State releases Subpoena List, includes LA,CA and GA

[jjgram]

Thanks ....... LE & FBI AND Web sleuths...and TM & LP and MK and

* A * L * L ....... who are

S E E K I N G ~ JUSTICE ~ for Little Angel CAYLEE ! ! !
Murdered at the young age of 2 years old ~ in June 2008 !
Probably by her so called mother = KC Anthony.

God Bless!
jjgram

*** Truth is just the truth = J U S T I C E ! ! !

 

[L L & S]

Aw, come on, Chilly! I started out with "Lol!" and everything! Though they may ask her if she had cleaned the trunk with it, or had access to it being a nurse of decomposition, or had ever brought any home from the hospital.

~~ I added the red

Don't forget she's a special nurse...... LOL.

 

[countzero]

Receiving a subpeona does not trigger immunity.

Correct, No immunity is offered or attached to a subpoena.

A subpoena is a legal notice demanding that a person appear in front of a judge on a certain date, at a certain time with the description of the legal proceedings they are to be a witness/defendant to.

A subpoena is delivered by a person representing the court and can be served in person or placed on the door of the last known residence.

If a person who has received a subpoena does NOT appear at the designated time, the judge has the option of issuing a beach warrant where they are arrested immediately upon finding them and brought before the judge.

 

[jamielynn]

Does anyone have a link to the e-mails that cindy anthony sent? Thanks

 

[mitzi]

I foresee that CA/GA/LA will be treated as hostile witnesses. JB will have to play a very delicate game cross examining them.
Maybe not so much GA since he did testify in front of the GJ. We still don't know exactly what he did testify to. But I see CA/LA getting their spin on high gear.

CAs mom will be entirely truthful I think from what I have read between her and her sister's emails.

I have complete confidence with the SA's office getting the truth to come out. There is so much more damaging evidence against KC and the A's. We have seen but a drop in the bucket of what they have.

Bold mine.

Poor JB...he even has trouble playing a "bumbling game". :crazy:

 

[mitzi]

Musings about hostile witness from October 2008:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2792780&postcount=102

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Betty Boop
Two words come to mind:
hostile witness"

Theonly1:
HEH. You took the words right off of my keyboard.

A hostile witness can be someone who is called as a witness for your case but does not answer your questions. After they are declared "hostile" you can ask them leading questions and cross-examine them.

Let's speculate and role play CA as a hostile witness [Forewarning: this is pure unmitigated speculation and not fact. It's **Fiction.**] Keep in mind this may not happen. CA could answer truthfully, fully and honestly!

SA=State's Attorney

SA: "Your Honor, the State calls CA to the stand."
CA is retrieved from the corridor and led into the courtroom. CA is asked to raise her hand and solemnly swear that the testimony she is about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help her god, yadda yadda.
CA: "Yes, I do."
Judge: "Please take a seat. SA, you may go ahead."
SA: [takes CA through **all** the questions that he knows she'll answer truthfully without leading her...and THEN pops a question they know she will bristle answering.
Example: "Isn't it true that Casey has stolen upwards of $20,000.00 (insert any know amount) from you over the past X years?"
CA: Gives waivering roundabout answer...
SA: "Mrs. A, did you tell the 911 operator in the call on July 15, 2008 that you wanted Casey arrested for stealing and that you had an Affidavit from the bank swearing to this fact?"
CA: [Hopefully tells the truth. Yes/buts won't work here.]
SA: Do you have an Affidavit? Where is this Affidavit?
If not the SA will point out her previous statement on 911 call. If CA vacillates, tries to say she was not telling the truth at that time but just to get LE out to the house, etc. They SA will say, "Are you saying you were not telling the truth on the 911 call?" "When are you telling the truth, then or now? Etc." The SA will dig in like a physician with a scalpel. The minute she gets squirrelly, answers in circles, or does not answer the question "yes" or "no" then...
SA: Your honor, I request permission to take this witness as a hostile witness.
Judge: Request granted. Let the record reflect that State is taking CA as a hostile witness.
CA: Looks confused [Most of these usually do...]
After this point the SA can lead the witness and all the gloves are off.

------------That was from October. Imagine how it could go now:


SA: "Mrs. Anthony, did you wash any items retrieved from the Sunfire?"
CA: "Yes, I did."
SA: Did you wash a pair of gray pinstripe trousers belonging to your daughter, Casey?"
CA: "Yes, I did."
SA: WHY did you wash the trousers?
CA: "They smelled like the car."
SA: The car that you said, "smelled like there was a dead body in"?
Defense: Objection, your Honor, leading...
SA: Question withdrawn. Mrs. Anthony, did you tell the 911 operator that it smelled like there was a dead body in the damn car?
CA: I just meant it smelled bad...
SA: Answer just yes or no, please.
CA: Yes, but I did not mean an actual dead body...
SA: Did you in fact tell your husband GA "what died in there?"
CA: That's a figure of speech.
SA: Your honor, request to take this witness as a hostile witness.

OMG! This trial is going to be great! I do hope it is televised because I, for one, cannot wait to see CA implode on the stand.

 

[Paintr]

OMG! This trial is going to be great! I do hope it is televised because I, for one, cannot wait to see CA implode on the stand.

If she ever testifies. I think that CA will endeavor to wiggle out of taking the stand somehow. Remember BC's ominous reply of 'yet'.

 

[Valhall]

I say we open a pool on how many times the prosecution has to tell CA to "just answer the question, maam..yes or no?"...I'm picking 42, because it's the answer to everything and I think it will take that many times. Because she's going to do her typical nonsensical blather-snipe thingy over and over.

Probably half that for LA.

 

[countzero]

Bold mine.

Poor JB...he even has trouble playing a "bumbling game". :crazy:

At this point in time I agree. Problem is he will get the advice from the other more seasoned attorneys and we will see a new JB appear when the trial date gets closer. I think this is an act of his at the moment. "Let's play ignorant or forgetful" type of appearance. I don't think he is as he appears and that can be dangerous in the future.

As to CA .... One just has to give her an opening and she will fly by the seat of her pants with it, without blinking an eye as to what she just said. BC will drop her prior to the trial I predict. Loose lips sink ships ........... :doh: "KC didn't lie, she might have said half truths, but she didn't lie"

 

[LeLe1953]

I say we open a pool on how many times the prosecution has to tell CA to "just answer the question, maam..yes or no?"...I'm picking 42, because it's the answer to everything and I think it will take that many times. Because she's going to do her typical nonsensical blather-snipe thingy over and over.

Probably half that for LA.

:laugh: ONLY 42! You're talking about in the first question right, not the entire trial. OMG, I would have to guess thousands.

 

[LeLe1953]

I do not see Cindy testifying at all. They may well have ordered her to court but I do not think anything nor anyone could make her do it. I think she will just as soon go to jail as to testify. If by some out side chance she does take the stand, I do not think she will tell the truth. I think it will be HER truth as she really wants to believe it. I doubt anyone would go after this poor, pathetic woman, although if she breaks the law, they should.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I think Cindy will do just fine. The prosecution will be gentle with her because she is the victim's grandmother and the defendant's mother. They don't want to lose the jury's sympathy by brow-beating grandma. I don't know where people are getting the idea that the SA would subpoena a witness and then beat them up on the stand. :doh:

I think it's a safe guess that BC is working with her on limiting her responses to the question asked - tell the truth and say no more than necessary to answer the question.

 

[lawlady84]

I want to clear a few things up- being subpoenaed doesn't mean you have "immunity," but in certain respects it does.

If you are a witness testifying under subpoena, it means you do not have the option NOT to testify. So whatever you say on the stand is considered "coerced" for purposes of classifying it as evidence. So, what you say can't be used against you in a future trial - unless during that trial you do something that "opens the door." So in a sense, for evidence purposes, you can consider the testimony immune.

Why is this done? Because then the witness on the stand can't claim the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination. Since nothing she says can be used against her, she has to answer the question.

Now this is JMO but here it seems like the SA thinks anything GA/CA/LA and the rest of them will say is more important for this case than for any future cases. Say CA is on the stand, and the SA asks who washed KCs grey pants. CA admits that she did. If the SA later wants to bring obstruction charges, the SA couldn't use the fact that CA said in court that she washed the pants - but they could use whatever outside evidence they have.

Also, once CA/GA/LA get on the stand, anything they say that is inconsistent to what they said before under oath is admissible. For GA, his grand jury testimony will be admissible if says something different at trial than he said before. The 911 calls are definitely in under the "emergency exception."

 

[lawlady84]

Hostile Witnesses-

When examining a witness, different rules are in force if you are direct examining and cross-examining. Only under cross-examination can you ask "leading" questions.

Ex:

Direct: Mrs. A, can you tell the court what you were doing on June 15th?
Cross: Mrs. A, is it not true that on June 15th you and your daughter got into a huge fight, overheard by the neighbors, because of her staying out late every night and leaving you in charge of Caylee?

If on direct examination you call a witness, and the witness isn't being responsive or is being evasive, you can ask to treat the witness as a hostile witness - and then you are allowed to ask "leading questions" like those normally allowed in cross-examination.

That might happen here with the SA and the As, because although the SA is calling them, they are related to the defendant.

However, Chilly, just because it's called "hostile witness" doesn't mean the SA has to be forceful - I am sure they will still treat her with kid gloves. They can just frame the question to get a lot of information out at once and force her to answer yes or no.

 

[SWEETSPYRIT]

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=292349

All of the emails from CA MOM and from her brother - they are all here.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

does the subpeona mean that they will have immunity, at least limited? ---- please say no.

no...........

 

[TURBOTHINK]

I think Cindy will do just fine. The prosecution will be gentle with her because she is the victim's grandmother and the defendant's mother. They don't want to lose the jury's sympathy by brow-beating grandma. I don't know where people are getting the idea that the SA would subpoena a witness and then beat them up on the stand. :doh:

I think it's a safe guess that BC is working with her on limiting her responses to the question asked - tell the truth and say no more than necessary to answer the question.

If they catch her in one lie, she will be destroyed. As long as she tells the truth she will be treated well, but if you have ever been in a court, when the lies start, all bets are off. They will call her on her lies, and I am betting money she can't get through it telling anything close to the truth.

 

[Carrington]

I don't think Cindy will be able to keep it simple. No matter how much she is asked to do so.
IMO

KISS (keep it simple stupid)

 

[jandkmom]

As fragile as GA has been, I bet he breaks down on the stand.

 

[Theonly1]

I say we open a pool on how many times the prosecution has to tell CA to "just answer the question, maam..yes or no?"...I'm picking 42, because it's the answer to everything and I think it will take that many times. Because she's going to do her typical nonsensical blather-snipe thingy over and over.

Probably half that for LA.

Only 42? You are a total optimist! I will take a multiple of that number starting with x 2.