Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There should be. If there is evidence that you knowing refused to testify under the 5th amendment, with the full knowledge that there was no possibilty of self-incrimination, it should be considered purjury.
It says that you have the right to not incriminate yourself in court or other proceedings which are under oath. If there is no threat of self-incrimination, you do not have the right to refuse to testify.Where does it say that?
It doesn't. Try reading it again!
even if immunity is given any person should never be compelled to speak regardless of why,,At least there is the prosecutions trump card of granting immunity. Mand DA's,if they believe a witness will plead the fifth, whether due to a legitimate threat of self incrimination exists ornot, will formally grant immunity. In most states immunity can be granted at will by the DA. And in many states and in federal court if granted immunity, a witness can't plead the fifth becauce they can't be prosecuted.
You cannot be compelled to testify in your own defense. It is the prosecution's job to PROVE you guilty. You don't have to give the ammunition.if they truthful answer testimony
At least there is the prosecutions trump card of granting immunity. Mand DA's,if they believe a witness will plead the fifth, whether due to a legitimate threat of self incrimination exists ornot, will formally grant immunity. In most states immunity can be granted at will by the DA. And in many states and in federal court if granted immunity, a witness can't plead the fifth becauce they can't be prosecuted.
It says that you have the right to not incriminate yourself in court or other proceedings which are under oath. If there is no threat of self-incrimination, you do not have the right to refuse to testify.
No one said anything about a defendant being forced to testify against themselves. I was referring to witnesses being summoned to testify against someone else, and refusing to do so, under the fifth amendment, even when they were not going to incriminate themselves by doing soYou cannot be compelled to testify in your own defense. It is the prosecution's job to PROVE you guilty. You don't have to give the ammunition.
the problem the prosecution has with forcing someone is if they will tell the whole truth or screw their case,,No one said anything about a defendant being forced to testify against themselves. I was referring to witnesses being summoned to testify against someone else, and refusing to do so, under the fifth amendment, even when they were not going to incriminate themselves by doing so
In most cases brought to trial, there is enough evidence that it doesn't matter.the problem the prosecution has with forcing someone is if they will tell the whole truth or screw their case,,
How do you know?even when they were not going to incriminate themselves by doing so
Actually, most states prohibit that type of blanket use of the fifth and require you to plea for each question. In fact, in some states if you plea the fifth on one question, but choose to answer another that deals with the same subject, a judge can overrule your original plea its ver rare but can happen.When pleading the 5th, the 5th is taken with each and every question. "State your name for the record" gets the fifth, even though you know your name violated no law.
then why do they need someone to testify against their will??In most cases brought to trial, there is enough evidence that it doesn't matter.
Because having testimmont often helps cooberate evidence.then why do they need someone to testify against their will??
NOThe self-discrimination clause of the fifth amendment is a clause that protects people from being forced to give testimony that would incriminate themselves. In a perfect world, it would only apply to people who have a legitimate threat of being incrimination if they truthful answer testimony, but there have been cases where a witness, refuse to answer quesion under the fifth amendment, essentially lying to the court, and falsely claiming that the answer would incriminate them even though it wouldn't. The law current protects people who do this from being charged with purjury, do you think this should change?
No one said anything about a defendant being forced to testify against themselves. I was referring to witnesses being summoned to testify against someone else, and refusing to do so, under the fifth amendment, even when they were not going to incriminate themselves by doing so
Testimont?Because having testimmont often helps cooberate evidence.
