Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

A prominent New Haven rabbi whos been accused of sexually assaulting a teenage boy has been ordered to testify at a civil trial. Jury selection for Rabbi Daniel Greer is set to begin Wednesday in federal court in Hartford.

A lawsuit filed last year accuses Greer, 76, of repeatedly raping and molesting a student who attended the Yeshiva of New Haven school. During that time, Greer was the rabbi, dean, and director.

The former student, now 29, is suing Greer and the school on allegations of sexual assault, infliction of emotional distress, and other claims.

The lawsuit also alleges that Greer sexually abused at least one other student.

Greer has denied the allegations and has not been criminally charged.

The rabbi invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition in the lawsuit. But a judge recently rejected his request not to testify.

Greer has been a respected member of the New Haven community. He served on multiple city boards, and played an active role in the revitalization of declining city neighborhoods. He was also a strong proponent of sexual morality.

View original post here:
New Haven Rabbi Accused Of Sexual Abuse To Testify At Trial - WNPR News

FOX43.com

'Sextortion' case fuels legal debate over phone passwords FOX43.com An extortion case involving bikini-clad models, social media celebrities and racy images has sparked an intriguing legal debate over phone security and the Fifth Amendment. The big question: Can authorities access potentially incriminating information ... and more »

Originally posted here:
'Sextortion' case fuels legal debate over phone passwords - FOX43.com

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) A rabbi accused of repeatedly raping and molesting a teenage boy has been ordered to testify at a civil trial after invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition.

Jury selection for Rabbi Daniel Greers trial in federal court in Hartford is scheduled to start Wednesday. Jurors could begin hearing evidence later in the day or Thursday.

Greer, 76, remains the principal at the Yeshiva of New Haven school. A former student at the Jewish boarding school, Eliyahu Eli Mirlis, now 29, is suing Greer and the school on allegations of sexual assault, infliction of emotional distress and other claims.

Mirlis, who attended the school from 2001 to 2005, also alleges in the lawsuit that Greer sexually abused at least one other male student. The Associated Press generally does not name people who allege sexual assault, but Mirlis wanted to come forward, his lawyer said.

Greer has denied the allegations and has not been criminally charged. New Haven police say theyre looking into a sexual assault complaint filed by Mirlis lawyer, Antonio Ponvert III.

Greer and his lawyers, David Grudberg and William Ward, did not return phone and email messages seeking comment.

According to court documents, Greer invoked his right against self-incrimination at a deposition last year. His lawyers asked a judge to bar Mirlis from calling Greer to the witness stand, but the request was denied.

Parading Mr. Greer before the jury to repeatedly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege will only serve to paint him as a criminal who has probably eluded justice in the eyes of the finders of fact, which will cause significant and irreparable prejudice in this case, Grudberg and Ward wrote in a motion filed last month, adding that Greer also would invoke his Fifth Amendment right if called to testify.

Although Judge Michael P. Shea denied the request this month, he said Greers lawyers could object to specific questions to prevent Greer from having to repeatedly take the Fifth on the stand.

Ward has questioned why Mirlis came forward with the allegations years later and did not take the matter before a rabbinical arbitration court. He said the allegations have damaged Greer, his family and the good reputation he spent years building in the community.

Greer is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School who has testified before the state legislature several times on a variety of issues, including opposing same-sex unions in 2002 before the state approved same-sex marriage. He also is a former member of the New Haven police commissioners board and a past chairman of the New Haven Redevelopment Agency.

He also led efforts to improve New Havens Edgewood neighborhood.

Greers daughter was among a group of Orthodox Jewish students who sued Yale University in the late 1990s, claiming the schools requirement that they live in coed dorms violated their constitutional rights. A federal judge disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit.

Originally posted here:
Rabbi accused of raping student ordered to testify at trial - The Seattle Times

In United States v. Apple Macpro Computer, No. 15-3537 (Third Cir. March 20), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the district court properly found appellant John Doe in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, which required him to producein a fully unencrypted stateseveral devices that had been properly seized, but which were in an encrypted state. The court rejected the appellant's argument that his decrypting of the devices would force him to violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court's proper ruling is an important one, as encryption of devices is prevalent in the digital world, and decryption by the target is more and more the best and least costly way for the government to access the data in devices seized.

Special to the Law Weekly Leonard Deutchman is a legal and technical consultant. Previously, he had been general counsel for KrolLDiscovery, which he helped build into the largest e-discovery provider in the United States, specializing in data recovery, data archiving, electronic discovery, data hosting, TAR and managed review, collections and digital forensics, with offices across the country and around the world. Before joining KrolLDiscovery, he was a chief assistant district attorney at the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, where he founded the Cyber Crime Unit and conducted and oversaw hundreds of long-term investigations involving cybercrime, fraud, drug trafficking and other offenses.

View post:
Order to Decrypt Digital Devices: A Violation of the Fifth Amendment? - The Legal Intelligencer

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The final phrases of the Fifth Amendment established the limitations on the principle of eminent domain. In the 20th century, the Fifth Amendment became most noted for its prohibition of forced self-incriminating testimony, and "I plead the Fifth" became a catchphrase for the amendment.

This application of the amendment is, however, uncontroversial and has not figured prominently in Supreme Court decisions. Much less clear is the meaning of the due process provision. A century ago, it was often argued that the Fifth Amendment prohibition against depriving an individual of liberty meant that the right to enter into contracts, which represents a liberty, is infringed when government regulations fix such things as minimum wages. This interpretation of due process has generally fallen out of favor.

Ratified in 1791

See Table of Amendments.

V ... v artiguist source, uruguay | educational institution flags (australia) | v (tv) | valparaso region (chile) | venda (south african homeland) | va'ad qiryat haim municipality of haifa (israel) | va'ad qiryat shmu'el municipality of haifa ... http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/keywordv.html

What Does the Sixth Amendment Mean? To Whom Does it Apply?, Gideon v. Wainwright, Landmark Supreme Court Cases He thought that amendment was one of the most important amendments. Others disagreed with him, arguing that because many state constitutions had their own Bills of Rights, it would not be necessary to protect citizens from abuse at the hands of ... http://www.landmarkcases.org/gideon/sixth.html

ARTICLE V State, 99 Nev. 149, at 150, 659 P.2d 878 (1983), State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 100 Nev. 90, at 104, 677 P.2d 1044 (1984), dissenting opinion, Kelch v. Director, Dept of Prisons, 10 F.3d 684, at 686 (9th Cir. 1993), Wicker v. State, 111 Nev. http://www.nevada-history.org/article_5.html

See the original post:
Amendment V - United States American History

Another small dart has been lodged in the thigh of the Fifth Amendment by the courts. A Miami, FL federal judge has ruled that defendants in a sex video extortion case must turn over their phones' passwords.

In a case being closely watched in legal and tech circles, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Charles Johnson ruled that Hencha Voigt, and another man charged with being her accomplice, must unlock phones police believe were used in a plot to extort a social-media celebrity.

He ruled that unlocking their phones would not violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination.

For me, this is like turning over a key to a safe deposit box, Johnson said.

The jurisprudence related to passwords and the Fifth Amendment is all over the place, but it seems to be leaning towards treating device passwords and pins as "non-testimonial." Other decisions have resulted in the indefinite jailing of defendants on contempt of court charges for refusing to turn over passwords. Arguing against self-incrimination hasn't found many judicial supporters, but the issue is far from settled.

Indefinite jailing may be on tap for these defendants as well. They've been given two weeks to comply with the order, with the "or else" being a stay of indeterminate length at the local lockup. The Miami judge appears to be following state precedent, citing an earlier case where the state appeals court ruled in favor of the government, ordering an upskirt photographer to turn over his password to prosecutors.

This decision will be appealed. But the decision cited by this judge appears to indicate this will only delay the inevitable. Sooner or later, this issue will have to be addressed by the Supreme Court, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. The Supreme Court frequently takes a pass on timely issues, leaving circuit appeals courts to do most of the heavy lifting. There really hasn't been enough Fifth Amendment cases of this type in federal appeals courts to press the issue. So far, the only thing that's been made clear in multiple cases is fingerprints are worse than passwords when it comes to locking law enforcement out of phone contents.

Originally posted here:
Miami Judge Says Compelling Password Production Isn't A Fifth Amendment Issue - Techdirt

On Tuesday, as the FEC case restarted in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court, Johnson's attorney said his decision not to cooperate with the government stems in part from the Swallow case.

Johnson was ordered to a 30-day jail sentence for refusing to testify and has been held in solitary confinement since he was returned to a California federal prison where he is serving an 11-year sentence for his conviction in another case.

"He had not been in this situation until after he refused to testify in the John Swallow case," Kara Porter told U.S. District Judge Dee Benson. Johnson understands that failing to respond to the FEC's demands for evidence comes with consequences, Porter said, but he doesn't trust the government.

FEC attorney Kevin Hancock said Johnson should have to explain with specificity just why he fears the government if he plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

Porter disagreed and said she wasn't aware of any requirement for defendants to "identify their fear level." Johnson, she said, has good reason for his caution. Past promises of immunity offered to Johnson by federal prosecutors in exchange for information in other cases were ignored, triggering both the criminal case brought against him and the FEC civil action, she said.

Any missteps or statement he makes could be seen as inconsistent by government attorneys and grounds for new criminal charges.

"Mr. Johnson is understandably skeptical about the federal government's intentions toward him," Porter said.

Swallow's attorney Scott C. Williams told Benson he believes Johnson has cause for concern. The FEC case, he told Benson, is based largely on supposedly confidential statements Johnson was "incentivized" to make in 2013 interviews with state and federal agents investigating alleged acts of corruption by Swallow and his predecessor Mark Shurtleff.

Since then, Johnson has told the Swallow defense team that his statements to agents are "not reliable" and that if deposed or called to testify he would deny that Swallow had aided and abetted him in any election-fraud scheme.

Benson sided with the FEC's attorneys, however, ordering Porter to file a response to the government's motions for evidence that offers some explanation of Johnson's refusals.

Johnson and Swallow have denied involvement in any scheme or effort to illegally bundle campaign contributions.

FEC attorneys say the funds went to the campaigns of U.S. Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Harry Reid, D-Nev., as well as Shurtleff during the 2009-2010 election cycle.

Court papers say all the money came from Johnson, once a successful internet marketer, who was directed by Swallow to push the money through conduit contributors.

Under FEC rules, individual campaign contributions are capped at $2,400.

On Tuesday the FEC said it is preparing subpoenas for each of the individuals they believe were repaid by Johnson or his companies for making contributions.

jdobner@sltrib.com

See the original post:
Jeremy Johnson to invoke Fifth Amendment in campaign scheme lawsuit - Salt Lake Tribune

Anthony Levandowski, the Uber executive and former Waymo employee at the center of a trade-secrets lawsuit between the two firms, wont be able to use the Fifth Amendments protections against self-incrimination to prevent Uber from turning over documents in the case, an appellate court ruled today.

Levandowski is the key figure in the suit that Waymo, the self-driving car unit spun off by Google parent Alphabet, filed in February. Waymo has accused Levandowski of stealing 14,000 files, amounting to 9.7 gigabytes of highly confidential data, before leaving the company in January 2016. He went on to start Otto, a driverless trucking startup that was acquired by Uber last year for $680 million.

Waymo alleges that Levandowski started talking with Uber about forming a self-driving car startup Uber would be interested in buying as early as mid-2015. It has urged the court to bar him from any work related to Ubers self-driving-car efforts.

Levandowski isnt a named defendant in the suitthose are Uber and Ottobut as a central figure he has retained his own counsel. In late March, Levandowski invoked the Fifth because of the potential for criminal action, precluding Uber from disclosing certain information requested by the court.

After multiple appeals, the court denied Levandowskis request as it applies to the documents sought from Uber. We are not persuaded that the district court erred in its ruling requiring defendants to produce an unredacted privilege log, states an order from the US court of appeals for the federal circuit, according to a copy viewed by Quartz. The unredacted privilege log is the evidence the court ordered Uber to produce and which Levandowski said could potentially incriminate him.

Mr. Levandowski has therefore failed to establish that he has a clear and indisputable right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the order concludes.

Levandowskis failed bid to use the Fifth here could prove very bad for Uber if it forces the company to serve up incriminating documents. Even without those documents, William Alsup, the federal judge overseeing the case, has called Waymos case against Uber extraordinary, saying earlier this month, I have never seen a record this strong in 42 years.

Correction: An earlier version of this story suggested the court denied Levandowskis ability to take the Fifth Amendment; what it specifically rejected was the argument that his Fifth Amendment rights should preclude Uber from turning over potentially incriminating documents sought in the case.

Read next: Waymo is hitting Uber where it hurts

Originally posted here:
The Uber engineer accused of stealing 14000 documents from Waymo can't use the Fifth Amendment to stop Uber from ... - Quartz

Invoking the Fifth Amendment wont protect Auditor General Frank Mautino from House Joint Resolution 9, Rep. Grant Wehrli (R-Naperville) said after the State Board of Elections hearing on Mautino recently.

Today we heard that his Fifth Amendment rights were invoked in response to a State Board of Elections subpoena, Wehrli told the Edgar County Watchdogs (ECW), a government oversight group. That should tell us everything we need to know about the ethics of Mr. Frank Mautino.

Wehrli said a bill to force Mautinos ouster is currently in the General Assembly.

I think its time for Frank Mautino to resign, he said. House Joint Resolution 9 was filed back in January; it calls for his resignation. It would give him the opportunity to come forward and answer these questions questions that he has had multiple, multiple opportunities to answer, and he simply decides not to.

The scandal surrounding Mautinos campaign contribution spending began in January 2016 after the Illinois Times reported that Mautino had continued to collect campaign donations between his appointment to the auditor general post in October 2015 and assuming the position on Jan. 1, 2016.

The ECW, intrigued by the story and the campaigns explanation that the donations were used to pay for office expenses and close up shop, conducted an investigation of Mautinos campaign spending, reviewing data in his Campaign Disclosure Expenditure List. The group found that the campaign had paid more than $213,000 to one service station for fuel and repairs between March 2005 and December 2015.

The campaign also wrote checks totaling a similar amount to Spring Valley City Bank, which the campaign said was a method to get cash for campaign-related payments, but no receipts for those payments have been provided.

Illinois resident David Cooke submitted a complaint to the State Board of Elections that led to that bodys investigation and the recent hearing. Mautinos campaign contribution spending is also now the subject of a federal investigation.

Despite mounting evidence of suspicious spending, Mautino has not answered questions to ease the concerns of some lawmakers and Illinoisans, culminating in his invoking Fifth Amendment protections at the State Board of Elections hearing. While Mautino has refused to offer explanations, his supporters, including Speaker of the House Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), have maintained that a full review of the case will prove his innocence.

One of the things that Speaker Madigan said was that Frank Mautino would be vindicated once all evidence was out there, and now here today we heard that Frank Mautino invoked his Fifth Amendment [rights] in response to a subpoena, Wehrli said. So, I dont know how were ever going to get to the bottom of this if Frank wont even testify on his own behalf.

The ECW pointed out in its interview with Wehrli, who was accompanied by fellow Mautino critic Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), that the documents presented in the hearing have been sealed, even though the hearing itself was open.

It once again just makes me question the transparency of all of this, Wehrli said. These records should be public. This was a public hearing in which documents were provided. Those records should absolutely be a matter of public record. Now, as of today [] Im not a lawyer, but they should be.

Wehrli has also pushed for greater transparency in campaign spending through House Bill 0415, which would require copies or images of receipts to be submitted along with expenditure reports. At the hearing, Wehrli and Ives were the only two of the states 118 representatives to have their campaign reporting brought to the table.

You know youre over the target when youre taking flak, Wehrli said. That was a shot right at us [], but its simply a low form of intimidation, and it wont stick. If we can get the speaker to get HB 415 out of Rules and get that as law, then all of this goes away because everything will be out there for all to see.

Here is the original post:
Fifth Amendment won't save Mautino, Wehrli argues - DuPage Policy Journal

If the police pull you over, it is your constitutional right to refuse to answer questions from the police, but does it violate the Constitution if they retaliate against you to punish you for refusing to answer their questions? That is the question at the center of case that went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, Alexander v. City of Round Rock.

Orin Kerr, the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, took a look at the 5th Circuits decision for the Washington Post, and he writes that the court ruled while retaliation against a person for refusing to answer police questions may violate the Fourth Amendment, it does not clearly violate the First Amendment, and it does not violate the Fifth Amendment.

Kerr believes the courts ruling on the Fifth Amendment is missing some key complications, and he wrote about why its a tricky issue.

According to the facts presented in the case, Lionel Alexander was pulled over by police and declined to answer their questions. In response to that, police retaliated by ordering him out of his car and then pinning him face down onto the ground. Other officers joined in, and one officer pressed a a boot or knee on the back of Alexanders neck as his face was pressed into the concrete.

Alexander was then handcuffed, and an officer asked, Are you ready to talk to me now? to which Alexander responded with an expletive. Police then shackled his legs, and at that point he was arrested. According to the police report, Alexander was arrested for obstructing a police officer.

From the Post:

Alexander filed a civil suit against the officers and the municipality (collectively, the officers). The district court rejected the civil suit, and the 5th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, in an opinion by Judge Edith Brown Clement joined by Judge Jerry Smith and Judge Leslie Southwick.

The 5th Circuits new decision makes several rulings against the officers in the case. It rules that Alexander has stated a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention and arrest; that qualified immunity should not apply to those claims; and that Alexander has stated a claim for excessive force.

Alexanders suit claimed that the officers retaliated against him for refusing to speak to them, and said retaliation violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his First Amendment rights. The 5th Circuit disagreed and ruled that any retaliation could not violate his Fifth Amendment right and any First Amendment claim was barred by qualified immunity.

Kerr says that the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in three different ways to do three different things that are all justified by the same constitutional text that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

More:

The first is a right a person can assert not to be compelled by threat of legal punishment to say something that would expose them to criminal liability. The second is a right not to have forced confessions admitted in a criminal proceeding. The third is a right to get warnings in custody and to be able to call off interrogations. Theyre all in the same ballpark in a broad sense. They all deal with government questioning under pressure. But theyre three distinct rights with three distinct histories.

Kerr disagrees with the 5th Circuits ruling on the Fifth Amendment in Alexanders case because it says the Fifth Amendment applies only in custodial interrogation which applies to the third definition of the amendment, or the Miranda right. Because Alexanders case doesnt include a Miranda claim, Kerr says that cant be a strong basis for the courts ruling.

Kerr comes to the conclusion that perhaps the idea that you have a right to remain silent is inaccurate, and that there are difficult issues lurking in the courts Fifth Amendment ruling that didnt come out in the short passage in the opinion.

This is an interesting case to look at, and Kerrs analysis goes into greater detail than I can put into this post, so its worth giving a read.

This ruling is especially timely at a time when our countrys attorney general is looking to police more power while simultaneously stripping protections from everyday citizens.

Understand what you can and cannot do during a police stop is likely to become much more important as this administration rolls on.

Read more at the Washington Post.

View post:
You Have the Right to Remain Silent, But Can the Police Retaliate Against You For It? - The Root