5 ms·

Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked

Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked for or wanted it, because it deprives him of the legal basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Testimony can then be compelled under threat of contempt. If this sounds shady, that's because it is.

philwelch 14y ago
Compelling testimony isn't "shady". Besides, the defense has the power to compel testimony as well. It's in the Constitution.
- hyperbovine 14y ago
  Call it what you like--this interpretation of the Fifth Amendment seems about as much in line with what the framers intended as the supposed right of every man, woman and child in our well regulated militia to own an AR15.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    I was talking about Sixth Amendment, which explicitly gives the defense the power to compel witnesses: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The subpoena ad testificandum, the process by which the prosecution may compel witnesses, is a feature of the English common law that was well familiar to the founders. Its use in the United States comes directly from English precedent.
_delirium 14y ago
The immunity grant needed to compel testimony is also fairly limited. All they have to grant is immunity from the specific compelled statements (and evidence derived from them) being used against the witness in court; that was decided in a 1972 case [1]. The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning was that, since the 5th amendment only protects withholding statements that might be incriminating, a grant of immunity relating only to those specific statements is sufficient to make compelling them constitutional, because they then can no longer function to legally incriminate. The government can still prosecute the compelled witness in the same case, if they have other evidence. [1] An old law-review article on the case: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=llr&sei-redir=1 http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11...
tomjen3 14y ago
If anybody ever decide to do that to you, just play dumb and arrogant. The jury won't believe you and your enemy will lose.
- rdl 14y ago
  Also, it's really nice to have a bad memory. Conveniently, bad memory, scared, defensive/arrogant, and combative is pretty much how I'd feel in front of a federal court anyway, so it wouldn't be "playing".

philwelch 14y ago

Compelling testimony isn't "shady". Besides, the defense has the power to compel testimony as well. It's in the Constitution.

hyperbovine 14y ago
Call it what you like--this interpretation of the Fifth Amendment seems about as much in line with what the framers intended as the supposed right of every man, woman and child in our well regulated militia to own an AR15.
- philwelch 14y ago
  I was talking about Sixth Amendment, which explicitly gives the defense the power to compel witnesses: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The subpoena ad testificandum, the process by which the prosecution may compel witnesses, is a feature of the English common law that was well familiar to the founders. Its use in the United States comes directly from English precedent.

_delirium 14y ago

The immunity grant needed to compel testimony is also fairly limited. All they have to grant is immunity from the specific compelled statements (and evidence derived from them) being used against the witness in court; that was decided in a 1972 case [1]. The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning was that, since the 5th amendment only protects withholding statements that might be incriminating, a grant of immunity relating only to those specific statements is sufficient to make compelling them constitutional, because they then can no longer function to legally incriminate. The government can still prosecute the compelled witness in the same case, if they have other evidence. [1] An old law-review article on the case: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=llr&sei-redir=1 http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11...

tomjen3 14y ago

If anybody ever decide to do that to you, just play dumb and arrogant. The jury won't believe you and your enemy will lose.

rdl 14y ago
Also, it's really nice to have a bad memory. Conveniently, bad memory, scared, defensive/arrogant, and combative is pretty much how I'd feel in front of a federal court anyway, so it wouldn't be "playing".