General Discussion

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)

69. He would not have to testify to the Jennings corruption charges either

Fri Nov 28, 2014, 02:40 PM

Nov 2014

if it would incriminate him in the process.

Anything is not fair game inside a grand jury. The rules of court are simply different. The Bill of Rights still applies, and you are still due your 5th Amendment privilege. Now there is a way around that. You can compel a witness to testify even if that testimony will incriminate them in a crime. However, what the prosecutor needs to do is offer them (in this case) complete immunity for any corruption, civil rights violations, or crime. An immunized witness cannot claim the privilege as to any questions that fall under the scope of the immunity.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What are the authorities hiding in Missouri? Why NOT cross examine Wilson on the stand? [View all] IdaBriggs Nov 2014 OP

Good questions excepting the 2nd in your subject line. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #1

He did testify before the grand jury Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #2

Exactly. Why wasn't his "past association with disbanded corrupt Jennings" asked about? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #6

Please explain to me how that works in a grand jury? TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #20

The prosecutor examines the witnesses Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #21

Wilson was not a "defendant" since he was not charged. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #30

Well he was the supposed target of the prosecution Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #33

My take is that the prosecutor had no real intention of seeking an indictment. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #34

The DA basically just let Wilson talk. jeff47 Nov 2014 #22

Are members of the jury allowed to question witnesses? TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #31

Depends on the state, IIRC. jeff47 Nov 2014 #32

This message was self-deleted by its author woolldog Nov 2014 #55

Jeff woolldog Nov 2014 #57

I don't know but... Little Star Nov 2014 #3

Because that is what the tear gassing protesters and the media and IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #7

"cross examine" means to be examined by someone other pipoman Nov 2014 #4

Since when was the person who called a witness prohibited from questioning the witness? Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #5

The point is that it isn't a "cross examination" it is a "direct examination" pipoman Nov 2014 #17

OK so you are pointing out a technicality Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #18

I believe there was no provable crime committed pipoman Nov 2014 #25

No, it is not legal to kill a fleeing person Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #26

Factually untrue since 1985. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #50

Don't believe anything pipoman writes. woolldog Nov 2014 #58

Really? And yes, KKK. They did fundraising for him, and threatened the protesters. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #8

So what? pipoman Nov 2014 #19

Lots of people have called Wilson a racist Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #23

Nobody with any credibility, nobody with a story or anecdote, pipoman Nov 2014 #36

In other words no one you agree with has called him a racist Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #39

Then educate me pipoman Nov 2014 #40

Many people have read his racist testimony Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #44

Only stupid people. pipoman Nov 2014 #47

I would be interested in any proof... Oktober Nov 2014 #77

How Do You Know That Without Effective Cross Examination? Stallion Nov 2014 #29

"cross examination" doesn't exist in a grand jury... pipoman Nov 2014 #37

Of course, neither does a Defendant getting to testify based on prosecutor soft ball direct Stallion Nov 2014 #38

The entire proceeding was like every other grand jury pipoman Nov 2014 #41

Complete and Utter Nonsense Stallion Nov 2014 #43

While I take your point, Grand Jurors themselves can question witnesses, completely KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #48

THIS IS WRONG woolldog Nov 2014 #56

if the prosecutor had the slightest interest in an indictment, wilson wouldn't have even been there. unblock Nov 2014 #9

That is the point, isn't it? Why didn't the Prosecutor want an indictment? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #10

prosecutors and the police need each other, they don't like alienating each other. unblock Nov 2014 #13

Plus the dad/mom/brother/uncle/cousin all working for St. Louis law enforcement. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #16

Hiding? Maybe they're protecting something...like one of their own. HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #11

Excellent questions IdaBriggs. JEB Nov 2014 #12

Massive KKK infiltration in police forces in Central MO. nt tridim Nov 2014 #14

Your questions are good. The suggestion that there could be a deep connection with the KKK is also jwirr Nov 2014 #15

This is all being done in plain sight no one is hiding anything. gordianot Nov 2014 #24

Most of those have been answered. Igel Nov 2014 #27

A Grand Jury is not a trial. earthside Nov 2014 #28

I'm trying to think about it this way. mainstreetonce Nov 2014 #35

Not only was Wilson not cross examined by the prosecutors aint_no_life_nowhere Nov 2014 #42

In response, branford Nov 2014 #45

I think to a big extent that's just the way things are done in that community Fumesucker Nov 2014 #46

Even if Wilson had been questioned further madville Nov 2014 #49

I do not believe that is how things work in a grand jury. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #54

An individual still retains their 5th Ammendment rights in a grand jury Glassunion Nov 2014 #61

So Clinton had to answer because he wasn't up against criminal charges / just civil? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #65

He would not have to testify to the Jennings corruption charges either Glassunion Nov 2014 #69

The DA did not want an indictment Gothmog Nov 2014 #51

Maybe they forgot to check for Brown's fingerprints on Wilson's gun? B Calm Nov 2014 #52

That is one of the MANY "failures in protocol" - they did not do this. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #53

I'm struggling to figure out most of your post. Glassunion Nov 2014 #59

Sure there is. woolldog Nov 2014 #60

I think you are missing something. Glassunion Nov 2014 #62

Wrong. woolldog Nov 2014 #63

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what you are stating. Glassunion Nov 2014 #67

Let me clarify then. woolldog Nov 2014 #70

I agree Glassunion Nov 2014 #74

Of course, Wilson *is* the Defendant here. woolldog Nov 2014 #75

Ok... Where to start. Glassunion Nov 2014 #78

*sigh* woolldog Nov 2014 #79

*sigh* indeed Glassunion Nov 2014 #80

Yes. You need to provide the drafters of the Federal Rules your internet definitions. woolldog Nov 2014 #81

I have been following closely, so let me try to clarify. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #64

As your own link points out.... woolldog Nov 2014 #66

Thank you, but I am not a lawyer so I apparently used a word that made sense to me, but not the IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #68

Bingo! Glassunion Nov 2014 #71

well woolldog Nov 2014 #72

Thank you! I think she is using it because that is what Prosecutors usually do with Defendants. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #73

Endless "buts" "what if" "wait just a minute" reminds me of Trayvon Martin, who was simply NoJusticeNoPeace Nov 2014 #76