4 ms·

Are you talking about in the US? I thought we had an amendment that said that while we might be compelled to show up as a witness at court, we can't be compell

Are you talking about in the US? I thought we had an amendment that said that while we might be compelled to show up as a witness at court, we can't be compelled to testify if we think it might implicate ourselves?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I thought we had an amendment that said that while we might be compelled to show up as a witness at court, we can't be compelled to testify if we think it might implicate ourselves? It only protects you from being compelled to be a witness against yourself; because of indirect use, you can refuse testimony that isn't directly against yourself based on that protection, but only so long as you haven't been granted immunity that protects you against those derivative uses.
inetknght 8y ago
Nonetheless, there can be other evidence or witnesses
code_duck 8y ago
A victim of domestic violence would be fearing retaliation, not self incrimination.
- Simon_says 8y ago
  Well just don't mention that part.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    If and when the court removes the self-incrimination threat, usually by granting use immunity, you can still be compelled to testify. The privilege only protects against self-incrimination.
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  All people should fear self incrimination. Prosecutors don't know you, your history, or care. If they suspect they can get a conviction from anyone, they will try, regardless of their role in unrelated cases. One normal healthy human accidental inconsistency in your story can ruin you forever. Accidental self incrimination of the innocent is not to be taken lightly. Always have a lawyer present when talking to a prosecutor.
  - gowld 8y ago
    That's easily standardly solved by immunity grants.
    - squirrelicus 8y ago
      Indeed. In the case of an immunity grant, a judge will compel you to testify or throw you in jail for contempt of court iirc (ianal). But these are all things your lawyer, which you should already have long before you get an immunity grant, will tell you
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mamurphy 8y ago
You don't have to testify against yourselves, but, if given immunity, you have to testify against someone else (barring exceptional circumstances). This can put crime victims in the legal position of being forced to testify against their accuser, even if they are afraid or do not want to, under threat of contempt of court charges.
firasd 8y ago
Yes I'm talking about victims being jailed for not co-operating as witnesses. Here's an article about it: "Across the country, domestic violence victims who turn to law enforcement for help can be punished if they later decide that a criminal justice response isn’t in their best interest." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trials_and_error/2017/07/is_it_ever_appropriate_to_put_an_abuse_victim_in_jail_to_compel_her_to_testify.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trials_and_e...
testvox 8y ago
That's easy for the court to bypass though. Simply provide immunity for charges arising from the testimony.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I thought we had an amendment that said that while we might be compelled to show up as a witness at court, we can't be compelled to testify if we think it might implicate ourselves? It only protects you from being compelled to be a witness against yourself; because of indirect use, you can refuse testimony that isn't directly against yourself based on that protection, but only so long as you haven't been granted immunity that protects you against those derivative uses.

inetknght 8y ago

Nonetheless, there can be other evidence or witnesses

code_duck 8y ago

A victim of domestic violence would be fearing retaliation, not self incrimination.

Simon_says 8y ago
Well just don't mention that part.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  If and when the court removes the self-incrimination threat, usually by granting use immunity, you can still be compelled to testify. The privilege only protects against self-incrimination.
squirrelicus 8y ago
All people should fear self incrimination. Prosecutors don't know you, your history, or care. If they suspect they can get a conviction from anyone, they will try, regardless of their role in unrelated cases. One normal healthy human accidental inconsistency in your story can ruin you forever. Accidental self incrimination of the innocent is not to be taken lightly. Always have a lawyer present when talking to a prosecutor.
- gowld 8y ago
  That's easily standardly solved by immunity grants.
  - squirrelicus 8y ago
    Indeed. In the case of an immunity grant, a judge will compel you to testify or throw you in jail for contempt of court iirc (ianal). But these are all things your lawyer, which you should already have long before you get an immunity grant, will tell you
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mamurphy 8y ago

You don't have to testify against yourselves, but, if given immunity, you have to testify against someone else (barring exceptional circumstances). This can put crime victims in the legal position of being forced to testify against their accuser, even if they are afraid or do not want to, under threat of contempt of court charges.

firasd 8y ago

Yes I'm talking about victims being jailed for not co-operating as witnesses. Here's an article about it: "Across the country, domestic violence victims who turn to law enforcement for help can be punished if they later decide that a criminal justice response isn’t in their best interest." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trials_and_error/2017/07/is_it_ever_appropriate_to_put_an_abuse_victim_in_jail_to_compel_her_to_testify.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trials_and_e...

testvox 8y ago

That's easy for the court to bypass though. Simply provide immunity for charges arising from the testimony.