Replies

So I put and pasted your reply in post #4x into Google AI and it initially indicated your comment seemed to have merit. But then I asked about the simple caveat it gave in it's first answer and it basically gave the answer I expected. Here's your input and Google AIs response:

Because the communication must be self-incriminating, an individual who has received immunity cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment as a basis for refusing to answer questions; any statements would not be incriminating because the immunity prevents the government from using those statements (or any evidence derived from them) in a criminal prosecution against the individual. Likewise, an individual who has received a pardon may not have any basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Finally, an individual who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment.

An individual cannot use the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions if they have legal immunity, a valid pardon, or a final criminal conviction and sentence. Because the right only protects against self-incrimination, removing legal jeopardy removes the right to stay silent.Why the Fifth Amendment Does Not ApplyImmunity: The government promises not to use your words against you in a new case. Without a risk of criminal use, the talk is no longer self-incriminating.Pardon: A pardon wipes away the legal guilt or punishment for a crime. A person cannot face new prosecution for that pardoned offense, so answers cannot incriminate them.Conviction and Sentence: Once a judge sentences a person for a crime, that specific case is done. They cannot incriminate themselves further for the crime they already stand convicted of, though this exception does not apply if potential new charges still exist.Key Rules of Self-IncriminationThe threat of trouble must be real and direct.It does not apply if a court order completely blocks future use of the statements.It only protects natural people, not groups like businesses or corporations.If you'd like, I can explain:The difference between use immunity and transactional immunityHow the Fifth Amendment works during a civil trialAI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more11 sitesWhat Does It Really Mean To “Take the Fifth”?“Taking the Fifth” is when someone invokes their right to remain silent and refuses to answer questions or provide information tha...MoloLamkenFIRST PRINCIPLES: Constitutional Matters: ConfessionsUnited States v. Castillo, 74 M.J. 160 (in pertinent part, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any c...U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (.gov)General Protections Against Self-Incrimination Doctrine and ...The privilege against self-incrimination is a personal one and cannot be used by or on behalf of any organization, such as a corpo...Library of Congress – Constitution Annotated (.gov)Show all

But your answer includes the following caveat: "It does not apply if a court order completely blocks future use of the statements." Is it impossible for a pardoned individual to be prosecuted for perjury if testimony after a pardon is issued disagrees with testimony given before the pardon was issued?

No, it is not impossible; a pardoned individual can absolutely be prosecuted for perjury if they lie under oath after receiving a pardon.A pardon only excuses past offenses. It provides no protection or legal immunity for crimes committed after the pardon is issued, such as committing perjury during subsequent testimony.The Legal FrameworkNo Free Pass for Future Lies: When a pardoned person is subpoenaed to testify, they are under a new, separate legal obligation to tell the truth. If they give false testimony, that act constitutes a brand-new crime (perjury) that occurred after the pardon. The prior pardon cannot immunize a future crime.The "Perjury Trap" Paradox: If an individual's new testimony contradicts what they said before the pardon, prosecutors can use the old testimony to prove they are lying now.The Catch-22 for the Witness: Because the pardon removed their criminal exposure for the underlying past crime, they can no longer use the Fifth Amendment to stay silent about it. They are legally forced to answer. If they tell the truth and contradict past statements, they might expose that they lied in the past; if they lie to match past statements, they commit fresh perjury.Remaining Fifth Amendment ExceptionsWhile they cannot plead the Fifth to avoid talking about the pardoned crime itself, a pardoned individual can still invoke the Fifth Amendment if:State vs. Federal Crimes: A presidential pardon only covers federal crimes. If answering a question would expose them to state-level prosecution, they retain their Fifth Amendment rights.Unrelated Crimes: The questions touch upon other, separate criminal activities not covered by the scope of the specific pardon.Would you like to explore how prosecutors prove perjury using conflicting statements, or look into the difference between federal and state pardons?

I didn't reformat Google AI's answer. Oh well. Too much work. I can find no support for the opinion you posted and would still like to know if it is a personal opinion or you have an authoritative source it came from.