Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by nobull, Jan 19, 2009.
wow I hope that he tells all then
Thats old news. It was on nancy grace last week. However, I don't understand this that LE has to give him immunity with a subpoena???
This news is from the 15th.
I just made this thread 2 on it and locked the old one.
Wow! Love the disco ball Jbean! Mesmorizing... LOL
According to the video, Florida Law states that if you are subpoenaed to testify in court in a criminal proceeding, you are granted "Use Immunity" so that nothing you testify to the witness stand can be used against you at a later date.
It's definitely a far cry from "Blanket Immunity", which is what I thought people were saying he was being offered. "Use Immunity" also allows the door to be left wide open for charges to be filed at a later date, should the State decide it has enough direct evidence on their own to indict Lee.
Works for me, he can't plead the fifth on the stand under these circumstances and he would be forced to tell the truth. I just don't see Lee taking the rap for his psychotically spoiled little sister.
Hopefully LE has enough evidence to get a conviction and won't need an of the A's to testify! Let's face it, none of them have helped LE in any way FROM DAY ONE! I can't see any of them testifying damaging evidence to sent the Princess to life in prison or to death row. Just won't happen!!!!!
To give the A's immunity would be a HUGE WASTE, JUST A HUGE WASTE!
Picture KC sitting at the defense table with Mom on the witness stand testifying against her! You think she threw sa fit in the Aug. 14th tape?? I am afraid they would have to "hog-tie" her!
really don't think she will do all that well during trial.....
I agree with you 100%
That makes more sense. I don't believe they need the A's testimony at all if the original 911 call is allowed into evidence.
I also think they have enough to charge the A's with OJ and if they do that first the immunity question becomes moot, IMO.
It actually might be worthwhile to put CA on the stand just for that very reason. I'm thinking we will see a laughing smiling KC during the rest of the trial, but when she sees CA getting on the stand the sulky, restless teen. And the jury will notice, ABSOLUTELY!!!
BTW has anyone considered the fact that if the state wishes to, they can prevent witnesses from sitting in on the trial until after they have given their testimony? The trial could be going on and the A's only way to view it would be what was on TV.
I do not envy the poor judge who has the job of keeping order in the courtroom during this trial. This trial will be the first one I have ever followed where the family for the victim and the accused is the same. Wonder who will sit where? Not being snarky, just wondering how it will all work.
If the Anthonys testify, they will probably be first, so that they can sit in the courtroom for the rest of the trial. The Petersons and the Rochas were not barred from the courtroom.
They don't have to be barred, but they can be.
I'm wondering if the defense would call them as witness'. Their testimony would only hurt their case and not help it.
I think the prosecution, if they call them, would make them the last witness' they call.
My son had to testify in a murder trial when He was in 9th grade, because of something he overheard. (my son is a good guy and was no way involved). He had to be at the court house for a few days waiting for them to call him and never got to watch any of the trial at all.
It was a real eye opener for me.. as there were 3 or 4 kids up on murder charges and the ones with public defenders got convicted and the one with the high priced lawyer got off, scott free.
I know this is a bit off topic.. but I was amazed at how nasty acting that high priced attorney was and how he treated the witnesses, Including my son who was just an innocent kid. I can imagine how the lawyers will deal with the A's and all their confusing stories and lies.
I was a juror last year and the DA had rolled all three kids into one trial because the evidence was the same.
Two kids had public defenders and one had a high priced lawyer. The only kid who was convicted on the serious charge was the high priced lawyer's kid.
On another note I learned why a good lawyer NEVER let's their client take the stand. The high priced lawyer put his kid on the stand and that pretty much sealed his fate with us. :bang:
If you want more info on this trial PM me. It would be OT in this thread or start a thread about it.
Im really unclear how all this will work with the fact that normally from my understanding witnesses are not allowed to see the witnesses prior to them testify, with it being televised and all.
I sure how if all the A's testify they won't be able to see the ones before them speak.. as it hink it would be more interesting and perhaps more honest (if you can use that word to describe them) if they didnt know what the others said.
Normally witnesses cannot attend the trial until after they testify. But usually an exception is made if the witness is an immediate family member of the victim. If they are family, usually the state will ask for an exception to allow them to attend, usually the defense doesn't object to it because of fears of jury sympathy turning to the family.
However in J. Couey's trial the defense put Mark Lunsford on the defense list and objected to allowing him to attend the trial. So he sat out the trial in the hallway.
My guess is that if the state calls any A's to the stand, they will require them to sit out the trial until after they testify.
In this case wouldn't the defense want the A's front and center to show their support for the accused even after the loss of their GD. Wouldn't that be likely to have some impact on the jury?
Separate names with a comma.