8 ms·

>you have a right to speak out and proclaim your innocence. This isn't so clear. You have a right to not proclaim your guilt, but you exercise that right by no

>you have a right to speak out and proclaim your innocence. This isn't so clear. You have a right to not proclaim your guilt, but you exercise that right by not speaking. The right against self-incrimination does not permit lying. The law has long recognized certain situations in which you're not allowed to lie - while making sworn testimony, while being interviewed by federal investigators, etc. People can and do go to jail for lying to the effect of "I didn't do it" even if the trial on the original charge doesn't result in a conviction. Speaking to the public in a way that influences securities prices is another one of those situations where lying is illegal.

tuna-piano 10y ago
Wow, any link to going to jail for "I didn't do it"? That almost seems like double jeopardy to me.
- superuser2 10y ago
  Scooter Libby is a big one in the last few years. His underlying crime was disclosing classified information, but he wasn't convicted of that - he was convicted for the story he told denying it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby
  - comex 10y ago
    One could draw a difference between lying about concrete facts, as Libby did, and merely proclaiming innocence in general. Though in some cases they may be difficult to distinguish.
    - nickff 10y ago
      If I were to question you repeatedly over a period of months about the same events (which were not particularly significant to you), I would expect some inconsistencies in your version of events, even if you were trying to be truthful.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Libby was not guilty of the disclosure, and the prosecutor knew it from the beginning, but kept going after him, possibly in the hope of getting some dirt on the Vice President.[1] They questioned Libby repeatedly on a subject that the prosecutor already had good information on (which vindicated Libby), until Libby said something incorrect, which contradicted a previous statement, then went after him for that. At least one of the lead witnesses has come out against the prosecution and conviction, which has been described as one of the worst cases of prosecutorial overreach in recent memory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Criticism_of_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Criticism_of_inv...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > At least one of the lead witnesses has come out against the prosecution and conviction, which has been described as one of the worst cases of prosecutorial overreach in recent memory. That description has got to be one of the worst politically-motivated distortions of reality in recent memory. At worst, the Libby prosecution was one of the worst cases of prosecutorial overreach targeting a wealthy and politically-connected white male by a prosecutor of the same political party in recent memory. Without all those restrictions, its a pretty routine display of how prosecutors go after suspected participants in organized criminal activity who they believe are protecting bigger targets.
      - nickff 10y ago
        What made this especially bad was that the prosecutor knew from the start that Libby was innocent (of disclosing Plame's identity). If that had not been the case, I might agree with you that this was comparable to a prosecutor going for leverage against a low-level criminal.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  You can just reference the Martha Stewart case from the parent. 3 of the 4 charges Martha Stewart was found guilty of were for "I didn't do it" + a conspiracy charge. That is two counts of making false statements to a federal officer and one count of obstruction of justice. All together she was guilty of planning to do something, lying about doing it (x2), and making it difficult to prosecute her. She wasn't found guilty of doing the actual thing (which if she had been truthful to the SEC likely would have only resulted in financial penalties).
- jdmichal 10y ago
  If it's a sworn statement and you lie, that's perjury. Plain and simple.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    Lying to federal law enforcement (and local law enforcement in most or all jurisdictions) is also a crime, even if you're not under oath. If the FBI knocks on your door and asks if your neighbor committed a particular crime and you say no, and then they can prove that you know he did, you can go to prison. Though I imagine that they often decide against pursuing charges in such cases.
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      That's why the only answer you ever give to ANY LEO is, "I don't speak to law enforcement without my attorney present." Not a routine traffic stop of course, unless you like being hassled.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        If you're guilty or for some reason don't want to divulge what you know (and there are legitimate reasons for that), sure. But most of us, the overwhelming majority of the time, want to see law enforcement succeed and have nothing to conceal. If there's a robbery next door, I'm going to very happily tell the cops absolutely everything I saw and heard. Edit: I'm surprised that this post is unpopular. Do you really want to live in a world where people don't help law enforcement find violent criminals?
        RHSeeger 10y ago
        The problem is that a lot of people see the police not as a group that protects the people, but one that enforces the law and/or puts people in jail. With the former, you can assume the police will "do the right thing" if possible, because they want the best outcome for the people. With the later, you can assume the well-being of the average citizen is not the concern of the police.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
will_brown 10y ago
>You have a right to not proclaim your guilt, but you exercise that right by not speaking. Your point is well received, and I am going to be a little pedantic only because I find the topic so interesting to flush out... Defendants have an absolute right to plead "Not Guilty" in a court of law to charges against them (e.g. they can't remain silent as to how they plead to the charges). So let me just acknowledge I am being pedantic, because you are referencing testifying which is separate from a defendant's plea which I am referencing. But it is still an open expression of Not Guilty in the Court, but it just doesn't waive ones right to not testify or otherwise open up a defendant for cross-examination. Further, it goes without saying we don't tack on additional charges of perjury/obstruction of justice when a defendant pleads Not Guilty to a crime for which they are later found guilty. Separately, a Defendant charged with a crime can 100% maintain their right not to testify(right against self-incrimination) with investigators and in the courts...all while simultaneously defending themselves in public without giving up those rights (though those statements could be used in the case). I think Stewart's speech was somewhat limited more than a typical shareholder/officer/director of a company facing a criminal charge. Normally being in such a corporate capacity still wouldn't trigger securities fraud for public deceleration of innocence against criminal charges. I just think in her case, as someone else mentioned, Stewart the individual is essentially the brand/value of the company. For example, Stewart likely was shareholder/board member in a number of corporations at that time but her public comments only triggered securities charges as to the one corporation synonymous with Martha Stewart when her statements of innocence really were entirely unrelated to the company (it's not like she said don't sell stock in the Martha Stewart company because I am innocent). You said it best, "this just isn't so clear".
- mindslight 10y ago
  It's pretty clear to me. Legality isn't equivalent to morality, and that principle stands whether discussing something direct like drug persecution or emergent like this particular contradiction. If such a case were decided in a way that constrained the government, the government would simply try again later with a slightly modified argument. Eventually, they would get a judge that wrote them a justification. Given the government's propensity to gradually erode rights in this manner, the Bill of Rights is best thought of as a bunch of unit tests to help determine whether the government is still legitimate. I personally think it jumped the shark a while ago, but it's your job to come to your own decision. Unfortunately, precedent-based law purports that its precedents carry the status of universal truths, rather than just the somewhat arbitrary decisions they were. So after the current contradictory system has fallen apart, many of the justifications that broke it will soon find themselves adopted by its fresh replacement.

tuna-piano 10y ago

Wow, any link to going to jail for "I didn't do it"? That almost seems like double jeopardy to me.

superuser2 10y ago
Scooter Libby is a big one in the last few years. His underlying crime was disclosing classified information, but he wasn't convicted of that - he was convicted for the story he told denying it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby
- comex 10y ago
  One could draw a difference between lying about concrete facts, as Libby did, and merely proclaiming innocence in general. Though in some cases they may be difficult to distinguish.
  - nickff 10y ago
    If I were to question you repeatedly over a period of months about the same events (which were not particularly significant to you), I would expect some inconsistencies in your version of events, even if you were trying to be truthful.
- nickff 10y ago
  Libby was not guilty of the disclosure, and the prosecutor knew it from the beginning, but kept going after him, possibly in the hope of getting some dirt on the Vice President.[1] They questioned Libby repeatedly on a subject that the prosecutor already had good information on (which vindicated Libby), until Libby said something incorrect, which contradicted a previous statement, then went after him for that. At least one of the lead witnesses has come out against the prosecution and conviction, which has been described as one of the worst cases of prosecutorial overreach in recent memory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Criticism_of_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Criticism_of_inv...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > At least one of the lead witnesses has come out against the prosecution and conviction, which has been described as one of the worst cases of prosecutorial overreach in recent memory. That description has got to be one of the worst politically-motivated distortions of reality in recent memory. At worst, the Libby prosecution was one of the worst cases of prosecutorial overreach targeting a wealthy and politically-connected white male by a prosecutor of the same political party in recent memory. Without all those restrictions, its a pretty routine display of how prosecutors go after suspected participants in organized criminal activity who they believe are protecting bigger targets.
    - nickff 10y ago
      What made this especially bad was that the prosecutor knew from the start that Libby was innocent (of disclosing Plame's identity). If that had not been the case, I might agree with you that this was comparable to a prosecutor going for leverage against a low-level criminal.
colechristensen 10y ago
You can just reference the Martha Stewart case from the parent. 3 of the 4 charges Martha Stewart was found guilty of were for "I didn't do it" + a conspiracy charge. That is two counts of making false statements to a federal officer and one count of obstruction of justice. All together she was guilty of planning to do something, lying about doing it (x2), and making it difficult to prosecute her. She wasn't found guilty of doing the actual thing (which if she had been truthful to the SEC likely would have only resulted in financial penalties).
jdmichal 10y ago
If it's a sworn statement and you lie, that's perjury. Plain and simple.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Lying to federal law enforcement (and local law enforcement in most or all jurisdictions) is also a crime, even if you're not under oath. If the FBI knocks on your door and asks if your neighbor committed a particular crime and you say no, and then they can prove that you know he did, you can go to prison. Though I imagine that they often decide against pursuing charges in such cases.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    That's why the only answer you ever give to ANY LEO is, "I don't speak to law enforcement without my attorney present." Not a routine traffic stop of course, unless you like being hassled.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      If you're guilty or for some reason don't want to divulge what you know (and there are legitimate reasons for that), sure. But most of us, the overwhelming majority of the time, want to see law enforcement succeed and have nothing to conceal. If there's a robbery next door, I'm going to very happily tell the cops absolutely everything I saw and heard. Edit: I'm surprised that this post is unpopular. Do you really want to live in a world where people don't help law enforcement find violent criminals?
      - RHSeeger 10y ago
        The problem is that a lot of people see the police not as a group that protects the people, but one that enforces the law and/or puts people in jail. With the former, you can assume the police will "do the right thing" if possible, because they want the best outcome for the people. With the later, you can assume the well-being of the average citizen is not the concern of the police.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

will_brown 10y ago

>You have a right to not proclaim your guilt, but you exercise that right by not speaking. Your point is well received, and I am going to be a little pedantic only because I find the topic so interesting to flush out... Defendants have an absolute right to plead "Not Guilty" in a court of law to charges against them (e.g. they can't remain silent as to how they plead to the charges). So let me just acknowledge I am being pedantic, because you are referencing testifying which is separate from a defendant's plea which I am referencing. But it is still an open expression of Not Guilty in the Court, but it just doesn't waive ones right to not testify or otherwise open up a defendant for cross-examination. Further, it goes without saying we don't tack on additional charges of perjury/obstruction of justice when a defendant pleads Not Guilty to a crime for which they are later found guilty. Separately, a Defendant charged with a crime can 100% maintain their right not to testify(right against self-incrimination) with investigators and in the courts...all while simultaneously defending themselves in public without giving up those rights (though those statements could be used in the case). I think Stewart's speech was somewhat limited more than a typical shareholder/officer/director of a company facing a criminal charge. Normally being in such a corporate capacity still wouldn't trigger securities fraud for public deceleration of innocence against criminal charges. I just think in her case, as someone else mentioned, Stewart the individual is essentially the brand/value of the company. For example, Stewart likely was shareholder/board member in a number of corporations at that time but her public comments only triggered securities charges as to the one corporation synonymous with Martha Stewart when her statements of innocence really were entirely unrelated to the company (it's not like she said don't sell stock in the Martha Stewart company because I am innocent). You said it best, "this just isn't so clear".

mindslight 10y ago
It's pretty clear to me. Legality isn't equivalent to morality, and that principle stands whether discussing something direct like drug persecution or emergent like this particular contradiction. If such a case were decided in a way that constrained the government, the government would simply try again later with a slightly modified argument. Eventually, they would get a judge that wrote them a justification. Given the government's propensity to gradually erode rights in this manner, the Bill of Rights is best thought of as a bunch of unit tests to help determine whether the government is still legitimate. I personally think it jumped the shark a while ago, but it's your job to come to your own decision. Unfortunately, precedent-based law purports that its precedents carry the status of universal truths, rather than just the somewhat arbitrary decisions they were. So after the current contradictory system has fallen apart, many of the justifications that broke it will soon find themselves adopted by its fresh replacement.