If they get pardons, they cannot plead the fifth to protect themselves in the civil trial. It’s deal making time with Whistleblowers...
Let the battle begin.
Meanwhile Trump is being sued by that s..t bag weasel Stephanopoulos for defamation. Unbelievable that his suit has legs and Trump must do a deposition.
Can a person who has been pardoned still be held liable for the same offense in a civil court?
“accepting, for example, a presidential pardon, is considered an admission of guilt.
If a person were to accept such a pardon, can they then still be held liable in a civil court for the same offense they were pardoned for? It would seem that the act of accepting the pardon could then be used as evidence in such a trial.”
Or, for that matter, be prosecuted by another jurisdiction- pardons only work within the jurisdiction that issued them.
In a common law jurisdiction, the pardon cannot be used as evidence
Nor, for that matter, can a criminal conviction.
This is partly because the elements that need to be proved for the civil wrong won’t correspond to the elements of the crime. But mostly, because it just isn’t allowed.
A pardon also does not relieve a party of civil contempt sanctions (i.e. contempt sanctions that can be terminated upon compliance by the person held in contempt of court with a court order) even though it may relieve a party of criminal contempt sanctions (a court imposed punishment for disrespectful conduct in the presence of a judge or a court sanction for violating a court order that cannot be purged by compliance with the court order).
I would not agree that statement regarding admission of guilt in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) (cited in the answer linked in the question) is still good law on that point, at least in most common law jurisdictions. This is probably best regarded a non-binding dicta rather than a binding precedent.
The majority modern position is that a grant of clemency is not dependent upon being accepted by the person to whom it is granted. See, e.g., Haugen v. Kitzhaber, 306 P.3d 592, 599 (Or. 2013).
Even to the extent it involves an imputation of guilt, it does not have “collateral estoppel” effect because it is not based upon litigation resolved on the basis of facts and evidence presented to a tribunal.
And. since a pardon is generally granted by a person without personal knowledge of the facts, it is also not relevant evidence of whether the act was committed or not.
A Presidential pardon also does not bar ethics board sanctions for the same underlying conduct as the conduct pardoned.
Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against attorney. The Court of Appeals ruled that sanctions could not be imposed on attorney following presidential pardon for underlying conduct, 662 A.2d 867, and rehearing en banc was granted. The Court of Appeals, Schwelb, J., held that: (1) presidential pardon setting aside attorney’s convictions on charges arising from his false testimony to three congressional committees did not nullify Court of Appeals’ authority to impose professional discipline, and (2) attorney’s conduct warranted public censure.
In re Abrams, 689 A.2d 6 (D.C. App. 1997) (official synopsis).
Some of the confusion arises from the fact that a pardon of someone who has been convicted of a crime does not itself mean that a person was not guilty, something that is conclusively presumed following a conviction, and moots litigation to overturn the conviction that has been pardoned, thus preventing a court exoneration of the judicial guilt determination.
Effects of Pardon
ART.36
NOTES:
Pardon by the President does not restore the right to public office or suffrage except when both are expressly restored in the pardon. Nor does it exempt one from civil liability or from payment of civil indemnity
Limitations to President’s power to pardon:
- can be exercised only after final judgment
- does not extend to cases of impeachment
- does not extinguish civil liability – only criminal liability
General Rule: Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory penalties.
Exceptions:
1. if the absolute pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, it removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction. However, if the penalty is life imprisonment and after the service of 30 years, a pardon is granted, the pardon does not remove the accessory penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification.
2. if the facts and circumstances of the case show that the purpose of the President is to precisely restore the rights i.e., granting absolute pardon after election to a post (mayor) but before the date fixed by law for assuming office to enable him to assume the position in deference to the popular will
The trouble there is if the trial needs to be brought in the DC district, there is no jury you can empanel which would find find any culpability on the part of a government actor against a perceived “right winger.” Additionally, the federal jurists are similarly compromised. Any lawsuits would have to be filed in a less hostile federal district, if that is possible.
Indeed!