0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own? Or have I missed something? I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th. A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating. If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe. I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that? It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all. If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons. If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools. Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone? Could we relate this to something in the past? Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point? Or was it TS? I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time. Blessings Always
On the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginSo, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own? Or have I missed something? I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th. A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating. If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe. I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that? It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all. If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons. If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools. Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone? Could we relate this to something in the past? Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point? Or was it TS? I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time. Blessings AlwaysBashir took the Fifth.You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginSo did Janet Arvi$o. About her previous money-scamming ways.QuoteOn the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
5. The lawyer says, “It may come as a surprise to know that protections (which are given to the accused by criminal law) are not available in civil law”.
This was what Larry Feldman meant when he said that Michael’s lawyers were to worry about his Fifth amendment rights. This is why there was some ‘procedural maneuvering by the defense to try to keep putting that decision off’, as he said. Taking the Fifth Amendment (which Michael didn’t) was a terrible disadvantage for him in a civil case Larry Feldman imposed on him by force and Larry Feldman knew that once the civil suit went forward the situation became exceptionally favorable for him and his case and exceptionally unfavorable for Michael Jackson.
Refusal to testify in a civil caseWhile defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil action.The Supreme Court has held that “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, “[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, ‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’”In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.Some civil cases are considered "criminal cases" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. In Boyd v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offence against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a "criminal case" within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself."
A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating. If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe. I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that? It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all. If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons. If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.
WishingstarQuoteA person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating. If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe. I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that? It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all. If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons. If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools. This is truly a predicament. Is not the goal, justice for the victims; and protection for criminals should not supercede that?Thanks all for your helpful discussion on legal matters which are beyond me."Anything you say, can and will be held against you." So who's big idea was it to film and allow to air, the Conrad Murray documentary during his own trial, in which Conrad's "trap" was not only open but flapping and incriminating himself royally, leading to his prison sentence. In his trial itself, he chooses to not testify and is later sorry, apparently. Now again, he could speak and clear his name by incriminating AEG, and he uses his right to remain silent. Craziness! Either all the lawyers are only thinking of the money they make and not their clients, or MJ has a story-line impossible to predict.
Bummer......I was hopin' he'd let fly :icon_lol:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginSo, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own? Or have I missed something? I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th. A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating. If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe. I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that? It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all. If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons. If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools. Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone? Could we relate this to something in the past? Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point? Or was it TS? I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time. Blessings AlwaysBashir took the Fifth.You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginSo did Janet Arvi$o. About her previous money-scamming ways.QuoteOn the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginQuote5. The lawyer says, “It may come as a surprise to know that protections (which are given to the accused by criminal law) are not available in civil law”. You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginQuoteThis was what Larry Feldman meant when he said that Michael’s lawyers were to worry about his Fifth amendment rights. This is why there was some ‘procedural maneuvering by the defense to try to keep putting that decision off’, as he said. Taking the Fifth Amendment (which Michael didn’t) was a terrible disadvantage for him in a civil case Larry Feldman imposed on him by force and Larry Feldman knew that once the civil suit went forward the situation became exceptionally favorable for him and his case and exceptionally unfavorable for Michael Jackson. You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginBy reading this I'd think that when Murray would take the 5th in this civil suit it could become quite favorable for Katherine Jackson and unfavorable for Murray, as far as I could comprehend this :judge-smiley:[/color]
ExceptionsAssuming that the six factors are present, the Miranda rule would apply unless the prosecution can establish that the statement falls within an exception to the Miranda rule.[54] The three exceptions are (1) the routine booking question exception[55] (2) the jail house informant exception and (3) the public safety exception. Arguably only the last is a true exception–the first two can better be viewed as consistent with the Miranda factors. For example, questions that are routinely asked as part of the administrative process of arrest and custodial commitment are not considered "interrogation" under Miranda because they are not intended or likely to produce incriminating responses. Nonetheless, all three circumstances are treated as exceptions to the rule. The jail house informant exception applies to situations where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a state-agent; either a police officer posing as a fellow inmate, a cellmate working as an agent for the state or a family member or friend who has agreed to cooperate with the state in obtaining incriminating information.[57] The window of opportunity for the exception is small. Once the suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would attach and surreptitious interrogation would be prohibited.[58] The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency.