Posted on 06/04/2016 12:25:08 PM PDT by DrDude
Well one reason could be that the testimony he gives just might not jive with what he has said to the FBI. That would invalidate the agreement and subject him to criminal prosecution, and other serious matters. Especially if they already know what he will be asked. The Judge is probably not happy that these ass hole are making a mockery of his court.
This is a civil case, not a government case.
doj immunity guidelines
https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-23000-witness-immunity
“This is a civil case, not a government case.”
I just asked my bro (a retired atty) about this, and I am not entirely sure I understood what he said; but normally, in a civil case, as you are perhaps implying, one cannot plead the 5th. However, if there is some chance that a civil case CAN lead (via entering the testimony given in the civil case) to criminal culpability, there IS some provision for declining to testify under the 5th amendment in the civil case.
Just passing on his remarks, not meant as an authoritative legal opinion.
It has been held in other cases that the individual waives his immunity obtained by invoking the 5th amendment if he/she answers any questions after once invoking the 5th.
In other words, one can lose the protection provided by the 5th if he/she willingly answers any questions after invoking the 5th.
D. Waiver
1. Generally, “[a] witness who fails to invoke the Fifth Amendment against questions as to which he could have claimed it is deemed to have waived his privilege respecting all questions on the same subject matter.” United States v. O’Henry’s Film Works, Inc., 598 F.2d. 313 (2d Cir. 1979), citing, Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951).
2. “An individual under compulsion to make disclosures as a witness who revealed information instead of claiming the privilege [loses] the benefit of the privilege.” Garner, 96 S.Ct. at 1182. In other words, the witness must “make a timely assertion of the privilege” or he loses the privilege. Id. at 1183. Moreover, the Supreme Court has “made clear that an individual may lose the benefit of the privilege without a knowing and intelligent waiver.” Id. at 1182, n.9.
3. In sum, if a witness answers a question on a particular topic there is an implicit waiver on other questions related to that topic unless that answers to the additional question on the issue would “further incriminate” the witness. Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951).
a. Therefore, a witness must claim the privilege as to each question asked. For example, if a witness claims the privilege in the grand jury in response to one question, the grand jury can continue to question him about the same or related topics and if he does not assert the privilege in response to the additional questions, the privilege is waived. Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955). But see, Hicks v. State, 860 S.W.2d 419, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Suggesting that continued questioning “on the merits” of a grand jury witness once he exercised his privilege against self incrimination, itself constitutes a violation of the privilege.).
“I’ve been wondering how can he exercise his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incriminating testimony when the immunity agreement precludes any legal jeopardy for him?”
______
To answer that question, one needs to understand the federal statutes regarding the various forms of immunity—there are several distinct types.
Most people have not researched the matter, and have an incomplete at best understanding of this area of the law.
Second, you would have to know the specifics of the arrangement in this case. The specific terms of any immunity agreement/order determines the issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.