Will George and Cindy Testify?

[Gaia713]

I agree that he seems hostile and will likely require a subpoena. He doesn't add alot of value to the case though in my opinion. He is not as key a witness as Cindy or George. At least with what we know so far. Do we know if Brad Conway is representing him too...or just the G and C?

Lee has hired his OWN criminal defense lawyer who is already spreading the manure about.

 

[TxRose]

Lee has hired his OWN criminal defense lawyer who is already spreading the manure about.

It is interesting that he found it necessary to hire a separate attorney.

 

[nomoresorrow]

I agree that he seems hostile and will likely require a subpoena. He doesn't add alot of value to the case though in my opinion. He is not as key a witness as Cindy or George. At least with what we know so far. Do we know if Brad Conway is representing him too...or just the G and C?

LA's attorney is Thomas Luka. Sorry, I was off reading, so much to read, so little time...anyhow here's a link for ya.


http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/p...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

 

[nomoresorrow]

Oh I didnt mean they would come without an "invitation." I think they will ALL require a subpeona. I think Lee & Cindy will be declared hostile but maybe not George, depending on what threats Cindy has offered up to him.

I wish they would send me a front row invitation (plane ticket & hotel stay included too of course) :woohoo:

 

[TxRose]

LA's attorney is Thomas Luka. Sorry, I was off reading, so much to read, so little time...anyhow here's a link for ya.


http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/p...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Thanks nomoresorrow! :blowkiss:

After reading that article I am more convinced than ever that it is his own personal "investigation" that is potentially running him into obstruction charges.

 

[nomoresorrow]

But they NEED to put Cindy on the stand. Unlike tv or LE interviews where they might just let her ramble, the court CAN & WILL keep her on point. I think the public & the jury want to hear from her.

Do we really have to be subjected to that? :crazy: It's been so quiet...and so nice.

 

[nomoresorrow]

Thanks nomoresorrow! :blowkiss:

After reading that article I am more convinced than ever that it is his own personal "investigation" that is potentially running him into obstruction charges.

YW! :blowkiss:

 

[Chilly Willy]

Oh I didnt mean they would come without an "invitation." I think they will ALL require a subpeona. I think Lee & Cindy will be declared hostile but maybe not George, depending on what threats Cindy has offered up to him.

Not having a lot of experience with the court system I could very well be wrong, but isn't it standard that all witnesses receive subpeonas?

 

[Chezhire]

Not having a lot of experience with the court system, I could very well be wrong, but isn't it standard that all witnesses receive subpeonas?

Many times my witnesses will agree to appear without the necessity of my filing one and their attorney sends me written confirmation of this.
In this case (and I mean either the criminal or the civil, since this thread didn't specify,) where George and Cindy will both be considered "hostile witnesses" to ZFG's position/the state's position,
the attorney will likely subpena both George and Cindy to ensure their appearance at trial.

 

[BeanE]

While I agree Cindy is volatile, unpredictable & has NO regard for the law, I DO think she should be compelled to testify. Why give her a free pass because she is a liar? If it were me or you, we would be called to testify & if we lied, we would be charged. Cindy only thinks she & her family are above the law, but they are not. In her world, in her own words, telling a lie is not against the law. Ah, it is if you are under oath or give sworn statements. I personally think Cindy IS the key to the case & we need to hear her testimony. Maybe Cindy will be relieved to have to tell what she knows. She can justify it in her own mind that she had no choice & wasn't betraying KC.

All witness's need to testify, esp the Anthony family including extended family.

Oh I'm not saying she should be given a free pass. Not at all. I firmly believe that people should be held accountable for their actions. I think rather that there is plenty of solid evidence of OJ to charge her now, and I think she should definitely be charged. I'm just concerned about the cost to everyone involved of putting her on the stand. She *will* lie. She *will* disrupt court proceedings and seriously so. I just don't think anything she would offer that could be used by the prosecution would be very minimal, and not worth it.

 

[BeanE]

I wonder if this is why the family has asked for immunity. If they have to testify they don't want to be open to some charges because they may have Inadvertently did something that was a crime of some sort. They all have lawyers now and more than likely will have to testify.

I'm having a problem with 'inadvertently', 'unintentionally', etc. because of what George said in an interview about his warning to Cindy (and Lee?) that, based on his experience with the sheriff's office as an employee, they were open to being charged with OJ. I don't have a direct quote at the moment, but I'm happy to look it up later today (after coffee lol).

 

[lastchance]

Does anyone here think it's possible for CA to be reined in by a judge? She seems so out of control, and at the same time, trying to control every situation. I worry that she will be hit with contempt of court before anything of real value is offered. (Maybe that's the plan?)

 

[diz39]

Does anyone here think it's possible for CA to be reined in by a judge? She seems so out of control, and at the same time, trying to control every situation. I worry that she will be hit with contempt of court before anything of real value is offered. (Maybe that's the plan?)

I think this is an excellent point. I watched the original bond hearing start to finish last night, and I wanted to smack the poo out of CA. She was allowed to ramble on and on, to talk about her sleep deprivation, how "everyone knew she was only drinking water and not eating", and on several occasions when JB made an objection, she seemed to act like she was a member of the defense team, actually looking at the judge and saying "Yeah". (My perception) It was weird. She was all over the place and it seemed no one was keeping her on a leash.

 

[zoey]

I think this is an excellent point. I watched the original bond hearing start to finish last night, and I wanted to smack the poo out of CA. She was allowed to ramble on and on, to talk about her sleep deprivation, how "everyone knew she was only drinking water and not eating", and on several occasions when JB made an objection, she seemed to act like she was a member of the defense team, actually looking at the judge and saying "Yeah". (My perception) It was weird. She was all over the place and it seemed no one was keeping her on a leash.

They've always were treated with kid gloves--but think that has changed....I know the Judge seemed to cut her off a bit during that last gag hearing.....

I truly believe given the amount of info someone has it would be different this time around....She has so many conflicting stmts out there curretnly it would be easy to get her on perjury or contempt---(at least I would hope that in that arena she could be restrained...)---however, she has been worked with by jb and her own atty---I believe they have coached her and coached her--whether or not she can go with it remains to be seen....I only give it time before our true ca comes back out...

I always found it weird that during the initial "grief" state (why not ever call it shock?????) they were surrounded by defense atty's and their own---:waitasec:----then all the comments--LE made a mess out of the house..."but thats okay"---

 

[nomoresorrow]

It is. It's just proper procedure.

That shows how little (very little) I know about the process. The only time I've ever been in a courtroom was for my divorce in 1987.

 

[Clock's Tickin]

I think they will testify, even if the defense calls them as character witnesses on KC's behalf. However, with all of the emotional toll that has been taken here, JB would certainly TRY to restrict their answers to simple "yes" and "no" (w/o expalination) on the cross and I don't think CA would do to well with that concept. So IDK if he's brave enough to use her.

 

[Chezhire]

It is. It's just proper procedure.

Proper? yes. Always required by the Code of Procedure? Nope, not here in Louisiana.

Any FL legal eagles want to chime in for me re: FL's Codes of Civil & Criminal Procedure re: whether one MUST subpoena witnesses for trial?

 

[impatientredhead]

Proper? yes. Always required by the Code of Procedure? Nope, not here in Louisiana.

Any FL legal eagles want to chime in for me re: FL's Codes of Civil & Criminal Procedure re: whether one MUST subpoena witnesses for trial?

From what I could find, no you don't have to subpoena, you can be there on your own accord, but most witnesses are by subpoena so there is recourse if you don't show up.

 

[Chezhire]

Many times my witnesses will agree to appear without the necessity of my filing one and their attorney sends me written confirmation of this.
In this case (and I mean either the criminal or the civil, since this thread didn't specify,) where George and Cindy will both be considered "hostile witnesses" to ZFG's position/the state's position,
the attorney will likely subpena both George and Cindy to ensure their appearance at trial.

Proper? yes. Always required by the Code of Procedure? Nope, not here in Louisiana.

Any FL legal eagles want to chime in for me re: FL's Codes of Civil & Criminal Procedure re: whether one MUST subpoena witnesses for trial?

From what I could find, no you don't have to subpoena, you can be there on your own accord, but most witnesses are by subpoena so there is recourse if you don't show up.

impatientredhead: I'm assuming you're a "FL legal eagle" since you responded to my request for some help from one. (If this isn't the case, sorry for the assumption.)

I know how I usually handle this issue, which I've discussed already in my earlier posts, above (*b/c sometimes, when my witness list is rather lengthy, which it usually is b/c I list all potential witnesses and, therefore, a list of 30-40 for starters is not unusual, and I don't want to tip off opposing counsel as to exactly who will be appearing to testify, and the witness at issue is a friendly witness whom the client trusts will appear, we handle it by written agreement behind the scenes instead of issuing a subpoena, which immediately places opposing counsel on notice as to exactly who of the 20+ witnesses will be appearing, ,) but I want someone with access to the FL statutes to tell me definitively.

Did you actually check the FL codes of civil & criminal procedure or are you just chiming in as a general matter?

If you had time to check (which I don't right at this moment) the FL codes of civil & criminal procedure, could you throw up snippets?

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "That's it. If someone says they will show up voluntarily but then does not, they are not in contempt and you're on your own to go get them - and if you cannot, too bad for you...."

That is, unless the party seeking the witness' appearance has an attorney who's knowledgeable/savvy enough to have gotten a written agreement (*read: enforceable contract) that the witness agrees to appear AND will also pay X amount in damages, etc., if he/she fails to appear, etc.
Works out even better than issuing a subpoena sometimes.