Brad Conway to file Motion of Protective Order

I do believe that there is money someplace somewhere paying for her defense....I can't for the life of me believe that all come forward to work for free...I mean who is she and why? Its not they appreciate all to much....You don't hear of them being thankful all that much..

There is more to this than we know....I just don't know what it is...I also think covering the potential for monies gained in the future...hey what about claiming the jail commissary fund? would that be something to attach????
 
You're only held in contempt if you refuse to take the stand. The witness takes the stand, he/she is sworn in, she states for the record who she is and then when asked the first question answers it by invoking her 5th amd. right. The attorney can then pursue the witness by asking her every single question he has for her, but the answer will always be the same - invocation of her 5th amd. rights. No witness can pick and choose what he or she will or will not testify about, therefore the 5th is taken on ALL questions.
 
No, that is not correct, CharlstonGal. Refusing to take the witness stand can get you a contempt order, but taking the 5th is a protection of your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself. In a legal proceeding you cannot answer some questions and refuse to answer others - that is contempt of court. That is why they answer NO questions other than to invoke the right of the 5th. They can certainly answer every question, but the answer will always be the same - "on the advice of my attorney I refuse to answer and invoke my right to not incriminate myself" - and all the variations on that theme, of course.

Where I come from (not the USA), you cannot refuse to answer all questions, only those that may incriminate you. And the court can delve further into whether or not the answer may incriminate you, before ruling that you can exercise your right to not self incriminate.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_Fifth

Read it for yourselves. Bev, you are wrong...what you are talking about is this....

As federal grand juries have the power to subpoena individuals and force them to take the witness stand, defendants in such proceedings invariably refuse to answer any questions put to them, citing their Fifth Amendment rights. If the defendant does answer any question put by the prosecutor during the proceeding, the protection of the Fifth Amendment is lost.

This is not a federal grand jury case.
 
Give me a break!!!!

"I'm shocked an attorney would try to turn a deposition into a circus,” said George and Cindy Anthony's attorney, Brad Conway


Is he serious???????? HE is the one on TV constantly. HE is the one that likes talking to the press. He is the one that likes to announce what the Anthony's are doing at any given time.

But he has the gall to accuse another attorney of turning this into a circus?!? He's as ridiculous as all the Anthony's are, IMO.

:clap::clap::clap:
 
Welcome to WS!

I do think there are lots of people here who believe the As should be allowed to profit. And lots that don't. I fit into the latter category, obviously!

Hi ! Thanks for the welcome!
Wow, it is hard to imagine believing they should profit off Caylee's death, but I guess it will be interesting to hear how someone makes that argument. I do have sympathy for the pain the As must feel, and I remind myself to try not to judge too harshly someone in a situation that I can't even fathom what it would be like to go through...... but I sure don't think they ought to be making a profit off this murder.
 
Thank you for clarifying that for us.

You're welcome. Just so it's clear though, we are talking about the civil proceeding involving ZFG vs CA, in which a civil suit was filed by ZFG and a countersuit was filed by CA. Oral depositions and/or written interrogatories are a part of the pre-trial discovery process. When you receive a subpeona for a deposition, or receive a written interrogatory request, you can't just write WE PLEAD THE 5TH on top of it. You have to respond to every question - the 5th is fine for those questions to which it applies; the rest you must answer. You can't plead the 5th frivolously either - the truth must actually hurt.
 
I'm a brand spanking new, newbie. This will be my first post and response. Hi all!

I hope Morgan will just decide to keep the media out and videotape the depo's, as he is allowed to do by law and let the idea of allowing others in, go. It would be a circus. Reporters have done just fine reporting the information as they show videotape.
I also don't understand why Baez won't just let KC state loud and clear, this is not the woman, I was talking about! End of case, as far as Morgan says. But no, that's not good enough for Baez. Not only will be NOT have have his client set that straight, he also has to SUE ZFG! Are you kidding me?

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

It's all :crazy: and poor little Caylee get's left in a card board box.:furious:
 
You're only held in contempt if you refuse to take the stand. The witness takes the stand, he/she is sworn in, she states for the record who she is and then when asked the first question answers it by invoking her 5th amd. right. The attorney can then pursue the witness by asking her every single question he has for her, but the answer will always be the same - invocation of her 5th amd. rights. No witness can pick and choose what he or she will or will not testify about, therefore the 5th is taken on ALL questions.

We're not talking about testimony - we're talking about interrogatories.
 
No, Closer, you are wrong. Yes, you are compelled to take the stand. Yes, you can answer those questions put to you that do not incrimate you, those questions are your name, your residence, your age and those particulars that are a matter of public record. All OTHER questions you must answer in the same way - you refuse to answer and invoke you 5th amd. rights. Once you open the door, you open the door, you cannot answer questions selectively, because it would violate the defendent's right to confront witness's in a court of law.

If you would be able to answer selectively you would have this scenario -
"Yes, the defendent shot the store owner"
"Did you see him shoot the store owner?"
"I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me."
"Then how do you know he shot the store owner?"
"Oh, I just know it."
"Did the witness give you money from the store robbery?'
"Yes he did."
"How do you know the money was from the store robbery?"
'I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate me."

So yes, the judge can compel the witness to take the stand, but he CANNOT compel any witness to incriminate himself. Therefore, the witness rather than testifying selectively and violating the defendent's 6th amd. right, the witness answers all questions by invoking the 5th. No one can compel anyone to incriminate himself. That is a constitutional right.

p.s. anyone can take the 5th in a deposition and people do it quite often.
 
No, Closer, you are wrong. Yes, you are compelled to take the stand. Yes, you can answer those questions put to you that do not incrimate you, those questions are your name, your residence, your age and those particulars that are a matter of public record. All OTHER questions you must answer in the same way - you refuse to answer and invoke you 5th amd. rights. Once you open the door, you open the door, you cannot answer questions selectively, because it would violate the defendent's right to confront witness's in a court of law.

If you would be able to answer selectively you would have this scenario -
"Yes, the defendent shot the store owner"
"Did you see him shoot the store owner?"
"I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me."
"Then how do you know he shot the store owner?"
"Oh, I just know it."
"Did the witness give you money from the store robbery?'
"Yes he did."
"How do you know the money was from the store robbery?"
'I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate me."

So yes, the judge can compel the witness to take the stand, but he CANNOT compel any witness to incriminate himself. Therefore, the witness rather than testifying selectively and violating the defendent's 6th amd. right, the witness answers all questions by invoking the 5th. No one can compel anyone to incriminate himself. That is a constitutional right.

p.s. anyone can take the 5th in a deposition and people do it quite often.

Do you have a link?
 
No, Closer, you are wrong. Yes, you are compelled to take the stand. Yes, you can answer those questions put to you that do not incrimate you, those questions are your name, your residence, your age and those particulars that are a matter of public record. All OTHER questions you must answer in the same way - you refuse to answer and invoke you 5th amd. rights. Once you open the door, you open the door, you cannot answer questions selectively, because it would violate the defendent's right to confront witness's in a court of law.

If you would be able to answer selectively you would have this scenario -
"Yes, the defendent shot the store owner"
"Did you see him shoot the store owner?"
"I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me."
"Then how do you know he shot the store owner?"
"Oh, I just know it."
"Did the witness give you money from the store robbery?'
"Yes he did."
"How do you know the money was from the store robbery?"
'I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate me."

So yes, the judge can compel the witness to take the stand, but he CANNOT compel any witness to incriminate himself. Therefore, the witness rather than testifying selectively and violating the defendent's 6th amd. right, the witness answers all questions by invoking the 5th. No one can compel anyone to incriminate himself. That is a constitutional right.

p.s. anyone can take the 5th in a deposition and people do it quite often.

So, if CA, GA and/or LA invoke the 5th amendment during their depositions, one or more of the questions asked could incriminate them, (and probably Casey) - right ? Will they have a copy of the questions in advance of the deposition ?
 
No, Closer, you are wrong. Yes, you are compelled to take the stand. Yes, you can answer those questions put to you that do not incrimate you, those questions are your name, your residence, your age and those particulars that are a matter of public record. All OTHER questions you must answer in the same way - you refuse to answer and invoke you 5th amd. rights. Once you open the door, you open the door, you cannot answer questions selectively, because it would violate the defendent's right to confront witness's in a court of law.

If you would be able to answer selectively you would have this scenario -
"Yes, the defendent shot the store owner"
"Did you see him shoot the store owner?"
"I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me."
"Then how do you know he shot the store owner?"
"Oh, I just know it."
"Did the witness give you money from the store robbery?'
"Yes he did."
"How do you know the money was from the store robbery?"
'I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate me."

So yes, the judge can compel the witness to take the stand, but he CANNOT compel any witness to incriminate himself. Therefore, the witness rather than testifying selectively and violating the defendent's 6th amd. right, the witness answers all questions by invoking the 5th. No one can compel anyone to incriminate himself. That is a constitutional right.

p.s. anyone can take the 5th in a deposition and people do it quite often.

No Bev, I'm not wrong. Did you watch the hearing over this? They specifically discussed this and she can answer the questions that do not incriminate her. They even discussed the fact that they would be back in court to get a further ruling if there was specific questions she refused to answer that did not incriminate her.
 
Give me a break!!!!

"I'm shocked an attorney would try to turn a deposition into a circus,” said George and Cindy Anthony's attorney, Brad Conway


Is he serious???????? HE is the one on TV constantly. HE is the one that likes talking to the press. He is the one that likes to announce what the Anthony's are doing at any given time.

But he has the gall to accuse another attorney of turning this into a circus?!? He's as ridiculous as all the Anthony's are, IMO.

BC does give out too much info but it is not him that has turned this into a circus. It is merely the fact that his clients are James Baily and P.T. Barnum.

I reckon the bearded lady is cooling her heels in the hoosegow
 
You're welcome. Just so it's clear though, we are talking about the civil proceeding involving ZFG vs CA, in which a civil suit was filed by ZFG and a countersuit was filed by CA. Oral depositions and/or written interrogatories are a part of the pre-trial discovery process. When you receive a subpeona for a deposition, or receive a written interrogatory request, you can't just write WE PLEAD THE 5TH on top of it. You have to respond to every question - the 5th is fine for those questions to which it applies; the rest you must answer. You can't plead the 5th frivolously either - the truth must actually hurt.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain it so well!
 
No Bev, I'm not wrong. Did you watch the hearing over this? They specifically discussed this and she can answer the questions that do not incriminate her. They even discussed the fact that they would be back in court to get a further ruling if there was specific questions she refused to answer that did not incriminate her.

That is also the way I understood it from the hearing.
 
What questions would not incriminate her? How would the judge know what questions might or might not incriminate her? The only questions she could answer are those that are a matter of public record - name, birth, place of residence. Unless the defendent answers any or one question that is not a matter of public record, the defendent has "opened the door" and then can be compelled to answer all the questions.

That is why coerced confessions are thrown out of court and that is why suspects are read their Miranda rights - so they don't have their 5th amd. right violated. That is why attorneys keep their defendents off the stand - they don't want them compelled to answer questions that could incriminate their clients.
 
Call me an idiot but, I'm STILL not seeing why the A's should have a PO. I don't see where it is needed.
 
The video linked in the first post states that Morgan is holding the depos in his mock courtroom, open to the public and media. That's what Luka and BC are raising heck about.

I would start camping out on the doorstep to be the first in line to be there for their depos. There are too many things that they have to all keep straight.

One question, can each of the A's be present for the other one's depos?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
2,576
Total visitors
2,648

Forum statistics

Threads
590,013
Messages
17,928,987
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top