Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

BELLEFONTE Jim and Evelyn Piazza looked disgusted and disappointed as they sat front row for Tuesdays portion of the preliminary hearings into the death of their son,Timothy.

And defense attorney Andrew Shubin, representing former Beta Theta Pi member Nicholas Kubera, posed a question to Detective David Scicchitano that later made Jim Piazza's jaw drop.

Hes also a victim, right? Shubin asked referencing the hazing his client underwent for pledging in 2016.

Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller called it a disregard for the Piazza's.

His son has been killed, his son is dead, Miller said in a public address referring to Jims emotions in the courtroom.

Defense lawyer argues Piazza wasn't forced to drink

Tuesdays preliminary hearing came to a close in the Centre County Courthouse with at least two days of cross examinations left for the defense.

The date has not been officially decided, but Judge Allen Sinclair alluded to the proceedings continuing into next month.

A recurring theme in the hearings was for the defense to address those former Beta Theta Pi members not charged in the case.

When prompted by Rocco Cipparone, attorney for Michael Bonatucci, Scicchitano read a text message that was sent to Piazza before the rush event.

The text message sent by Kordel Davis read: Get ready to get f***** up, stipulating that Davis expected Piazza to consume extreme amounts of alcohol that night.

MORE: List of all charges the 18 former BTP brothers face

Cipparone rhetorically asked Scicchitano to point Davis out in the courtroom Davis is not facing any charges for his involvement in the case.

According to video surveillance, Davis was forcefully dismissed by his fraternity brothers when he told them to call 911 for Piazza as seen in the video footage.

During cross examination, Scicchitano agreed with Cipparone that there was no evidence Bonatucci was in the house at the time of Piazzas fall and that he exercised his fifth amendment right to forgo speaking with police.

Michael Leahey, attorney for the Alpha Upsilon chapter of the fraternity, received portions of the surveillance video not shown in court through another lawsuit.

It was Leaheys notes on the video that gave Cipparone a good faith basis that his client left the Beta house around 11:10 p.m., noting that Bonatucci is not seen in any part of the video after that time.

The video footage showed during the first day of preliminary hearings confirmed Davis presence in the fraternity and that he had seen Piazza unconscious after his first fall down a flight of stairs.

Davis joinsPenn State Football Head Athletic Trainer Tim Bream as others the defense believes should be facing charges.

Davis testimony with Scicchitano was again referenced when Michael Engle began his cross examination.

Engle is representing former Beta Theta Pi member Gary DiBileo, who he argued during his cross examination wanted to call 911 after Piazzas first fall.

Scacchiano agreed in questioning that DiBileo did not witness Piazzas fall and is never actually seen on the video footage until after Piazza was brought upstairs.

DiBileo reportedly told police that when his roommate Greg Rizzo informed him of Piazzas fall, they advocated for medical attention to be sought for Piazza.

No such call was made though, as DiBileo said they deferred the task to the executive board of the fraternity.

Engle pointed out that much like Davis, Rizzo also left the decision to call for medial assistance up to the higher ups in the fraternity and was not charged.

Listening to discussion as to why the former fraternity members waited so long to call for help leaves Jim almost shaking in his seat.

"Tim Piazza's father Jim Piazza told me yesterday walking out of the courthouse there isn't a moment during these hearings that he doesn't think about Tim and think about how much he and his wife miss him," said Tom Kline, attorney for the Piazzas.

Here is the original post:
Defense attorney of former BTP member says client also a 'victim' during Timothy Piazza preliminary hearing - The Daily Collegian Online

A former Emmaus High School teacher pleaded guilty Tuesday to unlawful contact with a minor for sending sexually explicit love letters and text messages to a 17-year-old female student.

Heather Montero, 36, of the 4200 block of South Drive in Lower Macungie Township faces one to two years in Lehigh County Jail when she is sentenced Oct. 30.

She was fired in February soon after a county grand jury recommended charges of unlawful contact with a minor and corruption of minors.

During Tuesdays court hearing, Chief Deputy District Attorney Matthew Falk told Judge James T. Anthony that the victim said the love letters and messages between herself and Montero were fantasy talk.

The victim has maintained, very adamantly, that sexual contact never occurred, Falk said.

Anthony ordered Montero to undergo a sex offenders evaluation before sentencing. Falk told the judge he would not be surprised if the victim testified on Monteros behalf during sentencing.

According to court records:

A state trooper began investigating in November 2015 after a tip that Montero was having a sexual relationship with a student. The trooper first reviewed Montero's Twitter profile and found postings and photos involving Montero and the girl.

The trooper interviewed the victim, who is now 19, and reviewed her Twitter account and cellphone. The girl said she began baby-sitting for the Montero family in January 2015 and had a close relationship with Montero.

At some point, the two began talking by text and Twitter direct messages about their attraction for each other, the girl told the trooper. The girl said the attraction never became physical, but they discussed having a relationship only after she turned 18 and graduated from high school.

Montero never testified before the grand jury, asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Falk said the victim did not want police to pursue charges against Montero, but police and prosecutors filed charges because it was the right thing to do.

mgamiz@mcall.com

Twitter @mannypantalones

610-820-6595

View post:
Former Emmaus teacher pleads guilty in love letters case - Allentown Morning Call

The Teamster chief whose members are charged with extorting a reality TV show in a case linked to City Hall will plead the Fifth if called to testify when the trial of four of his members begins later this month, a federal court filing states.

Martin G. Weinberg, attorney for Teamsters Local 25 president Sean M. OBrien, declined to comment yesterday on the disclosure made Friday by lawyers for John Fidler, Daniel Redmond, Robert Cafarelli and Michael Ross.

The issue is premature, Weinberg told the Herald. It may well be a non-issue since neither side has subpoenaed Mr. OBrien. Besides, the U.S. Supreme Court has made absolutely clear that the Fifth Amendment is the refuge of the innocent, not just the guilty.

The Top Chef trial remains slated to begin July 31 in U.S. District Court.

To date, OBriens name has not surfaced among only a handful of witnesses to be publicly identified beyond mere initials. The list does include the Emmy-nominated Bravo cooking shows host Padma Lakshmi, an international model, actress and author.

Fidler, Redmond, Cafarelli and Ross each face up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted of extortion charges alleging they physically and verbally threatened the cast and crew of a June 2014 Boston-area shoot, with one allegedly telling Lakshmi, Ill smash your pretty face, if they refused to hire Local 25 drivers.

In a December 2015 appearance on Herald Radios Morning Meeting, Mayor Martin J. Walsh, onetime head of the Boston Building Trades Council, acknowledged having personally called OBrien at the time, but would not discuss their conversation. Walsh made a guest appearance on Top Chef, causing his former chief of operations Joe Rull to raise concerns about political fallout from his pro-labor boss involvement with a nonunion TV show.

Walsh spokeswoman Laura Oggeri declined comment yesterday.

No one in Walshs administration has been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. Fridays defense motion seeks to strike evidence from the trial of extensive phone and email conversations between various employees of the Mayors office and others regarding Top Chef, including OBrien. The defense argues the conversations are irrelevant because they dont involve the defendants, but rather broader policy issues such as tax credits, labor relations, and political decision-making.

View original post here:
Teamster chief plans to plead Fifth if called - Boston Herald

Waymos dropping of three patent claims against Uber weakens its original argument for bringing the suit. Still, each side called the latest legal move a victory.

Waymo said it agreed to scale back its patent claims because Uber had halted work on a lidar design that violated Waymos patents and is proceeding with a different design. Waymo is permitted to reassert its claims if Uber returns to the design that Waymo challenged. The company said Ubers current lidar design still violates one of its original patents.

We continue to pursue a patent claim against Ubers current generation device and our trade secret claims, which are not at all affected by this stipulated dismissal, Waymo said in a statement. We look forward to trial.

In a statement, Uber said the dropping of the three claims was yet another sign of Waymo overreaching and not delivering on its claims.

Last month, Waymo received a signal from federal court that the patent claims were not its strongest legal argument in the case. Judge William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco, who is overseeing the case, urged the companys lawyers at a hearing on June 7 to drop the patent claims because youre going to lose on all these patent claims unless you pull some rabbit out of a hat.

Lately, Uber has been trying to distance itself from the actions of Mr. Levandowski, the former head of Googles driverless car project who joined Uber last year.

Waymo has said that Mr. Levandowski worked with Uber to steal proprietary information from Google before joining Uber. Waymo said Uber was aware that Mr. Levandowski had stolen files from Waymo.

Uber said it expressly told Mr. Levandowski to not bring any stolen documents to the company or apply any of Waymos intellectual property to Ubers autonomous vehicle efforts. The company said Waymos lawyers have not found the stolen documents in Ubers possession, despite extensive discovery.

The matter has been complicated by Mr. Levandowskis assertion of his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Uber said it had urged him to cooperate with Waymos lawyers and fired him when he continued to refuse.

In a separate filing on Friday, Uber said Mr. Levandowski, before invoking his Fifth Amendment right, told Travis Kalanick, then Ubers chief executive, that he had downloaded the documents from Google because he was worried that he might not receive full payment of a $120 million bonus owed to him. Uber said this indicated that his actions were unrelated to his work at Uber.

A Waymo spokesman called Ubers claim fictitious and an attempt to distract from evidence showing that Mr. Levandowski met with Uber executives within 24 hours of downloading proprietary Google information.

A version of this article appears in print on July 8, 2017, on Page B5 of the New York edition with the headline: Waymo Drops 3 Claims in Suit Against Uber on Driverless Cars.

Read the original:
Waymo Scales Back Claims Against Uber in Driverless Car Dispute - New York Times

Photo: BRETT CARLSEN, NYT

Waymo dropped several patent claims against Uber on Friday, but the two companies are still involved in a bitter lawsuit.

Waymo dropped several patent claims against Uber on Friday, but the two companies are still involved in a bitter lawsuit.

Waymo scales back claims against Uber in driverless car dispute

Waymo, the autonomous vehicle business that operates under Googles parent company, dropped several patent claims against Uber on Friday, pulling back some of its major allegations in a bitter lawsuit over driverless technology.

In a federal court filing, Waymo said it was dropping three of its four claims over Uber violating its patents related to light detection and ranging sensor technology, or lidar. Lidar is a vital component in driverless car technology, helping the vehicle detect its surroundings to navigate roads.

The case, an acrimonious battle between Waymo and Uber, spotlights the arms race surrounding autonomous vehicle talent and technology. It is especially significant for the Google unit now Waymo that spent years working on driverless car technology before other tech companies took an interest. But as Waymo searches for a way to make money from self-driving cars, many of its best engineers have left for potential competitors, carrying valuable knowledge of its technology with them.

The case with Uber, the ride-hailing company, began when Waymo filed suit in February, claiming Uber was using intellectual property stolen by one of Googles former project leaders in its driverless vehicles. That set off months of wrangling, eventually leading Uber to fire the former Google project leader, Anthony Levandowski. The case is scheduled for trial in October, with the thrust of it centered on Uber misappropriating Waymos trade secrets.

Waymos dropping of three patent claims against Uber weakens its original argument for bringing the suit. Still, each side called the latest legal move a victory.

Waymo said it agreed to scale back its patent claims because Uber had halted work on a lidar design that violated Waymos patents and is proceeding with a different design. Waymo is permitted to reassert its claims if Uber returns to the design that Waymo challenged. The company said Ubers current lidar design still violates one of its original patents.

We continue to pursue a patent claim against Ubers current generation device and our trade secret claims, which are not at all affected by this stipulated dismissal, Waymo said. We look forward to trial.

Uber said the dropping of the three claims was yet another sign of Waymo overreaching and not delivering on its claims.

Last month, Waymo received a signal from federal court that the patent claims were not its strongest legal argument in the case. Judge William Alsup of U.S. District Court in San Francisco, who is overseeing the case, urged the companys lawyers at a hearing June 7 to drop the patent claims because youre going to lose on all these patent claims unless you pull some rabbit out of a hat.

Uber, meanwhile, has been trying to distance itself from the actions of Levandowski, who joined Uber last year.

Waymo has said that Levandowski worked with Uber to steal proprietary information from Google before joining Uber. Waymo said Uber was aware that Levandowski had stolen files.

Uber said it expressly told Levandowski not to bring any stolen documents to the company or apply any of Waymos intellectual property to Ubers autonomous vehicle efforts. The company said Waymos lawyers have not found the stolen documents in Ubers possession, despite extensive discovery.

The matter has been complicated by Levandowski asserting his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Uber said it urged him to cooperate with Waymos lawyers and fired him when he continued to refuse.

In a separate filing Friday, Uber said Levandowski, before invoking his Fifth Amendment right, told Travis Kalanick, then Ubers CEO, that he had downloaded the documents from Google because he was worried that he might not receive full payment of a $120 million bonus owed to him. Uber said this indicated that his actions were unrelated to his work at Uber.

Daisuke Wakabayashi is a New York Times writer.

Go here to see the original:
Waymo scales back claims against Uber in driverless car dispute - SFGate

Two new Supreme Court decisions illustrate the point: Even conservative litigants should argue their cases so as to genuflect before the legal elites progressive faith.

Courts are supposed to apply the law neutrally. When construing the Constitution, this means they should apply the original, actual meaning of the document. Yet the Supreme Court often decides cases in ways divorced from that meaning. So it is easier to win your case if your argument accords with the social and cultural values favored among the contemporary elite.

Both Murr v. Wisconsin and Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer are further illustrations. The Murrs contended that state-authorized zoning regulations had deprived them of property rights without the compensation required by the Fifth Amendment. Trinity Lutheran Church claimed the state had denied the church access to a grant program in violation of the First Amendment.

If the Supreme Court had applied the Constitutions original meaning, both the Murrs and Trinity Church would have lost. Contrary to common illusion, the Constitutions original meaning does not always mandate results conservatives (or liberals) like.

Yet the court (Justice Clarence Thomas excepted) pretty much ignored the original meaning. It ruled for the state in Murr but against the state in Trinity Lutheran.

One reason the Murrs lost is they made a legal blunder by kicking away a grandfather clause that would have protected them. One reason Trinity Lutheran Church won was that it was seeking a government grant for the childrenthat is, to provide a softer surface for a playground.

But if you are considering which cases to bring before the Supreme Court and how to argue them, you cant overlook this: Attorneys for the church played to the legal elites progressive valuesand won. In fact, they won 7-2, carrying with them two of the most liberal justices. The Murrs, on the other hand, defied those values. They lost, 5-3, with even the three more conservative dissenters agreeing with the result.

The Murrs were in a position any progressive would find unsympathetic. They were private landowners (bad). Their land was in an area the state and federal governments deemed environmentally sensitive (worse). They had the cheek to challenge an ordinance that allegedly protected the environment (inexcusable). Their goal was to develop or sell for profit. (Enough said.)

Compare the facts and presentation of Trinity Lutheran:

Observe how many of the lefts ideological buttons the plaintiffs lawyers pushed: non-profit, recycling, mandatory government fee, poverty, disabilities, environmentand that interminably-overused mantra: community.

The lesson: Whatever your personal beliefs, if you are taking a case to Washington, D.C., it helps to ensure that your case does not floutand preferably panders tothe ideology prevalent there.

Rob Natelson is a retired constitutionallaw professor and a senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudenceat Colorado'sIndependence Institute;the Illinois-based Heartland Institute; and the Montana Policy Institute. He is the author of The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See more here:
The Supreme Court's bias for 'progressive' plaintiffs - The Hill (blog)

Former national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, through his lawyers, today invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to hand over documents subpoenaed by a Senate committee.

The Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Flynn's personal documents on May 10, after he declined to cooperate with its April 28 request in relation to the panel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to Trump campaign associates. Before the April request, Flynn said through a statement from his lawyer that he wouldn't submit himself to questioning from the committee "without assurances against unfair prosecution."

The Fifth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to refuse to testify at trial. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, according to the U.S. Constitution.

Although a congressional investigation is not a criminal matter, Flynn would still have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment with regard to certain questions that could potentially incriminate him in a future criminal case. But he does not have the right to refuse to testify before Congress altogether.

As a general matter, the Fifth Amendment applies only to testimony and does not give criminal defendants or witnesses in congressional investigations the right to refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents. But there is an exception when the act of producing a document is itself incriminating.

The fact that the content of the documents are incriminating does not give you a Fifth Amendment right not to produce them, explained Michael Seidman, a criminal law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. But the mere act of producing them can be incriminating if the government doesnt know that they exist or that you have them.

If the government already knows that certain documents exist, it could turn into a complicated legal question about whether Flynn must release them, said Seidman.

In a letter to Sens. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, and Mark Warner, D-Virginia, and the Senates Select Committee on Intelligence dated May 22 obtained by ABC News, Flynns lawyers argued that [p]roducing documents that fall within the subpoenas broad scope would be a testimonial act, insofar as it would confirm or deny the existence of such documents.

The context in which the Committee has called for General Flynns testimonial production of documents makes clear that he has more than a reasonable apprehension that any testimony he provides could be used against him, the letter reads.

Seidman said this is a standard legal strategy and that any competent lawyer would tell Flynn that if he might have a Fifth Amendment privilege he should assert it. Also, if he produces documents and makes statements, he risks inadvertently waiving his rights against self-incrimination as the Russia investigation progresses, Seidman said.

Legal experts also pointed out that if Flynn is granted immunity from criminal prosecution, then he would no longer have Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and could be compelled to answer all questions and release all documents.

In the same way that immunizing a low- or mid-level person in a crime ring can lead to fingers pointed all the way up to the Don, said Akhil Amar, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, who said the Don pun was intentional.

Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee said today that they would use all available tools to get information from Flynn, including holding him in contempt of Congress, which could open him up to criminal charges.

We're going to keep all the options on the table, Warner told ABC News.

We're going to help honor the constitutional rights but we still have to be able to get to the facts. We can't just step back and say, Oh, OK we can't get it, added Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Lankford also suggested that the committee will still try to negotiate with Flynns lawyers to get access to the information he is currently refusing to share.

Warner added that there might be a legal gray area that prohibits Flynn from using the Fifth Amendment to protect his refusal to provide documents, versus his clear constitutional right against testimony that might incriminate him.

We know there's a Fifth Amendment right on testimony but I think there's an open question on documents and we're looking into that right now, he said.

ABC News' Ali Rogin and Mary Bruce contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:
What you need to know about the 5th Amendment and ... - ABC News

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By: Elias J. Atienza

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) baffled many Republicans and others when he voted against HR3004, known as Kates Law, an immigration bill passed by the House that toughens up punishments against illegal immigrants. As noted byBreitbart,a pro-Trump website, Amash was the only Republican to vote against the law, while 24 Democrats voted for it. The bill passed 257-167.

Amash voted against the bill because it stems from a provision that denies Fifth Amendment due process to certain criminal defendants.

Amash wrote:

As its text makes clear, the Fifth Amendment applies explicitly to all person[s] within the United States, including suspected illegal aliens who are arrested, charged, and tried within the United States. The Constitution uses the word citizen in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitutions applicability is shared by the Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.

Furthermore, he writes that the bill unconstitutionally eliminates the opportunity for those charged with illegal re-entry to challenge the validity of a removal order which, in his opinion, violates the Fifth Amendment.

He writes:

If a defendant never has a meaningful opportunity to have a judge review her removal order and, under this bill, she is prohibited from challenging her removal order during the criminal proceedings for illegal re-entry, then she could be convicted of a felony without ever having had the chance to challenge whether the order to remove herwhich is an element of the crime!was legally valid. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), this would be a violation of the defendants due process rights.

The Hillsummarized the bill:

The bill includes a provision that ensures immigrants in the U.S. illegally who are charged with a serious crime are detained during their deportation proceedings. It also requires that localities comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests to detain suspects for extra time, since some jurisdictions currently dont always cooperate. The extended detentions allow immigration enforcement authorities to pick up suspected criminal immigrants from local jails.

Many people in the comments section opposed him, with one commentator saying that he should have voted for the bill and let the Supreme Court deal with the constitutionality of it. Amash hit back, writing,First, thats not how our oath of office or our system of government works. Second, the Supreme Court already has held that this is unconstitutional. Theres an opinion cited in my explanation that is directly on point.

Amash also voted against the HR3003, which was theNo Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which he claims violates several amendments of the Constitution including the 1st, 5th, and 11th. He has voted for defunding sanctuarycities in the past.

breitbartDonald TrumpFifth Amendmentfirst amendmentfourth amendmentJustin AmashKates Law

Original post:
Justin Amash Explains His Vote Against 'Kate's Law' - The Libertarian Republic

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- TV courtroom dramas have made the work of lawyers and police part of our culture.

Above all, our founders wanted to keep government power limited and out of the people's lives.

Part of making sure government stays in check is the Fourth Amendment's enshrining the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

The idea was that the founders wanted to prevent political enemies from using the government to punish opponents or others who might just be unpopular in society.

This is why to search you or your property, law enforcement usually has to get a writ of permission, otherwise known as a warrant, from a judge. Involving judges in the process was intended to spread the power to investigate and punish potenial wrongdoers among multiple branches of government.

Of course, the Fourth Amendment's key term is here "unreasonable." where law enforcement can make a case that there is probable cause to believe that someone committed a crime, warrants are quickly issued.

And, it might interest you to know that there are over 20 exceptions to requiring a warrant to do a search. These include the plain sight and exigent circumstances doctrines and they deal with situations in which law enforcement see a crime in progress or believe one is imminent.

The founders also codified rights against self-incrimination, or testitfying against youself, in the Fifth Amendment. This is where the phrase "pleading the fifth" comes from. Meanwhile, the Fifth Amendment also prevents double jeopardy-which is being tried for the same crime twice. And, perhaps most importantly, states clearly that no one shall be denied life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.

Our justice system isn't perfect of course, and people may still fall victim to corruption and incompetence in criminal investigations, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendment go a long way to securing some key safeguards of individual liberties.

(Brian Calfano)

Go here to read the rest:
Analysis: How the Constitution Limits Government Power - OzarksFirst.com

The witness, Nicholas Skidmore, pleaded guilty last month to conspiracy to commit murder and tampering with a witness in the May 27, 2016, murder of Robert Pierog.

Authorities say that on that date, Skidmore, who has yet to be sentenced, drove Yeargle, who like himself is from Littleton, and Quade Kadle, of Jefferson, to pick up the .22 caliber rifle that Yeargle later used to gun down Pierog, who previously had made controlled buys of drugs that led to several arrests by Bethlehem police.

Skidmore confessed to driving Yeargle and Kadle to the Littleton Walmart where the pair bought bandanas and plastic gloves, then to Pierogs South Main Street apartment, where Kadle lured Pierog outside and Yeargle allegedly shot him multiple times, and then away from the scene as Yeargle and Kadle disposed of the evidence.

Ted Lothstein, who with Richard Guerriero represents Yeargle, told Judge Lawrence MacLeod in Grafton County Superior Court Wednesday that he hoped the judge would allow the defense the widest latitude possible in questioning Skidmore about inconsistencies in his prior statements to investigators.

Lothstein said Skidmore said he once owned the rifle Yeargle allegedly used, but offered different ways of how he gave it to Yeargle some 18 months earlier, including for $100 cash and a small amount of marijuana and for a more substantial quantity of pot, too.

The second version was made during the proffer as part of Skidmores plea agreement with the state, said Lothstein.

He said the agreement was very generous because Skidmore could be out of prison in as little as eight years.

Lothstein questioned whether Skidmore downplayed how much marijuana he got from Yeargle because he may have learned that trading a firearm for drugs is a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison that would run consecutively with any other sentences.

The attorney also wondered whether under cross-examination by the defense, Skidmore might invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Ward said there were no inconsistencies in Skidmores statements and that it was an extreme logical leap for Lothstein to suggest that Skidmores story changed in response to advice from his attorney or because Skidmore otherwise learned about the drugs-firearms barter law.

Ward said he expected Skidmore to testify completely in Yeargles trial, adding that from past experience the specter of a prosecution witness invoking the Fifth Amendment had been used to dirty up the states witness.

Lothstein and Guerriero also asked MacLeod to suppress parts of an interview Yeargle gave to Littleton police after Yeargle had indicated he no longer wanted to answer questions and also for his Facebook records from the period immediately before and after Pierogs murder.

MacLeod took the three motions under advisement.

Yeargle is scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 13 and Kadle is set to go to trial on Feb. 6, 2018.

Visit link:
Defense to challenge credibility of state witness in 2016 Littleton killing trial - The Union Leader