Obstruction of Justice;Accessory to a crime: Is there a case against the Anthony's #3

Below is the Florida Statue for Obstruction of Justice and Impeding an investigation.


B843.01 Resisting officer with violence to his or her person.—
Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; parole and probation supervisor; county probation officer; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree.Obstruction of justice is the crime of interfering with the administration and due process of the law, including any criminal proceeding or investigation. Obstruction can be either a federal crime or a state crime, depending on the type of proceeding interfered with. To be guilty of obstruction of justice, a person must have knowledge of an investigation or proceeding and attempt to influence it.

The definition of obstruction is very broad and includes any interference with the application of the law, so there are many offenses that can be considered obstruction of justice. Some examples include:

• Lying to police during questioning;
• Falsifying or destroying documents sought by the police during an investigation;
• Attempting to influence a jury or witness.

The right of individuals to remain silent only allows them to refuse to answer police questions. If they answer and lie, this is not protected and is obstruction.
What Is the Penalty for Obstruction of Justice?

Since there are so many offenses that can constitute obstruction of justice, the penalty will vary based on the severity of the offense. Penalties can range from simple fines to jail time of up to ten years.
Do I Need a Lawyer?

If you have been accused of any crime, you should speak to a criminal defense lawyer immediately. A lawyer can advise you of your rights and defenses under the law and represent you in court.





Here is my thought I wonder if G&C will be charged before trial and then told if they tesify truthfully they will drop the charges but if they lie while on the stand they will be held on this charge as well as purjury.

I also think they took paperwork and the home computers with the last search warrent so they could prove that G&C knew more and were not telling LE therefore impeding the investigation.

SuziQ said:

I don't think it's OT...I'm interested!

Click to expand...

Okay the, I am listing statute which describes the conduct which triggers an accessory charge.


I feel it's important to take a look at this law.

It's my humble opinion that a certain portion of the post-crime activities which we have observed, or of which we have knowledge, are covered under this criminal definition and not under the already defined "Obstruction."

I just want to be sure we all see that although certain offensive acts might not be covered by the Obstruction laws, that won't be an indicator of an easy out.
That loophole is plugged by this statute here!

Please note that the exclusion from punishment, that is delineated for relatives of the original perpetrator (including parents of the accused) does not apply to serious felonies of the type we have here.

I would also add that it is not necessary under the law, for the original perpetrator, Casey, to have been convicted, for these charges to stand against accessories, as this statute is written.
Could result in quite an "Oops."




Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 777
PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY View Entire Chapter

777.03 Accessory after the fact.--

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(2)(a) If the felony offense committed is a capital felony, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) If the felony offense committed is a life felony or a felony of the first degree, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the second degree or a felony of the third degree ranked in level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(d) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the third degree ranked in level 1 or level 2 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 921.0022, for purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and determining incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, the offense of accessory after the fact is ranked two levels below the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the felony offense committed.

Paintr said:

Great post, MH! I think the key word here is 'knowing'. Can they prove the A's 'knowingly' did all this? How can that be proven i this case?

Click to expand...

The proof of the "knowingly" part of crimes is done by having the prosecution paint an entire picture of the events which have occurred.

The jury is instructed on the elements of the crime and they are also instructed on the inferences they can choose to draw from testimony they have heard.

Prosecutors are used to overcoming the hurdle of the "Knowingly "element.:wink:

tehcloser said:

The fact that they have no plans to say anything in the near future...says it all. They know they are in deep chit.

Click to expand...

As I have been posting in another thread, to a point where I may be babbling

I believe the A's have left the territory of Obstruction (misdemeanor) and have strolled into the valley of Criminal Accessory after the fact. (felony).

jmho

jennyb said:

ITA. What do the A's have that the prosecutors need at this point? Why shouldn't they be charged if they've obstructed or worse? The ball is NOT in their court anymore.

Like I said earlier, if someone would like to point me to a *family member* statute that excuses criminal wrongdoing I'd love to see it.

Click to expand...

impatientredhead said:

I of course cannot provide a statute, but I can point you to case after case after case of family members not intervening before a crime became worse, where family members absolutely did not help the prosecution, where family member did not share their real beliefs of what may have happened, where family members did not share prior history. None ever charged with anything.

If the Anthony's had something to do with Caylee's death they will be charged of course, if they knowingly destroyed evidence, moved the body or any of the other things eluded to here they will be charged. The pants and knife being washed will never hold up to a prosecutable level.

Click to expand...

I am only here for a minute so apologies if a repeat.
I had posted the applicable statute with an explanation of why the Anthony family might have qualified for a "family-member exclusion" but do not fit into the category.

I am going to paste in my old post to save time. I hope that's okay. If not please delete. :blowkiss:

Okay then, I am listing statute which describes the conduct which triggers an accessory charge.


I feel it's important to take a look at this law.

It's my humble opinion that a certain portion of the post-crime activities which we have observed, or of which we have knowledge, are covered under this criminal definition and not under the already defined "Obstruction."

I just want to be sure we all see that although certain offensive acts might not be covered by the Obstruction laws, that won't be an indicator of an easy out.
That loophole is plugged by this statute here!

Please note that the exclusion from punishment, that is delineated for relatives of the original perpetrator (including parents of the accused) does not apply to serious felonies of the type we have here.

I would also add that it is not necessary under the law, for the original perpetrator, Casey, to have been convicted, for these charges to stand against accessories, as this statute is written.
Could result in quite an "Oops."




Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 777
PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY View Entire Chapter

777.03 Accessory after the fact.--

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(2)(a) If the felony offense committed is a capital felony, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) If the felony offense committed is a life felony or a felony of the first degree, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the second degree or a felony of the third degree ranked in level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(d) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the third degree ranked in level 1 or level 2 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 921.0022, for purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and determining incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, the offense of accessory after the fact is ranked two levels below the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the felony offense committed.



If a repeat just ignore. Have a great night all!!!:blowkiss:

MiraclesHappen said:

As I have been posting in another thread, to a point where I may be babbling

I believe the A's have left the territory of Obstruction (misdemeanor) and have strolled into the valley of Criminal Accessory after the fact. (felony).

jmho

Click to expand...

Thanks for these wonderful posts, MH. I've been thinking recently (that's a novelty with me sometimes...) that accessory after the fact may be a more applicable avenue. What's the statute of limitations for charging this? Is it possible for LE/SA to continue with the Caylee case, and keep the Anthonys potential charges for later? Would that give LE the chance to have their cake and eat it, too? Like, have use of the A's testimony and then charge them after the murder trial? Seems like I'm kinda being cold-hearted, and I'm not saying one way or the other that I think that's what they should do; merely asking if this is something that could do.

My head is swimming with too much information, so I'm wondering if anyone else can help me out or heard/saw this. It was an appearance by the pretty, smart, articulate blond state's attorney (or former one, or current one from another FLA jurisdiction) who often appears as a "talking head" about this case. I thought I heard her say that the accessory statute had been very recently amended to do away with an exception that precluded close family members from being charged with the crime. I'd look for a transcript, but I can't remember where I saw her, though I think it was yesterday. Anyone?

amethyst221 said:

My head is swimming with too much information, so I'm wondering if anyone else can help me out or heard/saw this. It was an appearance by the pretty, smart, articulate blond state's attorney (or former one, or current one from another FLA jurisdiction) who often appears as a "talking head" about this case. I thought I heard her say that the accessory statute had been very recently amended to do away with an exception that precluded close family members from being charged with the crime. I'd look for a transcript, but I can't remember where I saw her, though I think it was yesterday. Anyone?

Click to expand...

She was on Fox News yesterday or the day before. Can't think of her name either but someone on here said she practices in Florida and is a real Bulldog.

amethyst221 said:

My head is swimming with too much information, so I'm wondering if anyone else can help me out or heard/saw this. It was an appearance by the pretty, smart, articulate blond state's attorney (or former one, or current one from another FLA jurisdiction) who often appears as a "talking head" about this case. I thought I heard her say that the accessory statute had been very recently amended to do away with an exception that precluded close family members from being charged with the crime. I'd look for a transcript, but I can't remember where I saw her, though I think it was yesterday. Anyone?

Click to expand...

SLOW SERVER...tried *3* times to get this post to you...

SLOW SERVER--this is my 3rd try at replying...


You are thinking of Pam Bondi. She was on Geraldo's show on Saturday, which I know PattyG has graciously taped and posted on the board.

The jist of what she said was up until recently, Florida law didn't allow for parents of a defendant to be charged with obstruction since the thinking was that surely parents would try to help their children and in fact, possibly obstruct.

That statute, according to her, has been reversed, leaving the door open for the parents in this case, to face charges. I hope that helps.

amethyst221 said:

My head is swimming with too much information, so I'm wondering if anyone else can help me out or heard/saw this. It was an appearance by the pretty, smart, articulate blond state's attorney (or former one, or current one from another FLA jurisdiction) who often appears as a "talking head" about this case. I thought I heard her say that the accessory statute had been very recently amended to do away with an exception that precluded close family members from being charged with the crime. I'd look for a transcript, but I can't remember where I saw her, though I think it was yesterday. Anyone?

Click to expand...

I think I saw her Saturday night on Geraldo's show. She's actually a prosecutor in Florida, if I recall. And the amendment is true - it was only recently passed that family members can be charged in connection with a crime.

amethyst221 said:

My head is swimming with too much information, so I'm wondering if anyone else can help me out or heard/saw this. It was an appearance by the pretty, smart, articulate blond state's attorney (or former one, or current one from another FLA jurisdiction) who often appears as a "talking head" about this case. I thought I heard her say that the accessory statute had been very recently amended to do away with an exception that precluded close family members from being charged with the crime. I'd look for a transcript, but I can't remember where I saw her, though I think it was yesterday. Anyone?

Click to expand...

I don't know when or if it was changed, but in post #5 in orange print it does say they are not from excluded in serious crimes.

Come to think of it, I bet that law was changed because of not being able to charge Couey's family for helping him. Thanks for bring that up!

I believe the woman was on Geraldo Rivera's show Saturday night at 8pm. I can't remember her name either but someone here says she practices in Florida and is a real good attorney, a bulldog.

I was listening to a radio show and the one guy said that the ants probably will be charged with the above, but not now because it would be bad PR on LE when grand parents are grieving. A jury may take it bad........LE will wait awhile..............

is it me or could there be a slow server problems with repeat??? lol

what would be the deference between the state charging or Federal charges (i know location, location, location....)---could they both?????

thanks

IMO b and c fit make me believe that the Anthony's could most definately be held accountable for accessory after the fact.

b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.
c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Ezryder9 said:

Thanks for these wonderful posts, MH. I've been thinking recently (that's a novelty with me sometimes...) that accessory after the fact may be a more applicable avenue. What's the statute of limitations for charging this? Is it possible for LE/SA to continue with the Caylee case, and keep the Anthonys potential charges for later? Would that give LE the chance to have their cake and eat it, too? Like, have use of the A's testimony and then charge them after the murder trial? Seems like I'm kinda being cold-hearted, and I'm not saying one way or the other that I think that's what they should do; merely asking if this is something that could do.

Click to expand...

LE has plenty of time. These are major felony charges, keeping in tune with their daughter's severity of crime.

The penalties in this instance, feed off the seriousness of the original perp's crime. Thus it could not be any worse for the Anthony's.


They can charge them when they want. They can delay under the theory they are investigating.

You are not being cold-hearted. :hug: You are just doing your own investigating, which is always a learning process.:blowkiss:

You are very welcome, EZ!!!

Thanks, everyone for the replies. I knew there would be lots of helpful sleuths. I don't see it as impossible that one or more of the A family members might be charged, especially if LE gets more evidence from the crime scene. But it might not be the most politic thing to do. Today there has been talk of the new attorney for C and G and the matter of immunity. He says there will be no more inconsistent statements, but what does that mean? Without immunity, will they start pleading the 5th, or will they talk to LE or testify? This case is maddening.

Kimmer said:

Below is the Florida Statue for Obstruction of Justice and Impeding an investigation.


B843.01 Resisting officer with violence to his or her person.—
Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; parole and probation supervisor; county probation officer; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree.Obstruction of justice is the crime of interfering with the administration and due process of the law, including any criminal proceeding or investigation. Obstruction can be either a federal crime or a state crime, depending on the type of proceeding interfered with. To be guilty of obstruction of justice, a person must have knowledge of an investigation or proceeding and attempt to influence it.

The definition of obstruction is very broad and includes any interference with the application of the law, so there are many offenses that can be considered obstruction of justice. Some examples include:

• Lying to police during questioning;
• Falsifying or destroying documents sought by the police during an investigation;
• Attempting to influence a jury or witness.

The right of individuals to remain silent only allows them to refuse to answer police questions. If they answer and lie, this is not protected and is obstruction.
What Is the Penalty for Obstruction of Justice?

Since there are so many offenses that can constitute obstruction of justice, the penalty will vary based on the severity of the offense. Penalties can range from simple fines to jail time of up to ten years.
Do I Need a Lawyer?

If you have been accused of any crime, you should speak to a criminal defense lawyer immediately. A lawyer can advise you of your rights and defenses under the law and represent you in court.

Here is my thought I wonder if G&C will be charged before trial and then told if they tesify truthfully they will drop the charges but if they lie while on the stand they will be held on this charge as well as purjury.

I also think they took paperwork and the home computers with the last search warrent so they could prove that G&C knew more and were not telling LE therefore impeding the investigation.

Click to expand...

Again, you do a great job, Kimmer and reading the statutes is a big task:blowkiss:

The portion of the statute which applies to the Anthony version of obstruction is 843.102.


As Impatient Redhead previously pointed out, In examining Obstruction vs Accessory, in this case, we have a situation of a misdemeanor vs a felony.

Although this is a highly publicized case, the Anthony's in the big picture, are not big fish for the feds.

Since the perpetrator remains in state Court, I think it is logical to expect that C& G would be charged per Florida statutes as well.


I am putting the statute that would apply to the scenario we are analyzing re: George, Cindy and Obstruction.
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 843
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE View Entire Chapter

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


The penalty is up to a year in jail or up to 1,000 dollar fine, for this particular Obstruction.

But, the penalties for Accessory, in this case, would be fines up to 10,000 or up to 30 years in orison.
b) For a felony of the first degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 30 years or, when specifically provided by statute, by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment.

SuziQ said:

I don't know when or if it was changed, but in post #5 in orange print it does say they are not from excluded in serious crimes.

Come to think of it, I bet that law was changed because of not being able to charge Couey's family for helping him. Thanks for bring that up!

Click to expand...

The orange which I screwed up as I thought it was red is 2008 law.

Please, I am just understanding the "multi-quote" thing.:blush:

Those family exclusions to avoid prosecution are limited to crimes much less serious than those we are dealing with. Good Bye loophole.:blowkiss:

amethyst221 said:

Thanks, everyone for the replies. I knew there would be lots of helpful sleuths. I don't see it as impossible that one or more of the A family members might be charged, especially if LE gets more evidence from the crime scene. But it might not be the most politic thing to do. Today there has been talk of the new attorney for C and G and the matter of immunity. He says there will be no more inconsistent statements, but what does that mean? Without immunity, will they start pleading the 5th, or will they talk to LE or testify? This case is maddening.

Click to expand...

It is definitely possible that one or more can be charged .
No law stops that.
I doubt with the steady stream of non-cooperation, outright bashing, and their morals and honesty assailed, that politics will play a factor in charging the A's.
I think we are deep in the middle of :"What goes around, comes around."

I have never really understood the strange code of the Anthony lawyers.
The Anthony's have the 5th Amendment privilege availabe when they talk to LE, and when they testify.
They cannot use it as a convenience and using it to avoid discomfort, annoyance , embarrassment, as opposed to limiting its use to its purpose to avoid self-incrimination does not work and they will be ordered to testify.

Also, let's not forget, Yet another loophole!:run:
If they testify , they can invoke the 5th, and THEN be granted immunity, by the State, so as to put them back in the witness seat in a flash. :gavel: The 5th becomes moot and they have to testify! The prosecution has things like this up their sleeve. That would be an interesting way for immunity issues to ultimately play out! I'd save immunity as a nice resent::gift: till that circumstance arises.

I haven't read any news of what the attys are doing now. I was not on WS all evening.
:blowkiss:
as always, jmho