Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#11

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

fatfingerd wrote: post #10
dragonwriter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He doesn't have the right to plead the 5th to avoid testifying against anyone but himself or his spouse, so his attempts to plead the 5th were just nonsense That’s not true, you can invoke the Fifth anytime testimony might incriminate you, regardless of who it is directly against. If this is founded (which may itself be contested if it isn’t directly against yourself), you can’t be compelled to testify unless the p…

Yes, I meant the 5th is only to avoid testimony incriminating himself, which he couldn't do.

No, the "right to remain silent" is absolute. It's a refusal to testify to anything at all. The grounds of self-incrimination are there, but if nobody knows what you'll be asked or how you'll answer, those grounds are sort of immaterial.

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#12

Post by thfuran »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #11
fatfingerd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I meant the 5th is only to avoid testimony incriminating himself, which he couldn't do.

No, the "right to remain silent" is absolute. It's a refusal to testify to anything at all. The grounds of self-incrimination are there, but if nobody knows what you'll be asked or how you'll answer, those grounds are sort of immaterial.

What do you mean if nobody knows what you'll be asked? You have to actually have been asked something to decline to answer.

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#13

Post by dragonwriter »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #11
fatfingerd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I meant the 5th is only to avoid testimony incriminating himself, which he couldn't do.

No, the "right to remain silent" is absolute. It's a refusal to testify to anything at all. The grounds of self-incrimination are there, but if nobody knows what you'll be asked or how you'll answer, those grounds are sort of immaterial.

> No, the "right to remain silent" is absolute.

Constitutionally, no, the right referenced by that phrase in, e.g., the Miranda warnings is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination (“No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”).

The belief that a more general “right to remain silent” exists may be a moral belief of some people, but, it is not a legal right, and judges can and will conduct questioning to assess if the legal right applies.

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#14

Post by sseagull »

thfuran wrote: post #12
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the "right to remain silent" is absolute. It's a refusal to testify to anything at all. The grounds of self-incrimination are there, but if nobody knows what you'll be asked or how you'll answer, those grounds are sort of immaterial.

What do you mean if nobody knows what you'll be asked? You have to actually have been asked something to decline to answer.

This is correct.

You can’t just say you are invoking the 5th and refuse to testify. If pressed, you actually have to get up there and invoke it — possibly to every question if needed.

The fear of perjury is an interesting twist, though. And the removal of immunity may affect things too.

(Although in your own trial you have the right to not testify, that doesn’t apply here).

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#15

Post by dragonwriter »

sseagull wrote: post #14
thfuran wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean if nobody knows what you'll be asked? You have to actually have been asked something to decline to answer.

This is correct. You can’t just say you are invoking the 5th and refuse to testify. If pressed, you actually have to get up there and invoke it — possibly to every question if needed. The fear of perjury is an interesting twist, though. And the removal of immunity may affect things too. (Although in your own trial you have the right to not testify, that doesn’t apply here).

> The fear of perjury is an interesting twist, though.

Its a nice try, but the right not to testify against yourself is not a right not to testify in a situation in which you might be tempted to choose (perjury not being a crime you can connit accidentally) to commit a crime.

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#16

Post by simple-thoughts »

Something about this smells like a bad attorney. Especially the part where he didn’t know that he was free until his card stopped working. But who knows, and it doesn’t matter anyway since the legitimacy of the court system is supposed to rely on common ideas of justice rather than process. If all we have from courts is process, it’s no longer justice, only bureaucratic oppression.

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#17

Post by redeeman »

ethanbond wrote: post #6

The guy happened to be a photographer, but his being subpoenaed and held in contempt had to do with him refusing to testify against his corrupt DEA brother. He “pled the Fifth” to avoid, in his own words, testifying against his brother, which is not what the 5th Amendment protects. His lawyer claimed he was pleading the 5th to prevent accidentally perjuring himself, but there’s no such thing as accidentally perjuring…

> Prosecutors have to prove you willfully and knowingly told a falsehood.

No, they have to make someone else believe you did. How else would this burden of proof be lifted? some form of brain scan that can just say "yeah, he willfully did it!"? no, they put fourth some motive/set of circumstances, and if a bunch of people believe the spin, its "proved"

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#18

Post by thfuran »

dragonwriter wrote: post #15
sseagull wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct. You can’t just say you are invoking the 5th and refuse to testify. If pressed, you actually have to get up there and invoke it — possibly to every question if needed. The fear of perjury is an interesting twist, though. And the removal of immunity may affect things too. (Although in your own trial you have the right to not testify, that doesn’t apply here).

> The fear of perjury is an interesting twist, though. Its a nice try, but the right not to testify against yourself is not a right not to testify in a situation in which you might be tempted to choose (perjury not being a crime you can connit accidentally) to commit a crime.

What if you're a pathological liar?

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#19

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

thfuran wrote: post #12
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the "right to remain silent" is absolute. It's a refusal to testify to anything at all. The grounds of self-incrimination are there, but if nobody knows what you'll be asked or how you'll answer, those grounds are sort of immaterial.

What do you mean if nobody knows what you'll be asked? You have to actually have been asked something to decline to answer.

What about the belief that you can't selectively invoke it? That if you break that silence then they can compel you to answer everything else from that point on? How's that work?

They might as well abolish this right anyway. As if every device we ever touch won't testify against us in the first place.

Re: Wedding Photographer Spent a Year in Jail After Pleading the Fifth

#20

Post by ethanbond »

redeeman wrote: post #17
ethanbond wrote: post #6

The guy happened to be a photographer, but his being subpoenaed and held in contempt had to do with him refusing to testify against his corrupt DEA brother. He “pled the Fifth” to avoid, in his own words, testifying against his brother, which is not what the 5th Amendment protects. His lawyer claimed he was pleading the 5th to prevent accidentally perjuring himself, but there’s no such thing as accidentally perjuring…

> Prosecutors have to prove you willfully and knowingly told a falsehood. No, they have to make someone else believe you did. How else would this burden of proof be lifted? some form of brain scan that can just say "yeah, he willfully did it!"? no, they put fourth some motive/set of circumstances, and if a bunch of people believe the spin, its "proved"

Good point! If you are under oath don’t give testimony that your average juror would take to be a willful and knowing lie.
Post reply on HN