Posted on 08/13/2022 2:40:54 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
UPDATE: (Aug. 12, 2022, 3:13 p.m. ET): NBC News on Friday obtained a copy of the warrant used in the FBI's search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in Florida, as well as the related property receipt. The FBI recovered 11 sets of classified documents in the search, according to the documents.
This week, in addition to having his private residence searched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, former President Donald Trump was deposed in an investigation by the New York Attorney General’s office. There he apparently didn’t say much other than that he was asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. And here is what you should know.
The jury could be allowed to consider whether Trump asserted his right against self-incrimination because he has something to hide.
The Fifth Amendment allows you, me and Trump to refuse to answer questions if there is a genuine risk that we could face criminal prosecution based on what we say. But, and this is a big one, the Fifth Amendment does not protect us from a jury in a federal civil case judging us for staying silent and invoking our Fifth Amendment rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Well, Nancy will appoint the jury.
“The Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).
I don’t think that’s a legitimate inference. They’re saying he incriminated himself by refusing to say something that MIGHT incriminate himself. If he were only a drug dealer, MSNBC would be up in arms against this inference as a violation of civil rights.
The Fifth Amendment does not protect us from a jury in a federal civil case judging us for staying silent and invoking our Fifth Amendment rights.
She is correct. Civil cases have different standards than a criminal case. If the question is admissible the 5th can bite you.
This woman is nuts
Yeah, let’s just ignore the Constitution of the United States of America. That sounds solid!
Because this is how fascists dream things should be.
There is very specific stare decisis that says that is not true.
In Griffin v. California , the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination not only allows a criminal defendant to refuse to take the witness stand during his trial, but it also bars the prosecutor from urging the jury to interpret that silence as an indication that the defendant ...
What a maroon. Kyle Rittenhouse nearly got mistrial with prejudice because the prosecutor hinted that to the jury.
The Judge reamed him for it.
A deposition is just another word for a perjury trap.
On the other hand it can bite you in reverse. Bill Cosby went to a civil case and in return for immunity against criminal charges he agreed to waive his 5th amendment right and testified. Then they charged him anyway and used all his testimony against him. It's why he's a free man now, a judge threw it out .... after years in jail.
In a CRIMINAL matter, it is impermissible to draw an inference against a person who takes the 5th.
In a CIVIL matter, the court has ruled the opposite.
“The Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).
Yes a lib wet dream. The very liberal dimocrat judge in the Rittenhouse trial jumped down the throat of the prosecution for suggesting that the defendant was guilty because he was pleading the 5th. That crap don’t fly in a courtroom.
The grand jury, as well as the potential trial jury, may be in NY, or in DC. But the arguably general warrant based search alleging potentially dubious probably cause, issued by a magistrate who was legally required to recuse himself d/t his judicial involvement in a recent other Trump case, even he weren’t biased enough against Trump to merit recusing himself on those grounds, happened in Florida. Legal attacks against that dubious search warrant and all the arguably poisonous fruit the FBI collected via it, deserve to happen starting in Florida and to be appealed up that legal chain as far as necessary. And can potentially throw a large wrench into NY and DC legal plans.
People keep using the words, “classified documents.” Are they? Who says so? This entire situation is a cluster.
Maybe he should have answered, “At this point, what difference does it make”?
Washington DC jury and Washington DC judge. Dems have a slam dunk no matter what “case” is presented before the “jury” and the “judge” dontcha think?
I’m sure that Trump already knows this. Answering grand jury questions is not like answering police questions or answering questions in a trial. If you answer a single question then you have forfeited your right against self incrimination.
Don’t answer ANY grand jury questions. Ever.... unless and until you are granted signed immunity from prosecution for anything ever.
"It is well established that in a criminal trial a judge or prosecutor may not suggest that the jury draw an adverse inference from a defendant's failure to testify."
However, in civil proceedings adverse inferences can be drawn from a party's invocation of this Fifth Amendment right.
The seminal case in this area is Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, (1976). Such adverse inference can be drawn when there is independent evidence of the fact to which the party refuses to answer.
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.