Taking the 5th. (discussion)?

[bluestarone]

Is it possible to FORCE answers from someone that takes the 5th? I remember something about offering immunity for themselves to ANSWER the question? (or stay in JAIL until you DO answer) Could the DOJ. pick and choose who would be the right ones to force answers. (doing this to get the BIG TARGETS) I would love to see some of these 5th amendment assholes given some type of immunity to force answers!! OR (JAIL time for whatever time they choose)

[Walleye]

1. I would expect that. We don't really know what has happened in front of the grand jury so far

[Ocelot II]

2. You have an absolute constitutional right not to answer questions

whose responses might tend to incriminate you, but once you are given immunity you are no longer in jeopardy of prosecution, so in that case you can't plead the 5th and could be held in contempt for failing to answer. Prosecutors would have to decide whether those possible answers are worth the trade-off of an offer of immunity.

[bluestarone]

6. That's what i was thinking, so

I would think that in THIS huge sedition type charge, the DOJ. would use this in the grand jury? In JAIL until answering the questions!!

[marble falls]

3. Start asking them questions, like "have you stopped beating your wife" or "ever been caught ...

... masturbating in the hall closet".

[gab13by13]

5. Fantastic,

I had to laugh out loud. Good 1. Those are Oldies.

[RainCaster]

4. The 5th can be construed as liable in a civil case

It's a great start.

[qazplm135]

7. you can get immunity

either via pardon, or a grant of actual or testimonial immunity by a prosecutor who wants your testimony more than your prosecution.

At that point, there is nothing incriminating about your answers and you can be forced to testify.

The prosecution loses their ability to prosecute based on anything you say at trial or in pretrial preparation, although, in theory, they can prosecute based on independent evidence not tied to your testimony if you are only given testimonial immunity.

In practice, this is really quite complex to pull off since you'd have to prove that you didn't have any evidence affected by the testimony.

The penalty is contempt of court and possible jail time.

[Sympthsical]

8. Only if they're offered immunity

If they're offered immunity for whatever they may say, then they can be held in contempt for refusing to answer.

Edit: To your larger point. That's precisely what prosecutors do. They weigh the value of the potential testimony against the scenario of letting the witness escape prosecution.

This is what happened in the Bill Cosby case. Paraphrasing but, the prosecutor basically offered Cosby immunity for the purposes of a civil suit, because he felt there wasn't enough evidence for a criminal one. They just wanted to get him on something. So they immunized him so he'd have to answer the questions in the civil suit, which Cosby did. He admitted to drugging women in the civil suit.

Then when criminal charges came later from a different prosecutor that he was ultimately convicted by, they basically used his testimony that had been solicited via immunity.

That's not how any of it works constitutionally. That's why Cosby was set free.

[bluestarone]

9. THIS has to be started, im thinking

When some of them start going to jail, i feel that would make a difference to others, coming to testify!

[Zorro]

10. From Michael Flynn's deposition:

Q: Who is Sidney Powell?
A: The fifth.

....

Q: Who is Rudy Giuliani?
A: The fifth.

Quite a man of honor, former Army General Flynn...

[unblock]

12. Which person committed all those crimes: Jack, Mary, bob, Susan, Donald, or mike?

The fif... waiiiit a minute...

[Igel]

15. You can't selectively answer.

If it's pertinent to the line of questioning and you answer a question, you've waived your right. Otherwise you're giving some information (presumably that helps you) and not information that would hurt you, and cut off cross-examination.

[unblock]

11. What ocelot said. To add a bit,

Accepting a pardon or an immunity deal can effectively waive your right not to testify against yourself, but only if you accept the pardon or immunity deal, and even then, only if that covers all the crimes you might be incriminating yourself for.

For instance, a federal pardon wouldn't save you from state-level prosecution, so you could still refuse to testify if the question relates to a possible state crime.

[bluestarone]

13. Do you or Ocelot believe that

This battle is so huge, that the DOJ. (special prosecutor Smith) should possibly be looking at using Immunity on certain lower level testimony, to get the 10 to 30 BIG TARGETS here? I mean really use JAIL time to force testimony!!

[unblock]

14. Prosecutors always consider immunity deals whenever there are multiple criminals

Down to just 2 people suspected of committing a crime together. Separate them, give each one a deal if they testify against the other and tell them the other one is getting the same deal, whoever breaks first wins.

Classic "prisoner's dilemma". They only really win if they both trust the other not to break.


They don't always do offer deals, because either they think they don't need to or because the testimony they get may not be worth it.

[WarGamer]

16. Or like breaking bones? or starving them?

I don't think that's in the spirit of the American Judicial System.

I could be wrong though.