Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
The 5th Amendment
- Thread starter HELLSPAWN
- Start date
ambulancechaser
New member
Reply
I just want to bump this so that people who get in trouble don't think that the 5th is a total security blanket.
What I stated above is very simplified. I could get on Weslaw or Lexis and research the specific state, but then I would have to present you with a bill
. Just kidding, obviously.
The above ignores many factors and distinctions (i.e. use immunity v. transactional/derivative immunity).
To cover my own ass: Nothing I have written in this thread should be interpreted as constituting legal advice. This is written SOLELY for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. Should you require legal assistance and or representation, you should contact your attorney.
I just want to bump this so that people who get in trouble don't think that the 5th is a total security blanket.
What I stated above is very simplified. I could get on Weslaw or Lexis and research the specific state, but then I would have to present you with a bill
. Just kidding, obviously. The above ignores many factors and distinctions (i.e. use immunity v. transactional/derivative immunity).
To cover my own ass: Nothing I have written in this thread should be interpreted as constituting legal advice. This is written SOLELY for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. Should you require legal assistance and or representation, you should contact your attorney.
G ChildlihC G
New member
Bump, nice read.
ambulancechaser
New member
It offers you a way out until the DA decides that it is you who will be given immunity. In the federal system and numerous states, once the U.S. Attorney (the federal equivalent of the local D.A.) decides that it is you (for whatever reason) who will be granted immunity, the court has very little role in issuing the immunity order. Most states require an order to be issued by a court before being compelled to testify.
Usually, the court must issue the order if it is shown that the witness would not testify without immunity and the prosecution concludes that granting immunity is in the public interest; if that sounds broad, that is because it is. The court cannot refuse to grant it on the ground that the prosecution erred in reaching that conclusion.
Once granted, the witness must testify or face contempt charges, unless there is a valid reason for doing so (e.g., attorney-client privilege). You can't refuse to testify out of fear of physical harm.
Until you are faced with that decision, you are right, shut the fuck up and only consult with your lawyer. I guess my point is that somebody usually turns when that decision is pushed in their face.
Finally, if it is the feds who want someone, they are usually fucked, because they have virtually infinite resources.
I hope this clarifies some things.
The above is not legal advice and was written solely for entertainment purposes.
Usually, the court must issue the order if it is shown that the witness would not testify without immunity and the prosecution concludes that granting immunity is in the public interest; if that sounds broad, that is because it is. The court cannot refuse to grant it on the ground that the prosecution erred in reaching that conclusion.
Once granted, the witness must testify or face contempt charges, unless there is a valid reason for doing so (e.g., attorney-client privilege). You can't refuse to testify out of fear of physical harm.
Until you are faced with that decision, you are right, shut the fuck up and only consult with your lawyer. I guess my point is that somebody usually turns when that decision is pushed in their face.
Finally, if it is the feds who want someone, they are usually fucked, because they have virtually infinite resources.
I hope this clarifies some things.
The above is not legal advice and was written solely for entertainment purposes.
ambulancechaser
New member
Hypothetical
This should clarify some things:
DA: Mr. user, did you buy DNP from Mr. Juice?
User: I invoke my 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Formalities are followed, and assuming immunity is granted to User:
DA: Mr. User, did you buy DNP from Mr. Juice?
User: I invoke my 5th Amendment privilege.
DA: Your Honor, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
Judge: Mr. User, this court has granted you immunity from prosecution via your testimony here today. This means that nothing you say here can be used against you in a future prosecution. Do you understand this? (THIS IGNORES the same distinctions I mentioned in the above post.)
User: Yes, your honor.
DA: Mr. User, did you buy DNP from Mr. Juice?
User: I invoke my 5th Amendment privilege.
Result: Probably Jail (they will let you stew a bit) and a fine.
POINT: Once immunity is given, YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.
Again, this is for ENTERTAINMENT purposes only and ignores many factors which can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
This should clarify some things:
DA: Mr. user, did you buy DNP from Mr. Juice?
User: I invoke my 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Formalities are followed, and assuming immunity is granted to User:
DA: Mr. User, did you buy DNP from Mr. Juice?
User: I invoke my 5th Amendment privilege.
DA: Your Honor, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
Judge: Mr. User, this court has granted you immunity from prosecution via your testimony here today. This means that nothing you say here can be used against you in a future prosecution. Do you understand this? (THIS IGNORES the same distinctions I mentioned in the above post.)
User: Yes, your honor.
DA: Mr. User, did you buy DNP from Mr. Juice?
User: I invoke my 5th Amendment privilege.
Result: Probably Jail (they will let you stew a bit) and a fine.
POINT: Once immunity is given, YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.
Again, this is for ENTERTAINMENT purposes only and ignores many factors which can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
ambulancechaser
New member
GODDAMNIT!
Just kidding, bros. I thought I answered the question, but, here we go: The timing of the post was meant to coincide with Huck's post, but it got fucked up
Answer: Yes you have to accept it. The purpose of the 5th is obviously to forbid the government from making you incriminate yourself. Once that is removed (i.e., the resulting self-incrimination), you can be compelled to testify.
1. You refuse to testify.
2. Granted immunity.
3. Refuse to testify.
4. Jail/Fine.
Here is some reading for you interested folks:
1. Piemonte v. U.S. 367 U.S. 556, 81 S.Ct. 1720, 6 L.Ed.2d 1028
2. Kastigar v. U.S. 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212
I just pulled these up very quickly. It's not a complete research and the law of a state's jurisdiction may differ. This is for ENTERTAINMENT pursposes only.
Just kidding, bros. I thought I answered the question, but, here we go: The timing of the post was meant to coincide with Huck's post, but it got fucked up Answer: Yes you have to accept it. The purpose of the 5th is obviously to forbid the government from making you incriminate yourself. Once that is removed (i.e., the resulting self-incrimination), you can be compelled to testify.
1. You refuse to testify.
2. Granted immunity.
3. Refuse to testify.
4. Jail/Fine.
Here is some reading for you interested folks:
1. Piemonte v. U.S. 367 U.S. 556, 81 S.Ct. 1720, 6 L.Ed.2d 1028
2. Kastigar v. U.S. 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212
I just pulled these up very quickly. It's not a complete research and the law of a state's jurisdiction may differ. This is for ENTERTAINMENT pursposes only.
Last edited:
ambulancechaser
New member
Anyone specialize in criminal law?
There has to be at least 1 criminal lawyer (criminal law is not my gig) that visits the anabolic forum. If so, please verify or refute what I posted above, keeping in mind the necessity of generalization.
My link with additional cases didn't post. I will try to find them and post them.
There has to be at least 1 criminal lawyer (criminal law is not my gig) that visits the anabolic forum. If so, please verify or refute what I posted above, keeping in mind the necessity of generalization.
My link with additional cases didn't post. I will try to find them and post them.
Last edited:
solidspine
New member
If I were subpoenaed I would piss on it and they would have to arrest me,
this is ridiculous, gear should be legal and DNP is legal.
The FDA is the moral culprit here.
this is ridiculous, gear should be legal and DNP is legal.
The FDA is the moral culprit here.
ambulancechaser
New member
Whether or not the FDA is the moral culprit is a matter of debate. I think other entities or more to blame, but that would take hours of writing.
Unless I'm mistaken, isn't DNP only legal for "research" purposes and not for human consumption? I really don't know, I'm asking.
I see you are in Newport. I grew up in So. O.C., went to HS in Irvine. Can't wait to get back there in a few months.
I wouldn't recommend pissing on a subpoena; it's not nice.
Unless I'm mistaken, isn't DNP only legal for "research" purposes and not for human consumption? I really don't know, I'm asking.
I see you are in Newport. I grew up in So. O.C., went to HS in Irvine. Can't wait to get back there in a few months.
I wouldn't recommend pissing on a subpoena; it's not nice.
Similar threads
