State releases Subpoena List, includes LA,CA and GA

State Releases Subpoena List In Anthony Case
List Includes Anthony Family, Nursing Home Employees

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The state of Florida has filed a list of people they've subpoenaed in the case against Casey Anthony.

Some interesting names on the list include members of the Anthony family and their relatives.

The list of those subpoenaed by the state includes Cindy, George and Lee Anthony and Cindy Anthony's mother.

Lee Anthony's girlfriend and employees of a Mount Dora nursing home where the last known videotape of Caylee was taken June 15 are also on the list.

Caylee Anthony's remains were found on Dec. 11 in a wooded area off of Suburban Drive near the Anthony home in East Orange County.

Mother Casey Anthony is in the Orange County Jail charged with murder in Caylee's death.

http://www.wesh.com/news/18949432/detail.html

I thought the subpoena of Lee, Cindy and George might have some legal implications come trial time, maybe some of the legal experts can tell us what this means as far as their testimony.

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

Wisteria said:

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

Click to expand...

Hmmm, wish we could see the full list of names. But, to answer your question, I don't see how they could have immunity from being served a subpoena. It just means that they are being legally required to answer questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

I have always known the SA would have to call CA, GA, & LA, since they were the first ones directly involved with KC when the story came out about the Nanny, but it concerns me that they have all told so many documented "mis-truths" and seemingly done everything they could to steer the investigation away from KC. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I only hope that if they are going to put them up there that they have the evidence to prove or disprove everything that is going to come out of their mouths because they have admittingly not been forthright this entire time. Guess we will just have to wait and see how this pans out. *Keeping my fingers crossed.*

I remember that Lee's atty said he was nervous about possible charges for Lee because he had not been subpoened yet (this was a while back). So now that they have been subpoened (as I understand it) they can not be charged for what they say on the stand, even if it contradicts some of their prior interviews, sworn statements. This does not prevent LE from charging them on other charges after the trial is over (I am beginning to think they are waiting on this). As reported earlier, LE is going to expect them to help convict Casey, I believe this to be the case now more than ever. My problem is with Lee's latest deposition, it's clear he is not being honest in certain areas, given this, can we expect any sort of real honesty from the family come trial time ? IMO, the answer is no.

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.

Agreed they will be treated as hostile witnesses. This will allow the SA a bit more latitude with questioning.

shgrbkr said:

Agreed they will be treated as hostile witnesses. This will allow the SA a bit more latitude with questioning.

Click to expand...

What would being a "hostile witness" imply for them?

This news that they're on the witness list doesn't surprise me at all. They were around her, and around Caylee, more than anyone. I'd have been shocked if they weren't on the list.

Since they were subpoena'd they will be granted immunity for what they say on the stand. All it means is that their own testimony can't be used against them. That doesn't mean if they confess to obstructing justice that other evidence can't be used against them. Since LE is unlikely to charge them with anything anyhow, it really doesn't mean anything.

natsound said:

What would being a "hostile witness" imply for them?

This news that they're on the witness list doesn't surprise me at all. They were around her, and around Caylee, more than anyone. I'd have been shocked if they weren't on the list.

Click to expand...

I didn't know the answer to this either, so I looked it up, here's a definition of a "hostile witness"...

technically an "adverse witness" in a trial who is found by the judge to be hostile (adverse) to the position of the party whose attorney is questioning the witness, even though the attorney called the witness to testify on behalf of his/her client. When the attorney calling the witness finds that the answers are contrary to the legal position of his/her client or the witness becomes openly antagonistic, the attorney may request the judge to declare the witness to be "hostile" or "adverse." If the judge declares the witness to be hostile (i.e. adverse), the attorney may ask "leading" questions which suggest answers or are challenging to the testimony just as on cross examination of a witness who has testified for the opposition.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=884

Well, by that definition, CA will "absolutely" be a hostile witness. We will watch her implode on the stand. The SAs have their work cut out for them with this bunch.

Searchfortruth said:

I didn't know the answer to this either, so I looked it up, here's a definition of a "hostile witness"...

technically an "adverse witness" in a trial who is found by the judge to be hostile (adverse) to the position of the party whose attorney is questioning the witness, even though the attorney called the witness to testify on behalf of his/her client. When the attorney calling the witness finds that the answers are contrary to the legal position of his/her client or the witness becomes openly antagonistic, the attorney may request the judge to declare the witness to be "hostile" or "adverse." If the judge declares the witness to be hostile (i.e. adverse), the attorney may ask "leading" questions which suggest answers or are challenging to the testimony just as on cross examination of a witness who has testified for the opposition.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=884

Click to expand...

Lol! So, when the SA asks CA about the chloroform in the car or the deathband hair and she spouts off that "science is just science", they can say "hostile witness"! Lordy, I hope this trial is televised cuz it's gonna be a doozy!

Cara's Mom said:

Well, by that definition, CA will "absolutely" be a hostile witness. We will watch her implode on the stand. The SAs have their work cut out for them with this bunch.

Click to expand...

Yes, they "absolutely" do, in "a backwards sort of way"! I just wish I could be there to see her implode as she tries to tell everyone how the "spiteful b$tch" is actually the "mother of the year", and in spite of the many times that she has told her what an unfit mother she is that she has never seen her do anything to Caylee. And although she has stolen like a professional thief from family and friends, lied with every breath she took, and didn't bother to report her daughter missing for 31 days, she is really a kind and loving person. The jurors are going to be looking at her like "WTF!"

chefmom said:

Lol! So, when the SA asks CA about the chloroform in the car or the deathband hair and she spouts off that "science is just science", they can say "hostile witness"! Lordy, I hope this trial is televised cuz it's gonna be a doozy!

Click to expand...

Why would they ask Cindy about those things?

Chilly Willy said:

Why would they ask Cindy about those things?

Click to expand...

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, or had ever brought any home from the hospital.

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.

countzero said:

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 had.

Click to expand...

I'm just hoping the Greart State of Florida can afford the Anthonys! LOL. States like California, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, and my own state of Texas are struggling valiantly to survive this treacherous recession and to solve horrendously expensive problems , like record-breaking unemployment, housing foreclosures, illegal "aliens" and national health insurance.

All these states will survive, but Florida has the added burden of dealing with the Special Legal Needs, Demands, and Courtroom Theatrics of the Anthony Clan and their lawyers. I fear the Anthony's may be the straw that breaks the camel's (Florida's) back. Perhaps the entire Anthony clan's vast assortment of Defense Attorneys, Strategists, Scientists, and Publicists could do us a favor when they demand a change of venue by demanding the trial take place in Puerto Rico, Manilla, or even Zimbabwe.

Seriously now--:blowkiss: wouldn't it be pertinent and informative if we could accurately guestimate how much the Anthonys residency has cost Orange County and the residents of the State of Florida to date? Not to mention the cost of the FBI... I'll bet the cost would be staggering.

Wisteria said:

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

Click to expand...

Receiving a subpeona does not trigger immunity.

Friday said:

I'm just hoping the Greart State of Florida can afford the Anthonys! LOL. States like California, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, and my own state of Texas are struggling valiantly to survive this treacherous recession and to solve horrendously expensive problems , like record-breaking unemployment, housing foreclosures, illegal "aliens" and national health insurance.

All these states will survive, but Florida has the added burden of dealing with the Special Legal Needs, Demands, and Courtroom Theatrics of the Anthony Clan and their lawyers. I fear the Anthony's may be the straw that breaks the camel's (Florida's) back. Perhaps the entire Anthony clan's vast assortment of Defense Attorneys, Strategists, Scientists, and Publicists could do us a favor when they demand a change of venue by demanding the trial take place in Puerto Rico, Manilla, or even Zimbabwe.

Seriously now--:blowkiss: wouldn't it be pertinent and informative if we could accurately guestimate how much the Anthonys residency has cost Orange County and the residents of the State of Florida to date? Not to mention the cost of the FBI... I'll bet the cost would be staggering.

Click to expand...

Is there an accountant out there who'd like to take the task on...or anybody who's good with REALLY BIG numbers?