Slammer or not, Martha keeps pitching

Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^ | 7/22/04 | Michael M. Bates

[Eva]

I knew that one was going to make you wonder. I was trying to post on another thread and hit the back button and the wrong window came up. LOL Sorry.

[Mike Bates]

For goodness' sake, don't be sorry. :)

[Badeye]

"She certainly can. There are consequences of doing so in a civil case that are not present in a criminal case, but she does not lose her Fifth Amendment rights when she walks through the civil courtroom doors.

Ask OJ Simpson....sorry, she can't plead the Fifth in a Civil Court Trial. She can cause the court to find her "In Contempt"....but that doesn't change the fact she can't plead the Fifth.

Perhaps NYC has laws on this topic the rest of the nation isn't aware of.......

[BikerNYC]

She can invoke the Fifth Amendment. No question about it. There is still the potential of an insider trading case that could be brought against her and she could invoke her Right in any context because of it.

But there would be consequences of doing so in a civil courtroom. One consequence would be that the judge would tell the jury that they could infer that anything Martha would have testified to would completely contradict her position at the trial. That "negative inference" is devastating and is the reason most people in her position choose to testify in civil trials. But, she would still have the right to invoke, if she wanted to and risk losing the civil trial.

[Badeye]

"She can invoke the Fifth Amendment. No question about it."

Sorry, she can refuse to testify and be found in contempt of the court. But she cannot claim Fifth Amendment protection in a Civil Trial.

Which is why the insider trading charges are being pursued in Civil Court, btw.

[BikerNYC]

Insider trading is also a crime that she can be indicted for.

Are you a lawyer?

Do a google seach with "invoke fifth amendment civil trial" and you will find countless instances where people have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in civil trials. Catholic clergy have recently done it. This is not controversial.

[Badeye]

Insider trading is also a crime that she can be indicted for.

Are you a lawyer?

Do a google seach with "invoke fifth amendment civil trial" and you will find countless instances where people have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in civil trials. Catholic clergy have recently done it. This is not controversial.

Sorry, we disagree completely. No big deal, when the trial comes it will all be laid out in this forum, among others. About 18 months from now.

[BikerNYC]

A witness may invoke his Fifth Amendment privileges in a civil proceeding where his answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. (Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 76 [1973] [citing McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 [1924]). A witness may invoke his privilege against self incrimination even where no criminal charges are yet pending if there is even a possibility (not likelihood) of prosecution. (In re Master Key Litigation v. McCulloch, 507 F.2d 292, 293 [9th Cir. 1974] [see Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-87 (1951)).

Remember the Enron guys invoking the Priviledge during Congress' civil investigation of that debacle? You can invoke in civil proceedings.

[Badeye]

"Remember the Enron guys invoking the Priviledge during Congress' civil investigation of that debacle? You can invoke in civil proceedings."

I think you are confusing laws here, and what you can do while testifying before congress.

[BikerNYC]

Oh, for cripes sake. If you ever get called as a witness in a civil proceeding, and your testimony might incriminate you in some future criminal proceeding, please, please, please see a lawyer before you testify. By so testifying, you could be considered to have waived your priviledge.

I'm sure your lawyer will quote to you some language from the Supreme Court decision in Lefkowitz v. Turley, cited in my previous post:

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 (1924), squarely held that

"[t]he privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant."

And, for your sake, don't go around telling people of your opinion on this matter, it doesn't make you sound so good.

[Badeye]

You keep mixing criminal law with civil law.

Sorry, I don't agree, and your own posts demonstrate why. And btw, I never do anything without my corporate attorney's signing off on it. I've also been in civil trials, both as plantiff and defendent.

Anyway, thanks for the effort. Now, before you decend into another round of disparaging remarks...chill.

We disagree, its allowed.

[ZULU]

Maybe Hitlery will pick her to run as her Vice-Presidential Candidate in 2008 or appoint her to a Federal Department as Commissioner of Good Works.

[Mike Bates]

That ticket would certainly be a double-bagger.