Archive for the ‘Fifth Amendment’ Category

Trump Asks SCOTUS to Block Records Release to 1/6 Committee as Allies Plead the Fifth – Newsweek

Former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to prevent releasing documents to the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

Trump requested the justices to pause a decision made by a lower court allowing the disclosure of White House records while they consider his position in the case.

"The limited interest the Committee may have in immediately obtaining the requested records pales in comparison to President Trump's interest in securing judicial review before he suffers irreparable harm," Trump's attorney, Jesse R. Binnall, wrote in a court filing.

"[Former] President Trump will suffer irreparable harm through the effective denial of a constitutional and statutory right to be fully heard on a serious disagreement between the former and incumbent President," Binnall added.

According to his lawyer, Trump stated that he was in negotiations with the White House but "abruptly stopped" them after a decision had been made to release the first tranche of documents requested.

Last week, Roger Stone, a former adviser to Trump and a Republican consultant, pleaded the Fifth Amendment for every question he was asked at a deposition with the January 6 panel.

"I did invoke my Fifth Amendment rights to every question not because I have done anything wrong but because I am fully aware of the House Democrats' long history of fabricating perjury charges on the basis of comments that are innocuous, immaterial or irrelevant," Stone told reporters on Friday.

Other Trump allies who were called to testify before the January 6 committee said that they will also invoke the Fifth Amendment. Those allies include conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, and attorney John Eastman.

The January 6 committee is seeking documents that could reveal the former president's role in attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election resultsincluding his part in the "Stop the Steal" rally held before his supporters stormed into the Capitol as lawmakers were in session.

The documents requested also include schedules, speech remarks, call logs, movement logs and events that Trump attended, his communications with former Vice President Mike Pence, and all communications within the White House on January 6, according to a court filing.

Trump also wants to block the release of a draft proclamation honoring two police officers who died during the riot and other documents related to efforts in overturning the election results and his claims of election fraud, CNN reported.

In November, the House select committee's chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, said that the panel is seeking to know details of the events that unfolded on January 6.

"The select committee is seeking information about the rallies and subsequent march to the Capitol that escalated into a violent mob attacking the Capitol and threatening our democracy," Thompson said.

"We need to know who organized, planned, paid for, and received funds related to those events, as well as what communications organizers had with officials in the White House and Congress," he added.

Newsweek contacted Trump's office and lawyer for comments.

Here is the original post:
Trump Asks SCOTUS to Block Records Release to 1/6 Committee as Allies Plead the Fifth - Newsweek

She called them for help. And they killed her for it; retired commander questions police shooting of daught – OregonLive

Andrea Churna thought someone was trying to kill her when she called Redmond police for help the night of Sept. 20, 2020. Raised around cops, she did what she was asked to do when police arrived to find her armed with a handgun.

She put the weapon down, walked out of her apartment unarmed, clad in a T-shirt and yoga pants, hands up, and laid face down on the carpeted hallway floor outside her door proned out as officers at the scene described it.

None of that kept police from killing her. An officer, just 18 months out of the police academy, shot the 39-year-old mother six times with a high-powered rifle as she lay on the floor 30 feet away. She had been in obvious distress and was asking for her ex-husband.

She called them for help, said an emotional Michael Thomas, Churnas father, as he sat at the dining room table in his home in Port Orchard. And they killed her for it. This is a nightmare for us. Where is the justice for my daughter?

More than a year later, Thomas is dismissive of the process surrounding the investigation into his daughters death. Hes frustrated that nobody can tell him whether the officers involved will be held accountable for what he believes was an unnecessary and excessive use of force against an unarmed, mentally disturbed woman who had asked for help and was trying to surrender.

While any father would feel that way in his position, Thomas opinion carries a certain authority hes a retired Michigan State Police commander who in a distinguished 32-year career investigated or oversaw investigations into dozens of police shootings and homicides himself.

Ive never seen anything like it, said Thomas. Where are the charges? The facts are there. Andrea grew up in a law enforcement family. I feel guilty because her expectation was that if you called police, they would come and help.

The shooting was investigated by the King County Sheriffs Office, whose detectives repeatedly expressed frustration over the lack of cooperation of the Redmond officers and interference by their union attorney, according to sheriffs reports. They turned an admittedly incomplete investigation over to the King County Prosecuting Attorneys Office last spring. Prosecutors have declined to decide whether to pursue criminal charges against the officers pending a coroners inquest a process stalled since 2017 and currently mired in procedural knots.

Fifteen months after the shooting, the officer who killed Churna, 26-year-old Daniel Mendoza, has declined to give a statement to sheriffs investigators or be interviewed about why he pulled the trigger. Several other officers at the scene the only witnesses since there were no civilians in the hallway, no surveillance cameras and none of the officers wore body cameras were sent home that night without talking to investigators.

Police officers enjoy the same Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination as all citizens.

They were not admonished against talking to one another and most didnt provide written statements for six days, after they had all consulted with the same guild attorney. Some written statements didnt come in for months. Several officers there that night declined to sit for follow-up interviews or provide any additional information to outside investigators.

The statements that have been provided to us up to this point are not adequate or conducive for us to conduct a thorough investigation, wrote King County sheriffs Detective Sarah Gerlitz in an email to her supervisors Nov. 14, 2020, more than six weeks after the shooting.

In most criminal investigations, potential suspects are generally separated as the sheriffs detectives attempted here or otherwise asked not to speak with one another to avoid collusion or dilution of recollection. In addition, the routine practice of delaying questioning of officers involved in using force also is controversial; additional time is rarely afforded citizens suspected of violent crimes.

All of those statements are suspect, said Kim Zak, an attorney hired by Churnas parents, who are planning a lawsuit.

A review of several hundred pages of investigative reports, diagrams, crime-scene photographs and dispatch calls and logs obtained by The Seattle Times through a public disclosure request showed most of those officers continue their silence today.

This past September, after the sheriffs criminal investigation was completed, Redmond Chief Darrell Lowe announced he was launching an internal investigation into the shooting, stating that he had employed the Force Science Institute out of Illinois to provide an independent force review and analysis of the shooting.

However, FSI has been denounced by civil rights attorneys, psychologists and the Department of Justice for its methods and conclusions. A 2015 New York Times investigation pointed out that foundation consultants, in hundreds of cases involving police shootings, almost universally sided with the officer, even when the suspect was unarmed.

The results of the internal investigation are pending.

Chief Lowe, in a statement last week, stated that the Churna shooting will also be the subject of a coroners inquest. However, it rests at No. 43 in a list of 52 pending inquests into law enforcement-related deaths in King County since 2017, and it could be years before an inquest jury hears the case and the prosecutors office gets its recommendation.

Trying to rebuild

Andrea Churna had moved into the Modera Apartments in Redmond in August 2020 after moving out of her parents house in Port Orchard. A graduate of Vanderbilt University, she was a successful IT and tech recruiter who earned a six-figure salary. Churna was attempting to rebuild her life after a period where she struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder and other emotional and psychological issues, according to her family and the sheriffs investigation.

She remained close with her ex-husband, Timothy Churna, a senior attorney at Microsoft, who shared joint custody of their 7-year-old son. Tim Churna had been taking care of the boy while his mother got back on her feet after she returned to Washington after briefly living in California. While they had separated nearly six years earlier and divorced the previous year, Tim Churna said, they spoke almost daily and texted frequently.

In California, Churna had been stalked by a former boyfriend, a mixed martial arts fighter, her ex-husband said. She would obsess over it. In irrational moments, according to police interviews with friends and family, she was convinced a network of people were attempting to kidnap her and her son and force them into sex slavery.

The thing is, she recognized she might not be thinking clearly, Tim Churna said. She let me have our son full-time for a period so she could work through this. She was highly functional. She knew some of this was irrational.

It was during one of those periods that she moved home with her parents. Thomas, her father, said she wanted to be able to protect herself and thought she might feel safer if she had a gun, so he helped her buy a 9-mm Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol and taught her to shoot it.

After several months at home, feeling better and seeing a doctor, Churna moved from Port Orchard to the upscale Modera Apartments, settling into a small, one-bedroom unit on the fourth floor, with a balcony overlooking an enclosed courtyard.

The night of the shooting, Tim Churna said, he had spoken with Andrea and felt she was in crisis, according to his statement to the Sheriffs Office. He was already on his way to her apartment when she called him from her balcony.

The investigation would show that Churna a week earlier had been prescribed a stimulant similar to Adderall and possibly had ingested a months supply in just a few days. Friends who had spoken with her said she apparently hadnt slept for days because she was worried about being kidnapped.

Called police

At 9:24 p.m. on Sept. 20, 2020, a dispatcher at the NORCOM 911 center took a call from a woman at Modera who said that someone was trying to kill her in her apartment and then hung up without giving an apartment number or details. Attempts by the dispatcher to call the number back failed, and a trio of officers from Redmond responded to the call.

Officers Brian Hood, Ty Tomlinson and Evan Barnard arrived just before 9:30 p.m., and a resident let them inside the building and used his key fob to give them access to the courtyard and elevator.

The trio of officers entered the courtyard and immediately saw a woman scaling the outside rails of a balcony on the fourth floor, according to Hood. She identified herself as Andrea, saying she had called police and was outside because she didnt feel safe in her apartment.

Barnard and Tomlinson took to the stairs to the fourth floor while Hood remained in the courtyard talking to Churna.

I asked her if someone else was inside, and she said, No, but I shot at someone, " Hood wrote in a report. He immediately notified Tomlinson and Barnard, who were making their way upstairs. I also advised she may be having mental health issues, Hood said.

Hood asked Churna if she had access to a firearm. She responded yeah and, over the officers objections, ran back into the apartment. She returned to the balcony a moment later holding a black handgun.

Hoods report states that she leaned her arm over the rail and pointed the gun directly at me. The officer said he feared for his life, but that the distance was too great for him to shoot at her, so he sought cover behind a wall. Churna did not fire.

Hood radioed to dispatch and said the woman was armed.

A neighbor on the third floor directly across the courtyard from Churnas apartment, Joshi Pranav, later told King County sheriffs detectives that he witnessed the exchange.

The officer asked if she had shot and she said [she] thought she shot at someone in the apartment, Pranav said. When she came back out, Pranav was adamant that the womans actions seemed consistent with showing the officer she had a firearm, the report said.

Hood told Churna to put down the gun, which she did. It was found later on a table on the balcony. Evidence at the scene indicated that Churna had fired a single shot into the door of her apartment before officers arrived and that the gun had malfunctioned, according to reports.

Hood explained to Churna that there were other officers in the building and told her it was important that she keep her hands visible at all times.

Tomlinson and Barnard, meantime, converged on apartment 450, the first apartment on the west side of the long leg of an interior hallway shaped like a T, with the top facing north.

Their account comes from unsigned and undated written statements given to sheriffs detectives by their attorney, Lisa Elliott, in March 2021, six months after the shooting. Tomlinson and Barnard refused to be interviewed by sheriffs investigators.

Hood radioed to dispatch and the other officers that Churna had returned inside her apartment. Tomlinson, in his written statement, said he heard the front door open and a woman walk into the hallway with a gun in her hand. He said he retreated down the east hallway of the T intersection when I saw her come into the hallway opening with the gun pointed directly at me.

Tomlinson opened fire with his 9-mm Glock service handgun, firing six shots at Churna. Barnard, meantime, had run down the west hallway and believed he had come under fire as Tomlinsons rounds impacted. He fired twice toward the intersection.

Churna, uninjured, retreated back to the apartment.

Four of the rounds, apparently fired by Tomlinson, punched through a hallway wall, lodging in a closet and living room wall of an empty apartment. Another round hit a door of an occupied apartment, according to investigative reports. Evidence at the scene showed multiple bullet strikes, ricochets, shell cases and bullet fragments up and down the hallway.

The shots fired announcement sent at least six other Redmond officers and police from Kirkland roaring to the apartment complex.

Several were armed with M4 assault-style rifles and two carried ballistic shields designed to stop a small-arms bullet. Officer Mendoza, who had completed his field training just five months earlier, raced upstairs and took up a position at the intersection of the T, armed with a .223-caliber rifle loaded with a 30-round magazine.

Churna, meantime, returned to the balcony, now on a cellphone talking to her ex-husband, Tim, who was just arriving at the apartment complex.

Hood, still below in the courtyard, asked whether she had fired at the officers or if she was hurt.

No, they shot at me, she said. Hood said he pleaded with her to stay on the balcony, but again she went inside. In his report, Hood noted in his report that when she returned to the balcony, she was unarmed and holding a cellphone. He broadcast over the radio that she told him the gun was inside.

In the hallway, at least five officers crowded at the intersection and were coming up with an arrest plan. Only one officer had a less-lethal option Mendoza, who in addition to the rifle, also had a Taser.

Churna, who was 5-feet-3 and weighed 150 pounds, walked out of the apartment with her hands up. Officers ordered her to lie face down, head facing the other direction, and cross her ankles. She complied.

Several officers, using profanity, told her if she moved she would be shot multiple times. At least five officers were crowded at the top of the T, none more than 10 yards from where Churna lay waiting to be arrested.

While waiting for additional officers and a shield to move up to the female, the female started to turn her head towards us and asked, is my ex-husband here? " Barnard wrote in his statement. He said she inched around nearly 90 degrees and was reaching for the door handle when Mendoza opened fire.

Barnard and at least one other officer wrote that they feared Churna was trying to retrieve the gun.

Computer-assisted dispatch logs, time-stamped dispatch tapes and written officer statements indicated Churna was on the floor in the hallway for more than three minutes before shots were fired.

Churna was struck six times. An autopsy showed that four of the rounds tore through her left arm and shoulder and through her torso, resulting in catastrophic injuries to her arm, lungs, liver, heart, breast and spine. Officers handcuffed her and attempted first aid, but she died within minutes. The medical examiner said three of the six wounds were fatal.

One of the officers at the scene, a trainee who had been on the streets for just a few weeks, was so distraught and upset after trying to help her that his training officer took his firearms as a precaution.

Memorial balloon

Redmond police told the family and public that Churna had confronted officers with a gun and was shot.

Thomas, Churnas father, 30 years as a cop, initially believed this account and expressed concern for the officers, knowing how traumatic shooting someone can be. After obtaining a copy of the sheriffs investigation, he doesnt feel that way anymore.

Where was the de-escalation? he asked. They stood there and yelled obscenities at her and threatened her for nearly five minutes and then shot her. Why couldnt they just walk down and put the cuffs on? They knew she didnt have a gun.

Last Wednesday, on what would be his ex-wifes 41st birthday, Timothy Churna and his son planned to launch a memorial balloon in her memory. Tim Churna said the boy, now 8, knows his mothers death had something to do with her mental health, but he doesnt know that police were involved.

The boy idolizes his ex-police detective grandfather, Michael, and nobody has quite figured out how to tell him what happened yet.

Michael Churna broke down when the topic came up. She was a holiday baby, he said of his only daughter. His voice cracked and there were tears on his cheeks. We brought her home in a Christmas stocking. And he wept.

View post:
She called them for help. And they killed her for it; retired commander questions police shooting of daught - OregonLive

MARKFORGED HOLDING CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance…

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On December 17, 2021, Markforged Holding Corporation, through its wholly-ownedsubsidiary, MarkForged, Inc. (the "Company") entered into a Consent toAssignment and Fifth Amendment to Lease (the "Consent and Fifth Amendment") with1265 Main Office Subsidiary LLC (the "Landlord") and Clarks Americas, Inc. (the"Original Tenant"), which amended the lease dated by and between the Landlordand Original Tenant dated as of April 30, 2015 (as amended by the FirstAmendment to Lease dated as of July 11, 2016, the Second Amendment to Leasedated as of January 17, 2017, the Third Amendment to Lease dated as of May 21,2020, the Fourth Amendment to Lease dated as of January 28, 2021 and the Consentand Fifth Amendment, the "Lease") for the office building located at 60 TowerRoad, Waltham, Massachusetts (the "Premises"). Also on December 17, the Companyentered into an Assignment and Assumption Agreement with the Original Tenant(the "Assignment Agreement") pursuant to which the Company assumed the OriginalTenant's interest in and obligations under the Lease, effective April 1, 2022.Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meaningsascribed in the Consent and Fifth Amendment.

The Lease is for the entire rentable area of the Premises, which constitutes120,681 square feet. The Company intends to use the Premises as its new globalheadquarters. Pursuant to the terms of the Assignment Agreement, the Company'sassumption of the Original Tenant's interest in and obligations under the Leaseand the Premises shall be effective as of April 1, 2022 and will continue untilSeptember 30, 2031 (the "Term"). The Company will begin paying rent for thePremises on July 1, 2022, at an initial rate of $402,270 per month ("BaseRent"), which will increase in accordance with the schedule set forth in theConsent and Fifth Amendment, up to $492,781 per month at the conclusion of theLease. The Company's total obligation under the Lease is expected to beapproximately $67,415,630. Throughout the Term, the Company is responsible forpaying certain costs and expenses in addition to Base Rent, as specified in theLease, including insurance, maintenance costs, taxes, and operating expenses. Inaddition, the Company is responsible for paying the Landlord a security depositin the form of an irrevocable, unconditional, negotiable letter of credit in theamount of $804,540, which may be reduced to $402,270. The Lease also includesvarious covenants, indemnities, defaults, termination rights, and otherprovisions customary for lease transactions of this nature.

The foregoing descriptions of the Lease, the Consent and Fifth Amendment and theAssignment Agreement do not purport to be complete and are qualified in theirentirety by reference to the complete text of the Lease, the Consent and theFifth Amendment and Assignment Agreement, copies of which are attached hereto asExhibits 10.1 10.2 and 10.3, respectively, and are incorporated into thisCurrent Report on Form 8-K by reference.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The disclosure contained in "Item 1.01 Entry into a Material DefinitiveAgreement" of this Current Report on Form 8-K is incorporated into this Item2.03 by reference.

On December 22, 2021, the Company issued a press release announcing theassignment and assumption of the Lease for its new global headquarters. A copyof the press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein byreference. Neither Exhibit 99.1 nor any information contained therein shall bedeemed "filed" for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall eitherExhibit 99.1 or any information therein be deemed incorporated by reference inany filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of1934 except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

* Exhibits and schedules to this agreement have been omitted as permitted underItem 601 of Regulation S-K and will be furnished supplementally upon request tothe Securities and Exchange Commission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original:
MARKFORGED HOLDING CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance...

Understanding the Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent …

The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is one of the most valuable rights we have. But there is a lot of confusion about what this right entails: when can you invoke the right to remain silent? Doesnt pleading the Fifth make you look guilty? Are there any consequences? Does this right apply to searches of my phone or documents?

In this article, we answer many of those questions.

Most of uslearned about theFifth Amendment in school but here is a refresher: it is one of the original ten amendments to the United States Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights. Heres the full text:

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.

As you can see, many important criminal procedure concepts come from this amendment. Theportion in bold is what we know today as the right to remain silent, 5th amendment privilege, right against self incrimination, and other names.

There is afascinating history to be told of the various abuses in colonial America that this amendment was designed toaddress but we are going to jump ahead to the 21st century and take a look at what role the amendment plays in our society today.

If you remember only onething from this post it should bethis: innocent people can (and often should!) invoke the their Fifth Amendment protection. The Framers included this amendment to protect both the guilty and the innocent. And, in a criminal case, the defendants refusal to testify cannot be used against him. The jury is specifically instructed that they are to draw no adverse conclusions from this fact.

The Supreme Court has recognized that there may be situations where a person is innocent, but may have rational reasons to invoke the 5th. Lets take a real-life example from the Supreme Court case of Ohio v. Reiner. In that case, a father was accused of injuring his baby son, resulting in the sons death. The fathers defense was that he did not injure the baby, and that the injuries were caused by the babysitter.

The babysitter maintained her innocence. The Supreme Court said that she was allowed to assert her 5th Amendment right. The Court made it clear that innocent people are entitled to protection of the right to remain silent. In fact, that right is designed to protect the innocent.

You might be asking: if she was innocent, why did she want to remain silent? Because facts that she would have to admit to if she was questionedlike the fact that she was alone with the baby on a number of occasionscould later be used as evidence against her if someone decided to prosecute her. She was with the baby in the time frame that the injuries happened. Under these circumstances, it would be reasonable for the babysitter to fear that her statements could be used against her and incriminate her.

This kind of situation also sometimes comes up in white collar cases. For example, an administrative assistant is called to testify. That assistant is asked about filling out certain paperwork for the supervisor, who is charged with creating fraudulent paperwork. The assistant may well not want to answer the questions, because they provide part of the evidence that could be used against him if prosecutors had concluded that the assistant was in on the scheme.

But keep in mind, you cannot use the right to remain silent just because you do not want to testify. The Supreme Court has referred to this as a danger of imaginary and unsubstantial character. So for example, if you are innocently standing at an intersection and you see a car crash, you cannot refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds.

There might be. Many people fear that if they choose to remain silent, they will look like they have something to hide, or people may assume they are guilty. Unfortunately, this can be true in some cases.

This may also have other implications. If you take our administrative assistant example, the corporation he is working for may fire him if he takes the Fifth Amendment, based on a policy that employees must cooperate with investigators and legal proceedings.

As we discuss further in this article, refusing to testify in a civil case can have its own consequences too.

The consequences of exercising the right to remain silent are also different depending on whether you are a defendant or a witness. If you are defendant and choose to take the stand, you waive the right to remain silent at least on the subjects that you testified about on direct. For witnesses, there is the option to invoke the Fifth Amendment on some subjects and not on others.

Yes. Although the terms witness and criminal case naturally evoke visions of a criminal trial, the Supreme Court has long held that the Fifth Amendment applies outside a criminal courtroom.

It applies any time a person is forced to make a statement that could be used to incriminate him. A (non-exhaustive) list of situations where the Fifth Amendment applies outside a criminal trial includes: traffic stops, police interrogations, grand jury proceedings, arrests,civil depositions, civil trials, and testimony before the Unite States Congress. We examine some of these below.

Yes, you can claim your fifth amendment right in response to police questioning during a traffic stop.

Imagine you have justpulled onto the shoulderof the roadand thepolice lightsare flashing in your rear view mirror. After the officer receives your license and registration, what does he do next? Usually, the officer will ask some questionabout thereason for his traffic stop: Do you know why I pulled you over? Do you know how fast you were going? Did you know your license was suspended? Have you had anything to drink?

The officers questions are designed to elicit incriminating answers that he can use against you in traffic court. For example, if you admit you weredriving over the limit, you have confessed to speeding. The officer can testify that you admitted to exceeding the posted speed limit. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment gives you the right to refuse to answer questions like these during a traffic stop.

Yes, you can claim the Fifth Amendment following an arrest. In fact, law enforcement is required to remind you of this right by giving you the famous Miranda warnings.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that statementsmade duringquestioning of a person in police custody are inadmissible in court unless the person has first been warned by police thattheir statements could be used against them. The rationale for the Courts decision was that police custody is such an inherently coercive environment that the right to remain silent requiredan additional layer of legal protection to make it truly meaningful. Of course, whether someone is in police custody for Miranda purposes is not always obvious but that is a subject for another post.

In a typical case, police will take an arrested person they wish to question to an interview room at the station and may handcuff the person to a wall or desk. The person is clearly in custody. Before beginning the questioning, police will have the person sign a written Miranda waiver of the right to remain silent (and the right to have counsel present as well). The person has now waived his right to remain silent and his answers can be used against him.

It is usually a bad idea to waive your right to remain silent following arrest. If you wish to cooperate with police, you can do so much more effectively with the assistance of counsel.

Your case will not be dismissed. However, the prosecutors will not be allowed to use any statements you made while in custody during police questioning. This is called the exclusionary rule.

You can always refuse to talk to federal agents or the police. But remember, the 5th amendment right to remain silent is only triggered in custodial situations. If you are free to leave or stop the questioning at any time, that would not be considered a coercive setting for purposes of the right to remain silent. But, in these settings you have the right to decline to speak to agents, and there are many reasons why you should exercise that right.

Yes. The Supreme Court has held that forcing government employees to answer questions about potentially criminal conduct on pain of loss of employment constitutes compelled testimony under the Fifth Amendment. Because the Amendment only protects us against state action, the same is not true for employees in the private sector.

For a more lengthy treatment of this subject, you can read this blog post.

Yes, you can plead the fifth in a civil trial or deposition. But, whether you should or should not do so is often an issue that requires you to waive certain risks and benefits.

If you refuse to testify in a civil matter, there can be adverse consequences for the case. For example, lets say you are in a car accident and sue for negligence. But at trial, you take the 5th because you do not want to admit to drinking, which the defendants lawyer will definitely ask you about. The decision not to testify deprives you of the right to tell your side of the story, and if there are no other witnesses you can call, this may mean that you may not be able to win the case.

Also, if you invoke the Fifth Amendment during an earlier stage of proceedings, such as a pretrial hearing or in a discovery deposition, you will likely later be barred from testifying. And, in some cases, if you are the defendant in a civil case and you refuse to testify, the judge may instruct the jury that they can draw an adverse inference, which means to assume that the facts would not have been favorable to you had you testified.

Yes, you can claim the Fifth before a grand jury. Before we get into the details, recall that a grand jury is a group of 16 to 23 people impaneled to investigate cases and issue indictments. The prosecutor presents her witnesses, documents and other evidence to the grand jury and it decides if there is probable cause to indict.

So how does the grand jury implicate the Fifth Amendment? Because compliance with a grand jury subpoena is mandatory. Refusing to testify can result in a fine or imprisonment for contempt. In the language of the Amendment, you are being compelled to testify. So, the 5th Amendment right applies.

Of course, many grand jury witnesses have no need to plead the Fifth. The classic example is the man caught standing in the teller line during a bank robbery. Or, the example above with the witness to a car accident.

Other cases are not so clear. Lets say you are subpoenaed to testify about a work colleague suspected of fraud, as in the example of the administrative assistant. Might the prosecutor suspect you were in on it?

The best way to decide if you should plead the fifth is to consult an attorney with experience in grand jury matters. The attorney will review the facts, probably talk to the prosecutor, investigate the facts, and decide if you should take the Fifth.

Your lawyer may counsel you to take the Fifth even though you claim innocence. To repeat what has already been said in this post you can take the Fifth even if you are innocent, including before a grand jury. Even if you claim innocence, the government might still use your testimony against you if it can be combined with other evidence to show guilt.

Lets go back to our example of a work colleague suspected of fraud to see how this might happen. Even if you deny knowledge of his fraudulent activities, the prosecutor can question you before the grand jury about the extent of your relationship. If you admit to a close relationship, that admission could be a link in the chain of evidence used to convict you of fraud or perhaps acting as an accessory. You may therefore decline to answer questions about your relationship with your work colleague on Fifth Amendment grounds even if you claim ignorance of his alleged fraud.

Lets assume you do plead the Fifth, how would that work? If your attorney notifies the prosecutor of your intentions, your testimony may be called off. If the prosecutor does not withdraw the subpoena, you still have to appear. Federal grand juries usually sit at the courthouse and your attorney can accompany you there. However, your lawyer will not be able to enter the grand jury room itself. You should therefore be ready to assert your rights yourself with a simple prepared statement such as I decline to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds. You are also allowed to exit the grand jury room as many times as you like between questions to talk to your counsel.

In some cases, you can invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to a subpoena to produce documents. This is so because the act of production itself can indicate guilt. Here is how one federal Circuit Court of Appeals explained it:

Specifically, the act of production communicates at least four different statements. It testifies to the fact that: i) the documents responsive to a given subpoena exist, ii) they are in the possession or control of the subpoenaed party; iii) the documents provided in response to the subpoena are authentic; and iv) the responding party believes that the documents produced are those described in the subpoena.

Invoking the Fifth Amendment in response to a subpoena for documents is sometimes called the act of production privilege.

This does not mean that you can simply ignore the subpoena. You will quickly find yourself being called before a judge to explain why the subpoena went unanswered. You will have to notify the prosecutor that you are invoking your act of production privilege. An attorney experienced in investigations can be of great assistance in effectively exercising this right.

Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is available to recipients of congressional subpoenas.

Your company does not have any Fifth Amendment rights. Therefore, if a subpoena is directed to a company rather than an individual, the company itself cannot plead the Fifth. Prosecutors are aware of this and will subpoena a company rather than an individual wherever possible to avoid Fifth Amendment litigation. However, you may still be able to claim an act of production privilege (see above) if you will be the one responsible for producing the documents on behalf of a company.

Yes, the right can be waived. We have already mentioned one obvious case of waiver in our discussion of Miranda rights above that is, where the privilege is explicitly waived in writing.

Other cases are not as obvious. If a witness attempts to plead the Fifth part way through his testimony on a particular subject, it may be too late. Why? Because he is considered to have waived the right by initially agreeing to testify about a particular subject. This is sometimes referred to as selective assertion of the Fifth Amendment and it is generally not allowed. The rationale for the rule is that allowing a witness to make selective assertions of the Fifth deprives his opponent of a fair right to cross examine him.

To guard against waiver, it is often advisable to make your Fifth Amendment claim as broad as reasonably possible.

If you resist a government subpoena to testify or produce documents on Fifth Amendment grounds, the government may respond by giving you immunity as to those statements or documents, meaning it will promise not to use them against you. Because the statements or documents may no longer be used against you in light of the immunity, you may no longer have a valid Fifth Amendment claim.

There are many details to consider where the government attempts to grant immunity, and a detailed discussion of them is well beyond the scope of this post. You should consult an attorney experienced in government investigations to represent you in negotiations with the government involving a grant of immunity.

As mentioned in passing above, a defendants decision not to testify at trial cannot be used against him. If the trial is before a jury, the judge will instruct the jury that they can draw no adverse inference from a defendants decision not to testify. Here is a standard jury instruction on this point, used by many federal judges:

The defendant chose not to testify in this case. Under our Constitution, a defendant has no obligation to testify or to present any evidence because it is the governments burden to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant is never required to prove that he is innocent.

Therefore, you must not attach any significance to the fact that a given defendant did not testify. No adverse inference against a defendant may be drawn by you because he did not take the witness stand, and you may not consider it in any way in your deliberations in the jury room.

The prosecutor is also prohibited from making any comment during his closing argument about the defendants decision not to testify.

More here:
Understanding the Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent ...

When Should You Plead the Fifth? | Blogs by Steven Titus …

blog home Criminal Defense What Does Plead the Fifth Mean and When Should You Use It?

By stladmin on June 11, 2020

Cop dramas and crime shows have made most people aware of the term I plead the fifth, but few actually know what the phrase refers to. It comes from the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which outlines several laws regarding due process and how an individual should be charged with a crime. When someone declares they are pleading the fifth, they are specifically referring to how the Constitution states that no individual shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

For many, pleading the fifth is shorthand for refusing to answer a question, however it is significantly more complex than that. Pleading the fifth only applies to specific scenarios and has its own benefits and costs to defendants.

I plead the fifth often follows a question that could lead to an individual incriminating themselves in a crime. Based on the fifth amendment, this is referred to as the right against self-incrimination and protects you from accidently confessing to a crime. However, while it is a constitutional right, that does not mean it is universal.

The language of the fifth amendment is very specific and only allows an individual to refuse to testify against themselves during a criminal trial and when they are on the witness stand. While its concept may overlap with your Miranda Right to remain silent when in police custody, it does not apply to police investigations and interrogations. In addition, like Miranda Rights, it is not automatic. You must expressly state that you are pleading the fifth for the court to uphold your right.

Often, only two groups can plead the fifth:

Pleading the fifth may also apply to personal injury claims where a defendant is refusing to testify in a civil court, however this can be seen as an admission of guilt to a jury.

The founding fathers designed the fifth amendment as a legal protection against self-incrimination for defendants and witnesses. While it is an important component of our legal system, it is not always your best option. To some, pleading the fifth may be seen as a subtle admission of guilt or make a defendant seem shifty in the eyes of the jury. However, in Griffin v. California and Ohio v. Reiner, the Supreme Court determined that a jury may not infer guilt if a defendant refuses to testify. Instead, they must only base their judgments on the evidence and testimony provided, not the lack of a testimony.

Because of this, you may be tempted to plead the fifth during your trial, but you should only do this with the express legal advice of your attorney. Pleading the fifth is an all or nothing right, meaning you cannot choose to take the stand and then plead the fifth. Essentially, once you are on the stand, you are legally compelled to answer all questions asked of you by your attorney and the prosecution.

If you plead the fifth, that means you are refusing to testify in court for the entirety of your trial. Thus, you are missing out on the opportunity to defend yourself and state your side of the story. Depending on the circumstances of your case, this may be your best option. Your attorney may be able to use other witness testimonies, expert opinions, and evidence to get your charges reduced or case dismissed.

Ultimately, you should discuss your case with a knowledgeable attorney before pleading the fifth. The U.S. Constitution outlines many rights you have during a criminal trial and investigation, including the right to counsel, which is just as invaluable as pleading the fifth. If you or a loved one were arrested in Campbell County, contact a Gillette criminal defense attorney immediately. The legal team at Steven Titus & Associates, P.C. can review your case and, if we take you on as a client, aggressively defend your right to a fair trial. Call us at (307) 257-7800 to learn what options are available to you in a criminal trial in the state of Wyoming.

Read more:
When Should You Plead the Fifth? | Blogs by Steven Titus ...