New Ruling in the Freddie Gray Case Could Set a Dangerous Precedent

[DontSayBanana]

May the Creater protect us.

But has he endowed us?

Can't speak for everyone present here, but he's certainly endowed me...

[garbon]

He's been granted limited immunity as more reputable sources note. So yeah, I don't see what is the big deal here.

See, I hadn't come across that part.  Yeah, that makes things quite a bit different.  What we've got here is exactly what Beeb described- he can be compelled to testify, and his testimony won't be admissible in his own trial.

This why it is best not to pay attention to Slate articles. They tend to leave out important details.

[Habbaku]

May the Creater protect us.

But has he endowed us?

Can't speak for everyone present here, but he's certainly endowed me...

Found Languish's Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

Third sentence of the article clearly references the immunity grant.

[garbon]

Hints at it. Never explicitly mentions and led to multiple people mentioning 5th

[DontSayBanana]

Found Languish's Trump.

Of course, as near as I can figure, the scary thing is that Trump actually seems to take himself seriously...

[Jaron]

and JESUS, Tim. It is spelled 'President' not 'Precedent'.

[Capetan Mihali]

How does the state compelling the officer to testify against his comrades not violate his 5th amendment rights?

You've got no 5th Amendment rights on behalf of others, even Mom And Dad, let alone your fellow thugs in blue.  And you've got no civil 5th Amendment rights, only criminal.  I didn't read your article, but I have read the US Constitution, which you might try doing to clear up your confusion:

"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 offense 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."

[dps]

How does the state compelling the officer to testify against his comrades not violate his 5th amendment rights?

You've got no 5th Amendment rights on behalf of others, even Mom And Dad, let alone your fellow thugs in blue.

Of course, but the thought is that, in the course of testifying against the others, he would most likely say things that would incriminate himself as well.

And you've got no civil 5th Amendment rights, only criminal.

OK, now I am confused.  This is a criminal case, not a civil case.  Unless the article is even more poorly written than is the norm for many news stories.

[DontSayBanana]

You've got no 5th Amendment rights on behalf of others, even Mom And Dad, let alone your fellow thugs in blue.  And you've got no civil 5th Amendment rights, only criminal.  I didn't read your article, but I have read the US Constitution, which you might try doing to clear up your confusion:

"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 offense 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."

We weren't saying he was trying to invoke the 5th to protect anybody but himself.  The idea is that he's awaiting retrial, and his argument is that his testimony could impact his upcoming retrial and so is a violation of his rights against self-incrimination.  This was before we realized there was a deal saying that the testimony wouldn't be admissible at his retrial.

[grumbler]

Of course, but the thought is that, in the course of testifying against the others, he would most likely say things that would incriminate himself as well.

He has immunity to any evidence acquired as a result of his testimony.

OK, now I am confused.  This is a criminal case, not a civil case.  Unless the article is even more poorly written than is the norm for many news stories.

Yeah, that was a non sequitur. Then, again, CM wasn't commenting on the trial per se, but rather on the Fifth Amendment.

[Capetan Mihali]

You've got no 5th Amendment rights on behalf of others, even Mom And Dad, let alone your fellow thugs in blue.

Of course, but the thought is that, in the course of testifying against the others, he would most likely say things that would incriminate himself as well.

Well, then he invokes his Fifth Amendment protection against testifying as a witness against himself when those questions come up.  And then the parties go to chambers and fight over it outside the jury's earshot.  I've been a witness deposed and invoking various privileges against testimony.  I admit, I didn't read the thread but Tim's byline was just off-base.

And you've got no civil 5th Amendment rights, only criminal.

OK, now I am confused.  This is a criminal case, not a civil case.  Unless the article is even more poorly written than is the norm for many news stories.

Yeah, I just threw that hambone in the soup for flavor.  Since it's true, and good to know.  You may have the right not to testify about the fact you were texting away when you creamed that old lady at the criminal manslaughter trial, but it doesn't exist when her estate sues you for everything you have

[Berkut]

Of course, but the thought is that, in the course of testifying against the others, he would most likely say things that would incriminate himself as well.

He has immunity to any evidence acquired as a result of his testimony.

What I don't understand about that is how you separate evidence that comes about as a result of testimony, and evidence that came about otherwise.

If he says in testimony "then we beat him with a stick", but you have evidence he might have done so from some other source...how do you prove one way or the other where it came from? Or what about evidence that is not directly from his testimony, but that his testimony led you to - example, he testifies "Then we beat him with sticks" and that leads you to go look for some sticks you wouldn't have looked for otherwise (or maybe you would have, who knows?) and find some with blood on them.

Can you submit those sticks as evidence now?

[celedhring]

All these years of watching The Good Wife () tell me that unless you can produce an alternative source, such evidence won't be accepted in trial, and the same with evidence derived from a "tainted" first evidence.

Now a proper lawyer can pitch in. 

[grumbler]

What I don't understand about that is how you separate evidence that comes about as a result of testimony, and evidence that came about otherwise.

If he says in testimony "then we beat him with a stick", but you have evidence he might have done so from some other source...how do you prove one way or the other where it came from? Or what about evidence that is not directly from his testimony, but that his testimony led you to - example, he testifies "Then we beat him with sticks" and that leads you to go look for some sticks you wouldn't have looked for otherwise (or maybe you would have, who knows?) and find some with blood on them.

Can you submit those sticks as evidence now?

That is the risk the prosecution takes - any new evidence submitted at the second trial that was not submitted at the first can be challenged by the defense, and the prosecution will have to show that they had this evidence independent of the testimony.

That's less of a concern in a retrial, I believe, because the Prosecution really won't be introducing new evidence.  They will just have  new jury.