in George’s trial will be admissible. Billy Wagner will also be found guilty, spending the rest of his life in prison.
I’m confused. Why would the testimony in George’s trial be admissible if they refuse to testify? Why wouldn’t the right to confront your accusers apply to Billy’s trial?
The testimony from George’s trial is admissible as evidence. Jake and Angela have already testified in George IV’s trial. Billy’s right to confront his accusers in court is a separate but equally important issue. We can only assume it will be resolved fairly, according to the U.S. Constitution. Let’s hope his case eventually makes its way to trial.
I also am not sure if their testimony in George's trial will be admissible in Billy's. When I research it, I think it will be allowed and then I read something else that sounds like it might not be. I think if the judge can find law/ or loophole to keep it out, he will.
I’m going out on a limb to say we may end up with a different judge, one who will get the trial moving again in a fair and professional manner. I don’t think Billy will be allowed to get away with no trial for helping plan, carry out and cover up the murders of 8 innocent people.
I think the judge thinks it's ok. I sure hope there is a new judge. I am not sure if there will even be a trial in 2026 at the rate things are going.
I do hope they can delay the trial longer in hopes a better judge can be found. That may not be possible.
The witnesses can still be compelled to appear in court via subpoena. They may choose to exercise a 5th amendment right to not testify (which may or may not be allowed) but they are still there in front of the Defendant and can be cross examined. Their prior testimony is "in court statements" under oath, so they will not be hearsay.
If they exercise the 5th, they do not have to answer under cross examination? Is that correct? If that is correct and they did not answer under cross what would be the consequence for them?
The court will decide if the witness can claim the 5th an not answer. If the court rules they can, and they don't answer cross-examination questions, they can't be forced. Now, for those that took plea deals, did their deal waive appeals and say they would cooperate? If so, there could be consequences for not answering.
Jake did say he would cooperate/testify at the other trials in his plea deal. I am not sure about Angela's plea deal. I believe she did agree to cooperate, but not sure. We did not get to see hers. Her lawyer stated at her sentencing she intended to continue to cooperate but that could change, I guess.
Yes, they did waive appeals and said they would cooperate.
Didn’t this latest judge pretty much nullify the plea deal as far as the death penalty no longer being on the table regardless of Jake or Angela not testifying? Hopefully a new judge can put it back on. MOO
The plea agreement still stands. It was signed by the defendant and prosecutor. The sentencing was determined before the testimony in the second trial took place, but it doesn't change the terms of the plea agreements. Their testimony in the first trial is still in the court record and they still agreed in writing to testify in the second trial.
I am so glad to hear that at least the transcripts can be read in court.
I believe he did basically nullify the DP being put back on the table for Jake or Angela if they do not testify, when he sentenced them before Billy's trial. The state has appealed both Jake and Angela's sentencing/terms. She has also appealed the judge removing the DP for Billy.
If they refuse to testify, how can the new jury judge their credibility? How can Billy’s lawyer confront and cross examine them on any of their statements if they are read from transcripts of early trials? IANAL but it seems to me that these are an important reasons the sixth amendment exist.
It's the appeals that we're waiting on now. The appeals the prosecution has filed against the rulings of Judge Hein.
