Posted on 05/20/2016 7:49:10 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Maryland’s highest court has released an opinion explaining its recent decision to force an officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray to testify against his colleagues.
The Maryland Court of Appeals issued its opinion Friday. Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbara writes that compelling Officer William Porter to testify while he awaits retrial is not a violation of his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Yeah, right. I don't believe that for one second. Once there's a transcript, the prosecution will try like hell to get it admitted.
Testifying in a Legal Proceeding
At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against his or her will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial.
In the 2001 case Ohio v. Reiner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The [Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.” This case beefed up an earlier ruling that prosecutors can’t ask a jury to draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s refusal to testify in his own defense.
Can Any Witness Plead the Fifth?
At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity (not limited to the case being tried). Witnesses (as well as defendants) in organized crime trials often plead the Fifth, for instance.
But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions. Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify (typically by subpoena).
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html#sthash.pGdDLdAn.dpuf
In what universe is this legal and/or constitutional? If he has charges pending he doesn’t have immunity. If he doesn’t have immunity, he has the right to remain silent(5th). These Libs in Baltimore used the entire situation for political purposes and it blew up in their collective faces. Now the courts are bailing them out. What a disgrace.
In what universe is this legal and/or constitutional?
*************
Only in liberal Maryland.
They tried that with Ollie North.
They used his exempted testimony against him, and his “conviction” was overturned.
Good clarification!
Thank you for providing a link to the brief. Excellent material.
Funny how half the obama administration takes the fifth when talking to congress...
And no repercussions.
“Good clarification!”
The link posted by Ray76 is far better.
Or, they will be sure it is all over the airwaves and social media, so that anyone selected for the jury will have to have heard it repeatedly, over months.
So, has the state of Maryland ruled that the witness may be compelled to testify, but still invoke his fifth amendment rights to specific questions, or has it ruled that he may not invoke his fifth amendment right at all?
If the former, I’d agree; if the latter, this looks to either get struck down at the federal level, or deal the Black Lives Matter an amazing pyrrhic victory. IOW, they win the case to compel the officer’s testimony, but they send thousands of more of the criminals they defend to prison.
That was then; this is ObaNOW
Thanks. The matter that the defendent, not the witness appealed, does seem like an obvious point. Some of the other findings may be contentious, but the initial article was certainly confusing in describing it as “compelling the witness.” That made it seem like it was the witness who was appealing.
But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions. Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify (typically by subpoena).
What if the witness testimony may implicate themselves and open them up to possible prosecution. Don’t these witnesses have the right to plead the fifth to these specific questions? If not, then they must be able to plead the fifth to *all* questions, under the U.S. Constitution, yes?
-Frank
“Funny how half the obama administration takes the fifth when talking to congress...
And no repercussions.”
It’s the Uniparty doncha know! That and their tireless search for their missing testicles takes precedence over ever doing anything substantive.
In NYPD rookie school we were taught that communication between cops is an except to hear say rule so cop were/are in effect one person. What happened to that ruling? How can this court think it can just push it aside?
Uh-huh.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
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.