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

Paintr said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. They can still use other evidence.

But what was the supposed crime again?? I think I lost track somewhere. Obviously they can't prosecute her for lying on the 911 call, even if she ADMITS lying on the 911 call, because the State has already taken the position that she was telling the TRUTH on the 911 call and is now just lying about telling the truth.

AZlawyer said:

Yes, you are correct. They can still use other evidence.

But what was the supposed crime again?? I think I lost track somewhere. Obviously they can't prosecute her for lying on the 911 call, even if she ADMITS lying on the 911 call, because the State has already taken the position that she was telling the TRUTH on the 911 call and is now just lying about telling the truth.

Click to expand...

AZlawyer, I dare you to say that 3 times, very quickly! LOL!

AZlawyer said:

Yes, you are correct. They can still use other evidence.

But what was the supposed crime again?? I think I lost track somewhere. Obviously they can't prosecute her for lying on the 911 call, even if she ADMITS lying on the 911 call, because the State has already taken the position that she was telling the TRUTH on the 911 call and is now just lying about telling the truth.

Click to expand...

I doubt they will go after CA for lying, she wasn't under oath at the time, she's contradicted herself too much and lost much credibility. Jurors will not take to her very well. I think this is why they have tried to "soften" her look.


What the SA's want, is to show where ICA started the Nani implication...not to show CA lied, after the fact, KWIM..

Then we have ICA who basically exonerates the Nani, "the real nani" didn't do this, in her letter to RA. She allegedly told MD the nani didn't exist, so it will all go back to ICA as the one who led to Caylee's demise. All items found with Caylee's remains like back to the Anthony home, the Tennessee lab's findings of a human decomp event in ICA's trunk...I think the SA's have bigger fish to fry (no pun intended :innocent and are only using CA as the foundation of where the lies started..JMHO

Justice for Caylee

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...

:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june:

Welcome to Websleuths!!

Once she is impeached, by being shown a transcript of her earlier statements she made under oath, to refresh her memory, if despite that fact, she still insists she never said that , that would qualify as perjury. IMO the State will not come after her legally with charges for that. They will thoroughly prove to the the jury, if, as and when the need arises that Mom is testifying with a clear bias and is not being forthcoming. That will be done with little or no effort.

For now, in the pre trail hearings we can safely assume this judge has had many a mother take to the stand and give the no, not my child lies. He can see through Mrs. Anthony, just as we can. He is nobody's fool, least of all Cindy Anthony's. If Brad tells her nothing else, he should tell her the truth of that fact.

There will be no yelling or her posing questions or her refusing to answer being allowed. Judge Perry is not Mr. Morgan. A murder trial is a lot different than the civil matter.
None of that nonsense will be tolerated. Not one bit.

Jeff and Linda ( not to mention this Judge ) have questioned people far more clever than Cindy Anthony. They are going to get to the truth. Watch here when George Anthony tries to venture off the truth. Mrs. Drane-Burdick, stays calm, redirects him, focuses in on her question, and voila poor George doesn't realize he is now proving the exact opposite of what he was trying to portray. They have got this. Have good faith!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq3YTahSn38[/ame] five minute mark, too funny: He tells her " I do not see that as relevance". The judge straightens that out for him , immediately! He then did answer.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGzm8fyQPWw[/ame]

Cindy Anthony can try anything she may like, and Jose Baez may object how ever many times he may like. The judge will settle the matter with one word, overruled! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPePU8QtcSY[/ame]

TWA that video is with JB not Linda. Do you have the one for Linda???

Okay, fixed....thanks TWA.

Unless CA has taken lessons in how to control herself, she will probably be instructed to do what is the best legal option for her.

The minute questions start to hone in on a point she doesn't want made, she begins to manipulate. Watch her at the bond hearing, watch most of her tv interviews.

Brad has to know what will be the least damaging for CA and will instruct her to take that route. He hasn't stuck around this long without having some idea of how to control her.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a case where the parents are hit with perjury, even tho everything they say and do seems so transparent. I know we screamed for it with the Peterson case, and it just didn't happen.

OME

mysteriew said:

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.

Click to expand...

What is that thing about spousal priveledge that BC invoked at the JM deposition of CA?

Maybe should ask AZ on legal thread. <----ETA

Rude to quote myself but AZ answered the question on the legal questions thread.