Yes, in a criminal case.
This only applies to other contexts where the person has been compelled to testify. So, not in a criminal case, where if you testify you don’t get to refuse to answer certain questions based on your 5th amendment right. But yes if you were subpoenaed to testify in some other case (perhaps as a witness , perhaps because it’s a civil trial and you are one of the litigants)
Thanks, much appreciated.
Why even bother with the 5th when there’s the old standby “I don’t recall”?
Because if you did something on Monday, you were talking about it on Tuesday (and there’s evidence of you doing it), and on Wednesday you claim you have no recollection, you’ve just been caught with perjury.
The 5th Amendment is precisely to protect a person from doing something like that. If your only choice is to incriminate yourself or be caught in a lie and still incriminate yourself, that’s something the Constitution is supposed to protect you from, unless you waive that protection.
It can hurt the witnesses credbility with the jury. In one of Trump’s other trials, I think Engoran noted that when Ivana testified she could remember with clarity everything that helped Trump but couldn’t recall when asked about things that could hurt him. I think a jury would pick up on this as well and find such witness to be incredulous and therefore their entire testimony suspect.
He’s going to testify in two weeks.
In addition, if the defendant chooses not to testify, the jury will be specifically instructed not to use that against them, and the prosecutor can’t comment on the decision. So, no arguing to the jury “an innocent man would have gotten up there and told you his side of the story.”
But if a defendant does decide to testify, then the prosecutor can criticize his answers. “Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant didn’t want to answer the tough questions, because he knew that the truth would get him into trouble.”
Moriarty may have answered but I believe the Sandoval hearing is for the Judge to decide what the prosecution is anllowed to ask Trump if he later chooses to testify. This is to help the defendant decide if he should or should not testify - he would have a good idea of what the prosecution could ask him about on cross before taking the stand.
For example, if the Judge rules they can ask Trump about the fraud trials or Carrol, etc, Trump might decide not to testify.
Hope that makes sense.
And if I’m remembering my education at the Law and Order Armchair School of Law correctly, if Trump starts blabbering he might open the door for including previously excluded evidence.
Let’s say the judge rules that the civil settlement is allowed, but the E Jean Carrol decision and settlement isn’t.
I can certainly see a situation where Trump goes off script and says something like “It was a hoax, just like that other hoax, 83 million and I never met the woman, who’s totally not my type”…….and then Jack McCoy gets to grill him about E Jean Carrol because “Your honor, the defendant opened that door.”
Except I may have created confusion because this was in error
That’s apparently not how it works (nor does that make sense. As I’ve said repeatedly, the defendant makes that decision after the state rests their case).
Instead, the DA files a Sandoval Notice, which triggers the hearing as @CoolHandCox described.
The only place where donald said he would testify was when talking to reporters.
Yes, I agree completely.
That’s another risk of him testifying. His blathering can enable the DA to spend their time showing how he’s wrong.
Got it.
I can’t envision a world where he testifies in a case that is almost entirely about his state of mind/his best way to a hung jury or acquittal is to say nothing. But he’s a prideful guy so you never know.
I’ve always been vaguely curious if that is, in fact, a real legal principle… is it?
Absolutely.
Here’s the first link I found. This is from Pennsylvania, but I’m sure it’s true everywhere.
WHAT “OPENS THE DOOR?” - Advocacy and Evidence Resources (temple.edu)
I think the question of relevance might apply. The fact that he started yammering on about Carroll is not really relevant at all to the case, and defense might object to probing on those grounds. Questions that are not relevant to the question at hand could be suppressed, unless the prosecution can explain the relevance.
I think it could work in Individual-ONE’s favor, though, by showing that he cannot hold a thought in his head for any length of time and is therefore incompetent and should not be found guilty.
Michael Popok explains what the Manhattan DA has told the court it intends to cross examine Trump about regarding his recent past crimes and bad acts and fraud and sanctions in other cases, and it is not pretty.
I think that conflicts with his scheduled tax return release.
Because “I will likely testify” doesn’t sound nearly as defiant. He’s a bully who won’t ‘walk the walk’ and he just can’t help himself. Its just one more sound bite and one more lie.
Apologies if this has already been asked and answered, but I cannot find the answer online.
When the first witness is called, will the trial be open to the public? Very limited seating, obviously, but will a few folks be able to be in the courtroom during the proceedings?
Just a little precis of who the players are, for those of us playing the home game:
Not much new information here, but it’s consolidated.
Yes.
I believe the jury selection was already open to the public. I also think they have an “overflow” room where you can watch a closed-circuit feed to the trial.
With that said, reporters are pros and pay people to wait in line all night long, so unless you’re willing to do that it will be tough to get a spot.