Can the fact that he was impeached for something be used as evidence in the criminal trial? I mean, my first idea would be that it would be hearsay, but Bricker mentioned that hearsay was about the person not being able to be cross-examined. But, in an impeachment trial, there is cross examination.
I mean, I realize you could probably just have the same evidence, experts, and witnesses brought back in. And I realize that an impeachment trial would not need to cover everything a criminal trial would. But I’m just wondering if there’s any ability for them to interact.
True. One of the “crimes” the House committee voted on during the impeachment hearings of Clinton was that he didn’t uphold some campaign promises! The committee vote failed on that one.
And one of the charges that was actually approved against Andrew Johnson was that he’d made speeches denigrating Congress. The others related to his disregard of the Tenure of Office Act, passed just to thwart him and which was soon ruled unconstitutional, and which was not criminal law anyway.
I don’t know that a person can be barred from elective office by declaration. The Senate can refuse to consider someone for an appointment, and people can be barred from Federal employment, but if a convicted felon runs for President and wins, barring some sort of mass faithless elector event that person will become President.
The Senate and House can also refuse to seat or expel their own members, but those are procedural matters based on their own adopted rules and not Constitutional ones.
The accusation that triggers the impeachment cannot be evidence in a criminal trial. Indeed, even a past accusation of an actual crime can’t be used in a criminal trial in order to show that the accused acted similarly.
However, depending on the purpose for which it’s offered, I imagine that testimony from an impeachment witness could be used at a criminal trial, to (ha!) impeach a witness who testified differently or even admitted for the truth if the witness was unavailable.
The Constitution itself provides for disqualification from office as something to be imposed upon impeachment.
(Unless we are challenging that elected posts are not “positions of trust and honor of the United States”. )
Would party chairmen and Elections Commissioners across the states grant ballot access to a disqualified person? Would state legislatures sit electors for a disqualified person?
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 for reference: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Article 2, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Ah, I misremembered. Congress gutted the law into near-meaninglessness just a month after Grant became President. SCOTUS just put it out of its misery.