Should it be a crime to plead the fifth on false pretense?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There should be. If there is evidence that you knowing refused to testify under the 5th amendment, with the full knowledge that there was no possibilty of self-incrimination, it should be considered purjury.

How many people went to prison because they were caught lying to the FBI, but thought there was no possibility of self-incrimination?

Does the name Scooter Libby come to mind? He was innocent of what the FBI claimed, that he leaked the identity of a CIA asset when they already knew who did it!

Had he taken the fifth, he could not be prosecuted for lying to the FBI!

 

[Leviticus]

Where does it say that?

It doesn't. Try reading it again!

It says that you have the right to not incriminate yourself in court or other proceedings which are under oath. If there is no threat of self-incrimination, you do not have the right to refuse to testify.

 

[progressive hunter]

At least there is the prosecutions trump card of granting immunity. Mand DA's,if they believe a witness will plead the fifth, whether due to a legitimate threat of self incrimination exists ornot, will formally grant immunity. In most states immunity can be granted at will by the DA. And in many states and in federal court if granted immunity, a witness can't plead the fifth becauce they can't be prosecuted.

even if immunity is given any person should never be compelled to speak regardless of why,,

 

[Concerned American]

if they truthful answer testimony

You cannot be compelled to testify in your own defense. It is the prosecution's job to PROVE you guilty. You don't have to give the ammunition.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

At least there is the prosecutions trump card of granting immunity. Mand DA's,if they believe a witness will plead the fifth, whether due to a legitimate threat of self incrimination exists ornot, will formally grant immunity. In most states immunity can be granted at will by the DA. And in many states and in federal court if granted immunity, a witness can't plead the fifth becauce they can't be prosecuted.

Mand?

Becauce?

Ornot?

3rd grade is tough, isn't it!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It says that you have the right to not incriminate yourself in court or other proceedings which are under oath. If there is no threat of self-incrimination, you do not have the right to refuse to testify.

Please show me where the 5th says that. please!

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 offence 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.

 

[Leviticus]

You cannot be compelled to testify in your own defense. It is the prosecution's job to PROVE you guilty. You don't have to give the ammunition.

No one said anything about a defendant being forced to testify against themselves. I was referring to witnesses being summoned to testify against someone else, and refusing to do so, under the fifth amendment, even when they were not going to incriminate themselves by doing so

 

[progressive hunter]

No one said anything about a defendant being forced to testify against themselves. I was referring to witnesses being summoned to testify against someone else, and refusing to do so, under the fifth amendment, even when they were not going to incriminate themselves by doing so

the problem the prosecution has with forcing someone is if they will tell the whole truth or screw their case,,

 

[Leviticus]

the problem the prosecution has with forcing someone is if they will tell the whole truth or screw their case,,

In most cases brought to trial, there is enough evidence that it doesn't matter.

In indiana, we have a law which says any person who knowing joins in a crime in which a felony is committed, or has prior knowledge of the original crime, can be charged with the felony. So, say three people steal a purse, which, in and of itself, would be misdemeanor. If one of them kills the victim, all three can be charged with first degree murder and face the death penalty.

 

[Concerned American]

even when they were not going to incriminate themselves by doing so

How do you know?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

When pleading the 5th, the 5th is taken with each and every question. "State your name for the record" gets the fifth, even though you know your name violated no law.

 

[Leviticus]

When pleading the 5th, the 5th is taken with each and every question. "State your name for the record" gets the fifth, even though you know your name violated no law.

Actually, most states prohibit that type of blanket use of the fifth and require you to plea for each question. In fact, in some states if you plea the fifth on one question, but choose to answer another that deals with the same subject, a judge can overrule your original plea its ver rare but can happen.

 

[pknopp]

There is no way to actually address this post. The OP claims something happens without any actual examples of it happening. Specifics are always important. How does the OP know in this imaginary scenario that something a person might say wouldn't incriminate them?

And we already have a way around this. If they aren't the actual target you grant them immunity and then they have to testify or face charges themselves.

 

[progressive hunter]

In most cases brought to trial, there is enough evidence that it doesn't matter.

then why do they need someone to testify against their will??

 

[Leviticus]

then why do they need someone to testify against their will??

Because having testimmont often helps cooberate evidence.

 

[Ralph Norton]

The self-discrimination clause of the fifth amendment is a clause that protects people from being forced to give testimony that would incriminate themselves. In a perfect world, it would only apply to people who have a legitimate threat of being incrimination if they truthful answer testimony, but there have been cases where a witness, refuse to answer quesion under the fifth amendment, essentially lying to the court, and falsely claiming that the answer would incriminate them even though it wouldn't. The law current protects people who do this from being charged with purjury, do you think this should change?

NO

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No one said anything about a defendant being forced to testify against themselves. I was referring to witnesses being summoned to testify against someone else, and refusing to do so, under the fifth amendment, even when they were not going to incriminate themselves by doing so

No one can be forced to testify against someone if they choose not to do so. I guess you have never watched "Law & Order"?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because having testimmont often helps cooberate evidence.

Testimont?

Cooberate?

You speak or read English?