Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Bruce Diven| The Monroe News

A great injustice is being perpetrated on the American people by the congressional hearings focused on bringing legal charges against former President Donald Trump. These hearings are very partisan and solely an exercise in making sure that former President Trump will be unable to gain enough support for another presidential run in 2024.

The media (who never liked Trump and were called fake news) have been willing allies in airing this prime time attack on the former president. What happened to the Fairness Doctrine of 1968? Federal Communications Commission rules stated that the Fairness Doctrine should apply to everyone.Whether you like or dislike President Trump, we have lost the balanced and fair reporting that Americans expect of our media.Shame on them and shame on the citizens of this country for not calling them out.The voters and citizens deserve better.

So lets say that I dont like you, my next door neighbor.I also have a group of other people that I find out dont like you either. If I have enough money and hate you enough, then I could buy TV air time and show video clips of you cutting off the tops of flowers at your home, kicking your dog, and putting your trash out in the street rather than on the curb.

I bet I could find a number of employees who worked at the business you ownto tell stories of the terrible things they saw at your business and get statements from the employees who were fired for no just cause. If I can spin the story over and over again linked with distasteful images, then I am able to cast doubt on your character and ruin your personal and business reputation.

Does this sound fair or legal? It is not.You have legal rights from slander and can sue me for monetary damages and/or jail time up to one year. Even in criminal cases, all Americans are able to have a lawyer and provide opposing evidence to mount a defense against your accuser. If these congressional hearings can do this to former President Trump and provide him no legal defense, then they can do this to you and me.

This isnt the first time that the U.S. government and politicians have run a similar scam on the American people. In 1938, Rep. Martin Dies, D-Texas, convened the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) to investigate alleged disloyalty and rebel activities on the part of private citizens, public employees and organizations suspected of having communist ties.The committee employed several controversial methods to accomplish its goal of ferreting out suspected communists. During the hearing, the suspected communist was grilled about his or her political beliefs and activities and then asked to provide the names of other people who had taken part in allegedly subversive activities.

Any additional figures identified in this manner also received subpoenas, widening the committees probe. Individuals who refused to answer the committees questions or to provide names could be indicted for contempt of Congress and sent to prison. Subjects of HUAC investigations had the option of invoking their right to avoid self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, but pleading the Fifth created the impression that they were guilty of a crime. In addition, those who refused to cooperate were often blacklisted by their employers. They lost their jobs and were effectively prevented from working in their chosen profession.

HUACs tactics amounted to a witch hunt that trampled on citizens rights and ruined their careers and reputations. Most people who were called before the committee had broken no laws, but instead were targeted for their political beliefs or for exercising their right to free speech.

No matter what your feelings are regarding President Trump, these ongoing congressional hearings are a threat to every citizens right to fair and equitable treatment under the law. I have had enough … how about you?

Bruce Diven, D.P.T., of Monroe is a physical therapist and a clinical and adjunct professor with Wayne State University. He can be contacted at BCDDPT@comcast.net.

Originally posted here:
Partisan congressional hearings are a threat to all citizens - Monroe Evening News

The Fourth Court of Appeals on Friday affirmed a lower courts decision denying the University of the Incarnate Words request to quash a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the 2013 shooting of a student by a campus police officer.

Brent Perry, the Houston lawyer representing the family of Robert Cameron Redus, said Friday that he was pleased with the ruling, and absent something unusual happening in the next two months, the suit can proceed.

A trial is currently set for Sept. 19 in state district court in San Antonio.

We have to go to trial, Perry said. That shooting was unjustified.

RELATED: UIW says student slain by campus officer was irresponsible

Margaret Garcia, UIW director of university communications and brand marketing, acknowledged via email Friday the court had concluded that in their opinion there are factual issues which must be presented to a jury.

She added that UIW is preparing to proceed forward with the trial.

Valerie Redus (center) joined by her husband, Mickey, fights back tears while reading aloud a journal entry from her deceased son, Cameron, during a candlelight vigil to mark the three-year anniversary of his death in front of the University of the Incarnate Word on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016.

Redus, 23, who went by Cameron, had reached his off-campus apartment building when his pickup was stopped by Cpl. Christopher Carter, who had suspected Redus of driving drunk near the university early on Dec. 6, 2013.

Carter reported that Redus fought him when he attempted an arrest, and after a prolonged struggle in which Redus got control of his baton and struck him with it he shot the student multiple times.

The appeals panel agreed that the university could not be protected by the legal immunity afforded police officers because the question of whether Carter was acting in good faith was disputed.

The universitys previous claim to government immunity because its police department was licensed by the state was also rejected, by the appeals court and later the Texas Supreme Court, during the eight years since the lawsuit was filed.

A trial will allow Carters version of the facts to be challenged, Perry said.

A friend of Robert Cameron Redus holds a program during a Jan. 13, 2014 memorial service at the University of the Incarnate Word for Redus, a student fatally shot by a UIW officer weeks earlier.

RELATED: Appeals court says UIW cant claim immunity in Redus case

Carter knew Cameron was not armed, Perry said. His statement was false. He knew Cameron never hit him with the baton.

A Bexar County grand jury in 2014 declined to indict Carter. The parents of Redus, who lived in Baytown, filed the lawsuit that year.

The appeals court ruled that UIW was not entitled to governmental immunity with respect to the actions of its police, and the Texas Supreme Court agreed in 2020, saying that private universities do not operate as an arm of the state government through their police departments.

Following that decision, UIW filed a motion for summary judgment based on Carters qualified immunity. That motion was denied, and in affirming the ruling, the Fourth Court noted aspects of Carters story that might be disputed by a recording of the fatal encounter and because under questioning, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

ezavala@express-news.net | Twitter: @elizabeth2863

Read the original:
9 years after a UIW police officer shot student Cameron Redus, the case is going to trial - San Antonio Express-News

Another federal trial is scheduled to begin in two weeks for two men accused of conspiring to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

But jurors wont be told much about their previous trial. In a final pretrial hearing Tuesday afternoon in Grand Rapids judge Robert Jonker ruled on what will and wont be allowed to be presented as evidence in the upcoming trial. One thing that jurors wont hear, Jonker said, is that two other men were found not guilty of the kidnapping conspiracy during the previous trial in the fall.

Adam Fox and Barry Croft are facing trial for the second time, after a jury deadlocked on their charges in the spring. Two other men - Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta - were both acquitted.

But the outcome of the first trial should not be part of deliberations for jurors in the second trial, Jonker told attorneys Tuesday. In particular, evidence of the acquitals for Harris and Caserta cant be introduced as evidence in the trial, though Jonker said jurors may ultimately hear about it.

Defense attorneys for both Fox and Croft tried to argue that jurors may already come to the case knowing about the prior case.

The outcome of the first trial was somewhat unusual and it did gather a lot of press, said Christopher Gibbons, an attorney for Fox.

I think it needs to come out, argued Joshua Blanchard, Barry Crofts attorney.

Jonker acknowledged that some of the potential jurors in the case could have been following it closely, and could blurt out the outcome during the jury selection process - thus informing any other potential jurors about the outcome. But, he said, that didnt mean the acquittals could be treated as evidence by attorneys in the trial.

Another complicating factor could be that Caserta and Harris could be called as witnesses in the new trial, in which case jurors would likely find out about their acquittal. But Jonker said its also possible they would invoke their fifth amendment right to not self-incriminate. In that case, jurors wouldnt hear from them at all.

Jonker also ruled on other bits of possible evidence - including texts from a confidential informant in the case to his FBI handler, and evidence that one of the FBI agents in the case was trying to launch his own business on the side. Jonker ruled that, as in the previous case, most of that information would be inadmissible in the new trial.

A total of 14 men were charged over the alleged plot to kidnap Whitmer in 2020. Of those 14, six were charged in federal court. Two of them pleaded guilty, two were found not guilty and two are being retried. Eight other men face charges in state court, and have yet to face trial.

Jury selection for the trial against Croft and Fox is scheduled to begin August 9.

Read more from the original source:
Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - Michigan Radio

Washington County prep football stars are ready for 2022 season

Highlights from players across Washington County who will be back on the gridiron this fall.

Herald-Mail Sports, Wochit

Saying there is no way to protect the community by releasing her from jail, a judge Friday afternoon declined to set bond for a mother charged with causing the abuse that resulted last week in the death of her 5-year-old son.

The ruling by Washington County District Judge Terry A. Myers means Catherine Thrasher, 30, will remain behind bars along with her boyfriend, Timothy Lee Haselden II, 33, who is also charged in the death of Thrasher's son.

Haselden was watching the boy and two of the child's siblings July 22 at Thrasher's house north of Interstate 70 and west of Greencastle Pike, according to charging documents filed in the case. The 5-year-old became unresponsive and Haselden told police he noticed a brown substance coming from the boy's nose.

He called Thrasher at work, who got a ride home. When she arrived, she called 911 regarding the boy's condition. Arriving medics found the boy in cardiac arrest and told Washington County Sheriff's Office deputies that his injuries were consistent with abuse. The boy also had a swollen head, apparently from a potential skull fracture, and there were signs of strangulation, according to court records in the case.

Previously:Washington County man charged with first-degree child abuse and death of 5-year-old boy

The boy was taken to Meritus Medical Center near Hagerstown and then to Children's National Hospital in Washington, D.C., where he died.

Haselden, who is facing charges including first-degree child abuse causing the death of a child under 13-years-old, continued to be held without bond following a hearing Monday in district court.

Thrasher continued to be held without bond this week at the Washington County Detention Center after her bond hearing was postponed until Friday. She was taken into custody at the Washington County Sheriff's Office on Monday following an interview with authorities.

She is also charged with first-degree abuse causing the death of a child younger than 13 years old, which carries a potential life sentence.

Thrasher also is charged with a first-degree count of causing abuse that resulted in severe physical injury to a child in her custody; a second-degree count of causing abuse of a child in her custody; causing sexual abuse to a child in her custody; first- and second-degree assault; and neglect of a minor, charging documents state.

Assistant State's Attorney Michelle Flores argued before Myers on Friday afternoon in Thrasher's bond hearing that Thrasher should not be released on bond.

As Thrasher looked on through a closed-circuit TV link from the Washington County Detention Center, Flores said Thrasher's charges stem beyond the fact that she is the mother of the boy. Flores said evidence shows that Thrasher was a participant in acts resulting in his injuries, which included new and old bruises over his body.

"These are not bruises from one incident," Flores said.

Flores also argued that Thrasher is a flight risk, adding that she has only lived in the area for a couple years.

"She has no ties here, no career holding her here," Flores said.

During a hearing for Thrasher on Tuesday, Acting District Public Defender Eric Reed asked for a postponement due to a potential conflict of interest. Reed and the public defender's office represented Haselden, who has past criminal cases, at his Monday bond hearing. Reed said he planned to seek a different attorney for Thrasher.

Hagerstown Attorney Robert L. Kline III told Myers during Friday's hearing that he will be representing Thrasher.

Kline requested that Thrasher be given an unsecured bond and that she perhaps be fitted with a home monitoring device.

Kline detailed Thrasher's state of mind the day her son died. When Haselden called her to report what happened to the boy, Thrasher "promptly obtained a ride home. She was the one who called 911," Kline said. "She cooperated with police later that day," he said.

That's in contrast to Haselden, who declined to provide information to authorities under this Fifth Amendment rights, Kline said.

After ordering Thrasher to be continued to be held without bond, Myers said there is no way the community can be safe with her out of jail. He said the fact that the case is a serious one is an "understatement."

Preliminary hearings for Thrasher and Haselden have been scheduled for Aug. 23 at 8:30 a.m. in district court.

A deputy who responded to Thrasher's house on July 22 said he found the boy's two siblings sleeping. He said the children were not well kept and the youngest child appeared to have lesions and/or abrasions on his face, court documents state.

At least one of the siblings had been taken to Children's National Hospital.

The sibling was released from the hospital and both siblings were in foster care through Child Protective Services, the sheriff's office said earlier this week.

Haselden is also charged with first- and second-degree rape; first- and second-degree assault; sex abuse of a minor; neglect of a minor; abuse of a child in his custody that resulted in severe physical injury; and second-degree abuse of a child in his custody.

More:
Washington County woman held in death of 5-year-old son - Herald-Mail Media

There is a lot to cover when learning about Modern History and the topic of the court order Korematsu v United States in the Second World War. Among them is the question, What did the dissenting justices think about the power of military authorities? On Quizlet and other quiz-studying sites, you will find 4 typical choices:

Of these choices, you will earn a mark if you opt-in or tick There should be limits to military action when martial law has not been declared. And this was on the grounds that the court ruling of Korematsu v the United States was racially discriminatory.

However, to make sure you can answer questions that require longer writing (if you do happen to come across them), keep reading. We will dive deep into the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and the exclusion order within the power of Congress.

First, we must look at the background context to get a complete understanding.

After the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack, the U.S War Department established military areas, which could exclude any or all Americans. This was authorized by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the basis of the Executive Order 9066 in February 1942.

The Western Defense Command responsible for coordinating the defense of the West Coast then ordered that anyone of Japanese ancestry, including non-aliens and aliens, had to relocate to internment camps.

But Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese American, refused. He believed that it was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Yet, the justices ruled that the protection against espionage by Japan was to be prioritized over the rights of Japanese Americans. Korematsu was arrested and convicted. This decision was criticized for being racially discriminatory, and the criticizers were referred to as dissenting judges.

As many as 120000 Japanese Americans were forcibly removed and confined

More than 110000 Japanese Americans were sent to relocation centers in remote portions of the country

There were 3 dissenting judges. Their names were Justice Murphy, Justice Roberts, and Justice Jackson.

He was in office as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from February 5, 1940, to July 19, 1949.

Here is a photo of him:

Who was in office as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from June 2, 1930, to July 31, 1945.

Here is a photo of him:

Who was in office as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from July 11, 1941, to October 9, 1954.

Here is a photo of him:

Justice Frank Murphy

He issued a fervent dissent. In his words, the exclusion of the Japanese falls into the ugly abyss of racism and is no different from the treatment by dictatorial tyrannies of minority groups that the U.S pledges to destroy. Simply put, the U.S, in order to defeat dictatorial tyrannies, is becoming one!

Murphy also compared the treatment of Japanese Americans with the treatment of Americans of German and Italian ancestry to highlight that race was the trigger for the exclusion order and not security.

Justice Owen Roberts

Like Justice Murphys dissent, Justice Robertss dissent acknowledges the racism inherent in the case. He does not use the term racism but recognized that Korematsu was being punished based on his ancestry.

Justice Robert H. Jackson

Justice Robert Jackson wrote that even if the courts should not have to second-guess or interfere with the orders of the military, they should not have to enforce orders if they are unconstitutional. In addition, he wrote that he would (if he could) reverse the judgment and discharge Korematsu. Here is his exact write-up:

Jackson also warned that the Korematsu precedent would likely last past the internment and the war.

His quote is as follows

Justice Antonin Scalia

Scalia said, the Supreme Courts Korematsu decision upholding the internment of Japanese Americans was wrong, on February 3, 2014, in a discussion with students at Manoa William S. Richardson School of Law.

In October 2015, he also told law students that he admired Justice Jacksons dissenting opinion the most, It was nice to know that at least somebody on the court realized that that was wrong. This was at Santa Clara University.

Mentions in Other Court Cases

Chief Justice Roberts stated that Korematsu v. the United States was wrongly decided and quoted Justice Robert Jacksons dissent. His exact words were Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, andto be clearhas no place in law under the Constitution, and the forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority.

Justice Gorsuch in his dissent of United States v. Zubaydah reiterated that Korematsu was negligent. He criticized the court for using state interest as a justification for suppressing judicial proceedings, and cited Korematsu as a reason against doing such (again).

This is a federal law (signed by President Ronald Reagan) that granted reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned by the government during World War II. The act stated that the interning acts of the government were based on race prejudice rather than security reasons and thereby, reflected a failure of political leadership.

Here are the specific stated objectives of the act:

Since 1990, surviving internees have been $20,000, which is $39,000 in 2020 value. Two offices were formed to meet the acts provision: the Office of Redress Administration and the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund.

Now that you have read this article, you know that the answer to What did the dissenting justices think about the power of military authorities? is that there should be limits to military action when martial law has not been declared. And this was on the grounds that the ruling of the Korematsu v. United States court case was racially discriminatory.

Feel free to bookmark this to come back to it as you study. And if your classmates are also looking for this studying material, share it with them! They will surely appreciate it!

I am Everett Bledsoe, taking on the responsibility of content producer for The Soldiers Project. My purpose in this project is to give honest reviews on the gear utilized and tested over time. Of course, you cannot go wrong when checking out our package of information and guide, too, as they come from reliable sources and years of experience.

Read the original:
What Did the Dissenting Justices Think About the Power of Military Authorities & More - The Soldiers Project

Daily Point Veto-override test for campaign finance

DoesSuffolk Countys public campaign financing system have the votes?Twelve are needed to override County Executive Steve Bellones veto of a bill passed by the Republican legislative majorityaimed at repealing the 2017 law.With at least two votes uncertain, the stage is set for a significant battle at Tuesdays meeting of the legislature.

Both Bellone and Presiding Officer Kevin McCaffrey say theyre cautiously optimistic their side will prevail.

One wild card has already been exposed.

GOP Legis. Rob Trottahas been outspoken against the massive impact of money on Suffolks politics and the county Police Benevolent Associations outsized influence, which he says derives from illegal dues collections from officers and banned transfers of and donations of money from the PBA.

But hes also been outspoken in opposing Bellone, on nearly everything and says Bellone himself has been an outsized beneficiary of PBA largesse.

His next move seemed unclear, but on Friday Trotta told The Point hes 99.9% sure hell be abstaining, which in this instance means siding with Bellone and public financing.

I know it [public financing]is going to cost $2.6 million, Trotta said. But were it not for the PBAs outsized influence, the last police contract could have been done with raises that matched the actual cost-of-living increase at the time, rather than doubling it. And that would have saved the county $200 million. But Im also going to rail against Bellone, who by my figuring has received at least three times as much PBA money as any other county executive."

So thats one Republican siding with the Democrats.

Last month, Legis. Al Krupski (D-Riverhead) voted with the Republican majority to end the program while Legis. Manuel Esteban Sr. (R-Commack) was the only Republican abstaining.

Krupski has said hes sticking with his opposition to public financing, and Friday McCaffrey said, with a chuckle, Manny has told me he is with me, but to be clear, that was yesterday.

If that all plays out as planned (and it has been extremely fluid), the issue will be decided by Democratic Legis. Thomas Donnelly who abstained during last month's vote.

Friday, Donnelly did not return a call seeking comment.

And McCaffrey, summing it all up, said: The one thing I know for sure is were not going to know for sure until we count the votes.

Lane Filler @lanefiller

With New Yorks Aug. 23 congressional primaries getting close, CD2 Republican challenger Robert Cornicelli is turning to a familiar face: controversial former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Cornicellis new video ad features a pictureof the candidate and Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general,standing together in dress uniforms, while Cornicellis voice-over describes himself as a trained military leader and relentless defender of freedom.

Cornicelli and the former Trump official go far back: In October, when he was briefly running to replace Rep. Lee Zeldin in CD1, Cornicelli released an endorsement from Flynn that called him a true patriot, noting that Flynn met Robert seven years ago when we worked together at the Defense Intelligence Agency. (Asked for more details about Cornicellis service, DIA public affairs said the agency does not confirm employment of current or former officers.)

By the spring, Cornicelli had switched congressional districts but still appeared to have Flynn in his camp, promoting a Facebook ad video in which Flynn, sitting informally in front of a houseplant and white window shutters, said he couldnt have been more excited when he learned Cornicelli was running for Congress.

But now, Cornicelli is running ina primary against first-term Rep. Andrew Garbarino, who is the only Long Island member of Congress seeking reelection this wild cycle. Garbarino voted for last years bipartisan infrastructure bill and did not object to the certification of the 2020 election the kinds of stances that Cornicelli is now using to question Garbarinos loyalties to the GOP and Trump.

The challengers new video says that the radical left and Andrew Garbarino do not believe in America First.

Flynn may be a useful figure as Cornicelli seeks to make that case the general calls Garbarino a RINO in that spring video and is popular among Trump fans but the strategy comes with risks.

Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI before Trump pardoned him, is a polarizing figure with a lot of baggage, including being ousted as head of the DIA during the Obama administration and calling for the military to seize voting machines after the 2020 election. More recently, the former military man pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked under oath by Liz Cheney if the violence on Jan. 6 was justified.

Mark Chiusano @mjchiusano

Credit: politicalcartoons.com/Dave Granlund

For more cartoons, visit http://www.newsday.com/nationalcartoons

Michael Dobie @mwdobie

See the original post here:
Whipping the votes in Suffolk - Newsday

Former President Donald Trump pictured at a Republican campaign event on June 25, 2022 in Mendon, Illinois. (Photo by Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images)

Donald Trump and his family were ordered to testify in the New York Attorney Generals investigation into allegations of fraudulent financial conduct by Trump and the Trump Organization. Although Trump and his children will appear for their depositions, dont expect them to say anything. The smart money is that they will assert the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer any substantive questions.

Taking the Fifth has become a familiar moniker for all types of witnesses gangsters, politicians, even lawyers and judges. Yes, in a civil trial a jury may draw an adverse inference against a party who takes the Fifth. And, combined with the substantive evidence, a verdict canbe reached against that party resulting from the invocation of the privilege. Thus, there is a significant consequence for taking the Fifth in a courtroom setting. And why shouldnt there be?A party should indeed have the benefit of the adverse partys testimony in a civil case, and the party who refuses to testify should pay the price for that refusal, even if the asserting party is resting his silence on the fundamental constitutional right against self-incrimination, which would be fully protected if it were a criminal trial. That makes total sense!

Is there or should there be a difference in a civil trial? Maybe. Typically, when someone takes the Fifth in a proceeding of interest to the public, the man on the street draws an adverse inference against him, i.e., the person who asserts the Fifth is a bad guy. Why else would he take the Fifth? In fact, Donald Trump himself has publicly articulated this commonly-held view. The mob takes the Fifth, hesaid at a campaign rally in September 2017. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Ironically, Trump himself invoked the Fifth Amendment in 1990, during his bitter and public divorce from his late first wife, Ivana Trump. The real estate mogul took the Fifth to avoid answering questions about adultery, invoking the Fifth a total of 97 times in deposition questions that were mostly about other women. And many remember Senator Joe McCarthy pushing the envelope daily during the Army/McCarthy hearings in the early 50s, actually compelling witnesses to publicly take the Fifth in order to incite the public to vilify them.

Now, though, the shoe is on the other foot the Trump family itself is under the gun. Is the ex-president concerned? Probably not. His thinking on issues like this is quite malleable. He will simply say that he and his family have done nothing wrong, and that this is a political witch hunt, like so many other witch hunts against him, and theyll refuse to play ball. Half the public wont believe him, half will. And, as long as he has his half, he wont really care what the rest think.

So, while Trump may be sui generis and thus not a particularly good model for this discussionhis taking the Fifth does squarely raise the issue: Is it fair for the public to conclude that someone is a bad person simply because they take the Fifth Amendment? Is it reasonable or appropriate to make a negative assessment about someone who asserts a core constitutional right that has been a fundamental backstop against government overreaching since the dawn of the Republic? Put differently, does the rights mere assertion imply badness or wrongdoing, however lawful it clearly may be for any individual to take that tack?

According to public opinion polling, invoking the Fifth Amendment is not necessarily an indication that someone is guilty. In a poll conducted after Trumps legal team indicated the possibility of Trump pleading the Fifth in the Russia investigation, 51% of registered voters said that when someone invokes the Fifth Amendment, it does not usually mean they are guilty, while 36% said it usually does. 42% of Democrats said pleading the Fifth usually implies the person is guilty, compared to 31% of Republicans and 33% of independents who said the same.

Heres the irony. Steve Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to even appear when he was subpoenaed by the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Had he simply appeared and asserted the Fifth to every question asked or to not produce protected documents, that would have been the end of the matter with no consequence to him other than the view that many would surely have as a result that he had, indeed, criminally participated in the riot. But he wanted to stand tall and not give an impression of weakness by relying on a constitutional right. He even says now, parenthetically,that if he has to go to jail, so be it!

Were not fans of Bannon. But doesnt it say something about how the public views decisions about someone taking the Fifth? In truth, the public has a perfect right to make that decision but is it fair? In a day when so much of our conduct has been criminalized, and with people often taking the Fifth for noble reasons such as protecting their families or themselves from personal embarrassment or their affiliations with ostracized groups is there anything bad about being a communist or belonging to the NAACP in Alabama? any thoughtful criminal lawyer will almost always counsel her client to take five.

By way of example, as a young prosecutor we sought an interview with a witness. His lawyer, a true Brahmin of the bar with total credibility, told us that his client had done nothing wrong and that the interview would accomplish nothing for us. Still, he would decline. He, indeed, said that if I were representing Jesus Christ himself nowadays, I would have him take the Fifth Amendment. Quite a statement!

But isnt there truth to what this lawyer said to us? Most thinking prosecutors today accept that almost every witnesss lawyer is totally justified in insisting on protection for a clients interview by a prosecutor. If so, why should the public draw the seriously negative inference that it typically does when a witness in an investigatory proceeding takes the Fifth? Yes, Bannon had a reason to resist invoking the Fifth he idealized himself in the martyr role as a Trump loyalist intent on fighting back against the House Select Committee. Most witnesses dont have such motivation. They and even more so their lawyers who advise them simply dont want to risk an overzealous prosecutor using an interview or testimony potentially out of context to make a case against them.

The contrast with Miranda during police interrogations is worth noting. Although police are able to get suspects to waive their Miranda rights in most cases, many suspects are advised by their lawyers not to speak to the police. Would anybody criticize the lawyer for giving this advice? Would anybody believe its bad advice, or that the suspects silence means hes guilty?

Most witnesses simply want to protect themselves and their loved ones. Why should they have to pay the price of the publics clamor against them for exercising a constitutional right? Shouldnt the public be better educated about the limited meaning of ones exercise of the constitutional right that should have no adverse consequences outside a courtroom setting? Yes, a hard-to-estimate but extremely significant number of those who take the Fifth probably have done something wrong that requires it. But what about the rest who assert it for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with being guilty?How often in common parlance do people say Ill take the Fifth when they themselves have done nothing wrong, but simply dont want to answer a question that is, for whatever reason, hard to deal with?

Joel Cohen, a former state and federal prosecutor, practices white collar criminal defense law as Senior Counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. He is the author of Broken Scales: Reflections On Injustice (ABA Publishing, 2017) and an adjunct professor at both Fordham and Cardozo Law Schools.

Bennett Gershman is a Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorneys Office, and a Special Assistant Attorney General in New York States Anti-Corruption Office.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

Read more from the original source:
If Trump Takes the Fifth, Is He Guilty? - Law & Crime

The Fifth Amendment Bills of the 1999 Constitution, from Alteration One to Alteration Sixty-Six, have been approved by the Anambra State House of Assembly for the benefit of the people.

The Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, amended sixty-six sections of the 1999 Constitution in March of this year. The amended sections were sent to all state Houses of Assembly in Nigeria for consideration as it requires two-thirds of the states in Nigeria to pass it before it becomes law, according to the majority leader, Dr. Nnamdi Okafor.

Advertisement

Among the changes were those that supported the final autonomy of the state legislature, judiciary, local government, and independent candidacy.

Speaker of the House, Right Honourable Uche Okafor read out the sixty-six alterations to the House, while the lawmakers supported it through a voice.

In his reaction, the member representing Nnewi North Constituency, Honourable Nonso Smart-Okafor, commended the House for concurring with the entire alterations as sent to them by the National Assembly , stressing that the alterations were made to capture the present realities of the country and meet the yearnings and aspirations of the people.

Honourable Uzoma Eli, member representing Onitsha South One Constituency, described it as a step in the right direction, adding that the changes will ensure that Nigeria has a progressive constitution that can guarantee unprecedented development of the country.

See the article here:
Anambra House of Assembly Passes 5th Amendment Bills - TVC News

Grand juries play a major role in the U.S. criminal justice system. And theyre very much in the news these days.

A grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, is looking into former President Donald Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in that state. Among the latest witnesses to give testimony to the grand jury was Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

In Washington, D.C., the U.S. Justice Department is in the middle of an investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and it is questioning witnesses before a grand jury as well. Most recently, two top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence were questioned in that probe.

A grand jury does not mean that the investigation will lead to any formal criminal charges, which are known as indictments. There was a grand jury that issued subpoenas during the investigation into Hillary Clintons email server, for example, but no one was charged with any crimes.

In order to understand grand juries and their work, I offer the following explanation of how federal and state grand juries are used in the U.S.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the legal basis for grand juries. In federal criminal cases, federal grand juries are made up of 16 to 23 members. They decide whether to indict someone who is being investigated, and at least 12 grand jurors need to agree to issue an indictment.

In addition to considering whether individuals may have committed a crime, a grand jury can also be used by a prosecutor as an investigative tool to compel witnesses to testify or turn over documents. Reports indicate that Special Counsel Robert Mueller used a grand jury for the latter when he investigated whether there was collusion between former President Donald Trumps election campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Grand jurors are usually chosen from the same jury pool as trial jurors. For a federal grand jury, all U.S. citizens over the age of 18 living in the federal district courts geographic jurisdiction are in the pool.

Court clerks first identify members of the grand jury pool from public records, including records of licensed drivers and registered voters.

Next, prospective grand jurors are screened, usually through questionnaires.

To be a member of a federal grand jury, a person has to be adequately proficient in English, have no disqualifying mental or physical condition, not be currently subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored). The court then randomly chooses candidates for the grand jury from this pool.

In all felony cases, there must be a probable cause determination that a crime has been committed in order for a case to move forward to a trial or a plea. Probable cause means that there must be some evidence of each element of the offense.

In the federal system, a grand jury is the body that makes the probable cause determination. In many states, like Missouri, the probable cause determination can be made either by a grand jury or at a preliminary hearing before a judge.

When there is an option for either a grand jury or preliminary hearing to determine probable cause, the prosecutor decides which one to use. For example, in the shooting death of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in 2014, the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney brought the evidence to a grand jury rather than choosing to present evidence to a judge through a preliminary hearing. In serious cases like murder, most prosecutors use the grand jury because it is usually quicker than a preliminary hearing.

Most people whose cases go to the grand jury have already been arrested. These include all of the cases in which a person is arrested while committing a crime or shortly after the crime has been committed.

In some cases, like Muellers Russia investigation, prosecutors do not have all the evidence they need to make a good case. In these investigations, a grand jury is used to help with the investigation. Once the grand jury is impaneled, the prosecutor has the ability to subpoena records and witnesses.

Subpoena power means the prosecutor can compel witnesses to turn over documents and to testify. If the prosecutor obtains sufficient evidence of a crime, the same grand jury has the power to indict whomever it believes has committed a crime.

The work of a grand jury is required by law to be done in secret, so the public has no right to know who is subpoenaed or what documents the grand jury is reviewing. Even though the grand jury work is secret, federal rules and a majority of states permit grand jury witnesses to discuss what occurred when they testified.

In some high-profile cases, witnesses subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury will talk to the press if they think it will be helpful to them. For example, when former President Bill Clinton testified before a grand jury during the investigation into Whitewater real estate investment and the affair with Monica Lewinsky, he went on national television and announced that he had testified.

The secrecy of a grand jury presents some dangers. The defendant does not know the evidence being considered, does not have a right to be present, and cannot question the evidence early in the criminal justice process.

As a result of the secrecy, the grand jury can also end up being a tool of the prosecution, and the prosecutor can choose to withhold evidence that is favorable to the accused. That is why a former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, famously said that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

These types of dangers are always present during any grand jury, and getting a grand jury to issue an indictment may be easy. But in high-profile cases, like the Russia connection to the Trump presidency and possibly the current investigation into Trumps efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia, proving wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt through a trial or a negotiated guilty plea usually proves much more difficult.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on Aug. 7, 2017.

Read the original:
How do grand juries work? Their major role in criminal justice, and why prosecutors are using them to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020...

To the Editor:

So many letters talking about criminalizing Trump when only one side of the story is coming out. The Jan. 6 hearings are all one sided. Purposely driven by House Dems and two RINOs to put as much scandalous information out to the public as possible. It can be seen in all of the negative Trump letters written in this forum that it is just an extension of what the biased media has presented. When will the media present the cross examination of these alleged crimes? Where is the due process of law stated in the Fifth Amendment? I for one would like to see an unbiased presentation of the other side of the story. If you were charged with a crime and only the prosecutor had the floor and no defense was allowed, how do you think the jury would vote? That is what we are seeing here right now.

Joe WollschlagerVillage of Hemingway

Read more:
We need to hear the unbiased story - Villages-News