Can Cindy invoke the 5th amendment at the 7/15/10 hearing about the 911 call?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

affinity

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
613
Reaction score
1
The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Fifth Amendment [/ame]protects the rights of an accused as well as the witnesses. To invoke the fifth is to avoid self incrimination. It implies that to answer the question the witness must say something that might subject themselves to criminal prosecution. It means that they can't make a person testify as to what he may or may not have done. Since it is widely believed that CA obstructed justice can she just not answer anything and let Judge Perry decide about the 911 call without her input? If she refuses to answer anything she won't make Casey mad! lol lol--I know I shouldn't be laughing..but my real question is CAN CA consider the fifth amendment (legally) under these circumstances? Can the Judge require her to answer if she invokes the fifth?

I elected to ask this question in a thread of it's own, it's worthy of discussion but if it is more appropriate in a different place, of course, I have no objection to moving it. Thanks!
 
Good question!! I don't know the answer but it will be interesting to see what the situation is with that. I have often wondered why the Anthonys have not seemed more concerned about going to jail themselves.
 
Great Question Affinity! I am eagerly awaiting any of our legal helpers thoughts here at WS, however if IRC, Conway stated that Cindy would be telling the truth. So, for some reason I highly doubt that she would plead the 5th. You never know though with Cindy.
 
Doesn't the immunity she was granted earlier mean that the fear of self incrimination is unfounded and the real motive might be to avoid testifying against her daughter which could be tantamount to obstructing justice and being held in contempt?

Just asking.
 
I know in her deposition that in the civil trial, she refused to answer questions because it would incriminate her daughter and limit the possibility of her getting a fair trial...

I'd like to see her try that one on Thursday. The worst part is the her lawyer Brad Conway was encouraging her not to answer!? He was overly involved in that interview and exchange. What role will he play on Thursday? I know he said his client will testify truthfully (We'll see!).
 
She can only invoke her 5th amendment right against something that might incriminate her personally. The scope of questioning will (should be) limited to the 911 calls. Nothing she said on those calls should incriminate her personally. Even if she goes with the 'I just called to get them out there faster' excuse, she would be protected under "use immunity". In FL "use immunity" is automatically given to anyone formally subpoenaed. The prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for evidence/testimony.
 
beach2yall said:
She can only invoke her 5th amendment right against something that might incriminate her personally. The scope of questioning will (should be) limited to the 911 calls. Nothing she said on those calls should incriminate her personally. Even if she goes the 'I just called to get them out there faster' excuse, she would be protected under "use immunity". In FL "use immunity" is automatically given to anyone formally subpoenaed. The prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for evidence/testimony.
Click to expand...

I agree. You cannot use the 5th to protect someone else (even though some unmentioned names may have tried to use it to protect others.) The 5th is basically that you cannot be made to answer questions that incriminate yourself. But incriminating your husband, your child and your best friend is required.

In her telephone call Cindy provided info about her daughter and missing grandchild. Info that has since been verified. Her car did stink, her granddaughter was missing. So I don't see anything that she could use the 5th for anything from the call. Now any actions that may or may not have happened after that point could be subject to the 5th. Of course to invoke the 5th you tell the world that you are guilty of something! It should be interesting to see if she does invoke the 5th at any point during her testimony either during the hearing or the trial.
 
Just to clarify - "use immunity" does NOT protect one from perjury. However, it would have to get quite serious - very bad - before she would be formally charged with perjury.
 
I'll let those that know answer directly, but I remember in a recent thread where this was asked and the answer was an emphatic NO SHE MAY NOT!
 
beach2yall said:
Just to clarify - "use immunity" does NOT protect one from perjury. However, it would have to get quite serious - very bad - before she would be formally charged with perjury.
Click to expand...

I guess your definition of "very bad" would be key; however, I know here in Michigan the former mayor of Detroit was charged with perjury for lying under oath in a civil trial about having an affair. Some thought that was not that bad. The Wayne County prosecutors thought otherwise.

It might not need to be "that bad" to land a perjury charge. Just saying.
 
Gnatcatcher said:
I'll let those that know answer directly, but I remember in a recent thread where this was asked and the answer was an emphatic NO SHE MAY NOT!
Click to expand...
Oh sorry it was asked somewhere else and I didn't see it. The threads get so long, it is difficult to read them all.

If the prosecution asks CA about what she meant when CA stated "it smells like there has been a dead body in the damn car" or questions about "soft pedaling" situations to mold the circumstances into Anthony favor CA COULD take the 5th...right? CA would have to believe the State is going to charge her with a crime in order for her to invoke the 5th. Do I have that correct?

(This helps me! thanks for explaining).
 
Oh don't you dare apologize! I know how impossible it seems sometimes to read everything!! Personally I only absorb/comprehend about 75% of what's written here anyway, haaa.

I think it was discussed in the Cindy Subpeanaed thread, but I'm sure others will answer here anyway, it's a good place to break it out.
 
I read in a thread here somewhere (sorry but I can't find it) that unless she has been charged with a crime, she can't plead the fifth and that is the possible reason that none of the Anthonys have been charged with obstruction or false reports.
 
affinity said:
Oh sorry it was asked somewhere else and I didn't see it. The threads get so long, it is difficult to read them all.

If the prosecution asks CA about what she meant when CA stated "it smells like there has been a dead body in the damn car" or questions about "soft pedaling" situations to mold the circumstances into Anthony favor CA COULD take the 5th...right? CA would have to believe the State is going to charge her with a crime in order for her to invoke the 5th. Do I have that correct?

(This helps me! thanks for explaining).
Click to expand...

If Cindy's testimony on the stand on Thursday differs from what her already sworn testimony is in her previous statements to LE, the FBI and/or depo, LDB will drag out the sworn statement or depo and confront her with the conflicting statements. She will then be 'impeached'...making her appear a much less credible witness. If that happens at the hearing, HHJP can find fault with her character and pretty much disregard her as being a truthful witness. Same thing for the jury at trial.

I am not saying there is no chance in he!! that she will not be formally charged with perjury, I just think the chance is very, very slim. It isn't what MY interpretation of perjury is, it is going to depend on HHJP - how strict he is going to be and to the degree he wants to enforce it.
 
Ms.Curious said:
I guess your definition of "very bad" would be key; however, I know here in Michigan the former mayor of Detroit was charged with perjury for lying under oath in a civil trial about having an affair. Some thought that was not that bad. The Wayne County prosecutors thought otherwise.

It might not need to be "that bad" to land a perjury charge. Just saying.
Click to expand...


Hi Ms.Curious and WELCOME TO WS! :)

You are correct and not that it matters legally, but just curious - was the former Detroit mayor the defendant or plaintiff in the civil suit? Or was he (she?) a witness?
 
I agree with everything Beach2yall has said so far. :)
 
beach2yall said:
Hi Ms.Curious and WELCOME TO WS! :)

You are correct and not that it matters legally, but just curious - was the former Detroit mayor the defendant or plaintiff in the civil suit? Or was he (she?) a witness?
Click to expand...

Thank you for the welcome. Although I have been here since day 31, I rarely post.

The Detroit civil trial - the chief of police (and another officer) were fired for investigating a murder related to a "rumored" party at the mayor's residence. It was known as a 'whistleblower' suit. The mayor was a witness (and could have been a defendant, I'd have to look it up) and the city of Detroit was the defendant. My point was that it was a completely 'unrelated' subject that came up during trial that he lied about, hence the perjury charge. Hope that made sense :)

As to Cindy Anthony, it is my understanding that the "use immunity" granted is that she can not be charged for any lie (or incriminating answers) she may have given in the state deposition. That use immunity does not apply to the hearing. If she is asked why she made those statements to the 911 dispatcher and gives the same answer 'so they would get there faster' she would be admitting to giving false information - possibly a crime. "Taking the 5th" might be the only way she could avoid self-incrimination.

That's the way I see it but perhaps the esteemed AZLawyer would like to weigh in to correct any misstatements I have made.
 
beach2yall said:
She can only invoke her 5th amendment right against something that might incriminate her personally. The scope of questioning will (should be) limited to the 911 calls. Nothing she said on those calls should incriminate her personally. Even if she goes with the 'I just called to get them out there faster' excuse, she would be protected under "use immunity". In FL "use immunity" is automatically given to anyone formally subpoenaed. The prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for evidence/testimony.
Click to expand...

I thought that the prosecution basically agreed not to prosecute the crime 'based on the information' provided in the witness testimony. But if the prosecution has enough evidence 'excluding' the witness's own testimony then they can still prosecute? Have I got that wrong. Does use immunity cover the whole crime?
 
She is going to try to minimize the importance of her 'dead body in the damn car' by telling us again that when she opens her fridge and some foodstuff smells she invariably says "What died in there".
She expects people to believe that.
 
My guess would be that SA will very carefully and very strategically ask CA questions about the 911 calls without specifically asking about the "dead body" statement. What is more important is getting what KC said and how she handled the call once she was being interviewed on the phone. The rest will all just fall into place.

Think about it. Your daughter has just told you that your granddaughter has been missing for 31 days and your reaction to that is important, frantic, emotionally coming apart and that is what we hear but once CA turns the phone over to KC do we hear the same panic and concern in her voice. No, she just tells the 911 operator that she knows she was stupid by not calling sooner, blah, blah, blah. Totally detached, totally. This is what is important. CA can deny her statement all she wants because the jury will know there WAS a dead body in the trunk. Denying it will not help KC in the least and if CA lies on the stand to protect her daughter the jury will see right through her. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 107 more.
Total: 1,360 (members: 108, guests: 1,252)

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
1,252
Total visitors
1,360
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,783
Messages
17,958,794
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top