Brad Conway to file Motion of Protective Order

[Jolynna]

And that is exactly what it is, Ariane. A "you put my client through the hoops, I'll put your client through the hoops" and see who runs out of money first.

Morgan's hoops are on Morgan's own dime.

He isn't ever expecting money.

It IS advertising. And, Morgan is representing a client who would be unable to afford legal representation. With Casey's defenders in need of a "Zani" to throw under the bus, Morgan is doing a good deed, too.

IMO

 

[Broderick]

Morgan's hoops are on Morgan's own dime.

He isn't ever expecting money.

It IS advertising. And, Morgan is representing a client who would be unable to afford legal representation. With Casey's defenders in need of a "Zani" to throw under the bus, Morgan is doing a good deed, too.

IMO

Absolutely. He is known for advertising and what is better than standing up for the little person defamed by this killer and her family. He is trying to get a little sentence saying this ZG is not the ZG that did the murder but they are unwilling to even do that because they know it hurts their defense. He is trying to destroy the reasonable doubt that Zenaida did this. Good for him.

He is also doing this for Caylee since nobody seems to care about her outside of the SA and OCSO as to those involved in this mess.

Go Morgan GO!

 

[Broderick]

Now, perhaps you can address the topic of this particular thread.

I say Morgan has every right and the judge should throw out an unlawful protection order. Show me where the law that gives them the right for protection....

 

[Jolynna]

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.

Yes, but taking the 5th doesn't get you off scott free. It IS still YOUR sworn testimony and forever on the record.

 

[Bev]

You can sue anybody for anything in any state, whether the court will hear your petition is up to the judge. This suit is a waste of time and BC should get a P.O. It isn't customary practice to take depositions in a mock court room and invite the public to attend. The judge is going to make this ruling based on customary practice as he well should.

Right Jolynna, it doesn't get you off scot free. I don't think the Anthonys have answered the depositions by invoking their 5th amd. rights.

 

[BeanE]

Someone please clarify for me? The As cannot plead the 5th and not answer a question on the basis that it might incriminate their daughter, correct? Or their son, or their spouse, correct?

ETA: Or their sibling or parent, correct?

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Someone please clarify for me? The As cannot plead the 5th and not answer a question on the basis that it might incriminate their daughter, correct? Or their son, or their spouse, correct?

I'm glad you asked this. I asked earlier if the A's plead the 5th, doesn't that mean that they are doing so in order to avoid incriminating themselves ? In other words, admitting that they have had some involvement in either the crime (which I don't believe) or a cover-up ? Haven't gotten an answer yet.

 

[Oakley]

I'm glad you asked this. I asked earlier if the A's plead the 5th, doesn't that mean that they are doing so in order to avoid incriminating themselves ? In other words, admitting that they have had some involvement in either the crime (which I don't believe) or a cover-up ? Haven't gotten an answer yet.

Good question - I would like to know as well.

 

[Bev]

Who said the As are pleading the 5th? No, you cannot plead the 5th on the grounds that it might incriminate someone else. In some cases the spouse privilege might apply but in the case of parent/child there is no privilege.

The Anthonys have not answered the depositions. The protective order is to prevent the plaintiff's attorney from venturing outside of common practice.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Who said the As are pleading the 5th? No, you cannot plead the 5th on the grounds that it might incriminate someone else. In some cases the spouse privilege might apply but in the case of parent/child there is no privilege.

The Anthonys have not answered the depositions. The protective order is to prevent the plaintiff's attorney from venturing outside of common practice.

No one said the A's had pleaded the 5th. We were just trying to clarify what it would mean if they eventually do so.

So again, were they to plead the 5th, would that imply that they needed to avoid incriminating themselves because they had been involved in a crime ?

 

[Bev]

No, it means exactly what it says - to answer might incriminate them. It isn't an admission that they committed a crime. Invoking the 5th is not an admission and the judge will rule it so.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Yes, that is what it would mean.

Thank you

 

[Bev]

And I corrected that Shaymus. It is not an admission of guilt.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Three additional questions:

1. Would they get a copy of the deposition questions in advance of the actual meeting ?

2. If so, is the plaintiff's attorney allowed to ask questions beyond those included in the advance copy - say to clarify a point ?

3. Is the defendant's attorney allowed to ask questions of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney ?

TIA

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

No, it means exactly what it says - to answer might incriminate them. It isn't an admission that they committed a crime. Invoking the 5th is not an admission and the judge will rule it so.

Understood.

Who then is allowed to invoke the privilege ? I'm sure it's not something done lightly.

 

[azwriter]

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 Tracy, glad you're here.
If the only question Casey had to answer was whether this was or not the Zanny she spoke about, she could answer that question. However, there are a list of questions on this written deposition in front of Casey. If she answers one question, she has to answer them all. She does not have the option of picking and choosing which questions she will answer and which ones she will invoke her Fifth Amendent Right. It's either all or nothing - if I remember correctly from the law school classes I took from an ad on the back of a match cover. Our resident law experts here would know for sure.

 

[MsBashterd]

Ok just maybe I think I get it now:waitasec:

KC will be taking the 5th as not to incriminate herself


The A's will have to answer the questions they are just trying to block the public from hearing their answers.


Right???????

and as always why would they care if the public hears weather they knew this ZG when it is a stated fact that they have said before they had never seen her????

Can they ask other questions outside of the scope of the lawsuit????? Is that what they are afraid of???? Or is this just another A dog and pony show? Sorry don't mean to be callous when it comes to their pain and suffering at all just curious what others think here.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

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.

Because they are the As and they want special rules? I swear, they believe they are celebrities, with their decoy cars and all.

 

[Bev]

Why shouldn't they have a protective order? What Morgan is suggesting is outside of customary practice. A mock court room and open seating? If you were giving a deposition would you like that? If the answer is no, then why should the Anthonys be subjected to that kind of embarrassment?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Who said the As are pleading the 5th? No, you cannot plead the 5th on the grounds that it might incriminate someone else. In some cases the spouse privilege might apply but in the case of parent/child there is no privilege.

The Anthonys have not answered the depositions. The protective order is to prevent the plaintiff's attorney from venturing outside of common practice.

Quite the opposite actually. The protection order is not common practise...you need to make out a basis (set out in the legislation) to be granted it.