Yes, but if you’re criming together, testifying about what the other guy did could incriminate you as well.
Could a witness refuse to answer questions in state court, on the grounds that it could incriminate him federally, and that the judge was thus unable to immunize him? And vice-versa, refuse to answer questions in federal court on grounds of incrimination in state court?
This came up on another thread and AFAIK the answer is no. If you have immunity in the jurisdiction of the court you can’t invoke the 5th. But IANAL
Yes. Criminal liability is criminal liability. It doesn’t matter if it’s prosecuted in another jurisdiction.
Judges don’t prosecute cases, so they have no immunity from prosecution to give.
(But if prosecutors do grant immunity, you can be pretty sure that they aren’t letting you lie or not answer questions in another case or investigation)
So I didn’t think this was the case. Surely it would make it pretty much it impossible to grant immunity to get someone to testify otherwise, as there is always some jurisdiction where you don’t have immunity
Very true. And then Trump will not pay him a dime, and will tie him up in court for the next hundred years, so that he’ll never see a dime. This is Trump’s go-to strategy.
Not really. Most crimes are state crimes. They don’t have a federal counterpart.
If I get immunity for the bar fight I was in to testify about seeing the patron get shot, I’m not worried that the feds are going to swoop in and charge me federally.
Yes, it does get dicey when a person is a bigger criminal, and their behavior crosses state lines such that the feds are potentially involved, but that is more rare (and in those cases you will get law enforcement and prosecutors backing away from making any sweeping promises about what cooperation will get you).
But if Bob and Pete were working together on some state crime, and the state catches Bob and puts him on trial, when they call Pete as a witness, how do they know that the crime that Bob is charged with is the only one relevant to Pete? Maybe Pete does have crimes in other jurisdictions, that he doesn’t want to incriminate himself on.
Trump’s go-to strategy is to not pay anyone at all if he can help it. So I wonder how compelling the promise of a payday is to anyone familiar with him.
Since we’re talking about immunity, I’m assuming that they got Pete to cooperate by providing him immunity,
What does that mean? Well, it could be “use immunity” - we promise not to use anything you say against you.
But if Pete’s lawyer was really thorough, it’d be blanket immunity - we promise not to prosecute you for the crimes you tell us about.
Which means Pete should tell them about every crime he can think of. And the government is going to take the position that he needs to be fully honest and tell them every detail.
But what if Pete chooses to leave out some time he did something he doesn’t want to admit to? Maybe he still has the money stashed somewhwere.
Well, Pete’s going to hope that the cops and prosecutors don’t mention it, so he doesn’t have to answer about it, but if they find out about it then it’s likely that Pete is going to have violated his agreement and can be prosecuted for everything.
Pete could be lying or holding back. The threat is that if he is found out, all deals are off.
Then again, when cops work with an informant, it’s usually because they are zeroing in on a bigger suspect. So they decide to concede some amount of uncharged behavior in order to get the bigger goal (I.e. “Listen, I know you deal dope. I don’t care about that. Just tell me who the guy is who shot that hooker.”)
There’s also the common promise that the agency working with the informant will “put in a good word for you”‘ with whatever other agency might prosecute them. Law enforcement relies a lot on informants who talk, so it is in their interest to give some measure of leniency to thosej who are helping catch criminals.
It’s likely that Trump won’t pay him regardless of what Weisselberg does. As was pointed out earlier, although Trump doesn’t consistently stiff everybody, when he does pay someone, it’s out of necessity and/or to receive something worth many times what he paid. He never pays merely because he has an ethical or even legal obligation to do so.
With that in mind, I do think it’s likely that Weisselberg will never see a dime, especially if Trump is found guilty in this trial, because at that point the NDA will have little or no value and Trump will find some sleazy way to blame Weisselberg.
Another thing I should say about immunity is that it is extremely rare.
Usually, the prosecutors obtain cooperation from a co-conspirator by offering a lighter sentence, not complete absolution.
Unless a later claim is made that the victim’s civil rights (a federal issue) were violated. Now you’re back on the hook, but now it’s United States v. Moriarty.
And since it’s the judge who takes the guilty plea to lesser charges (the usual way it’s done) of the cooperating witness, the prosecutors can’t really promise more than to tell the judge about the cooperation and recommend the defendant be sentenced accordingly. The judge will take that into account in deciding on the sentence but is not bound by any sort of specific recommendation.
OK, so let’s say that the cops nab Bob, and they bring Pete in for questioning as a person of interest. Scenario 1:
Cop: Where did Bob and you hide the body?
Pete: I refuse to answer that question on grounds that it may incriminate me.
State DA: We really want to bring Bob in, so I’ll grant you immunity for anything incriminating in your answer. And now that you’ve been granted immunity, we can compel your testimony.
Pete: OK, I have this cabin in the woods, we buried the body behind the back steps, here’s the coordinates.
<Cops search the cabin, find multiple bodies>
Pete: Whew, I’m glad you granted me immunity. You can see now why I thought that my answer would incriminate me.
Federal prosecutor: Oops, turns out one of those bodies was kidnapped across state lines. We’ve been trying to solve that one for a while, good thing we never gave you immunity.
Scenario 2, where Pete is trying to avoid scenario 1:
Cop: Where did Bob and you hide the body?
Pete: I refuse to answer that question on grounds that it may incriminate me.
State DA: We really want to bring Bob in, so I’ll grant you immunity for anything incriminating in your answer. And now that you’ve been granted immunity, we can compel your testimony.
Pete: Nuh-uh, even with that immunity, my answer might still incriminate me. I ain’t talking.
What happens now?
This isn’t a thing. In your hypothetical, the suspect is a defendant in a crime. He has a right to remain silent.
Now, if a person is offered immunity, it’s conditioned on being open, honest, and truthful. All cooperation agreements with the government require that.
But the government rarely grants immunity. Usually, the cooperstion is in furtherance of an agreement to reduce the charges, or recommend a lighter sentence. It’s not common for the government to waive any prosecution.
And even if they provide an offer of immunity, it’s entirely up to the person to accept the offer. The government can’t impose it, and the government can’t force a person to provide information.
A lot of people refuse to cooperate. It’s not always money that’s on the line; it’s their life.
Sure, if they have some particularly valuable (and uniquely known) information, the government may bargain for it. But the government can’t force it out of somebody - if they don’t want to cooperate (as Weisselberg appears to have decided), nobody can make them.
(And cooperation is always fraught with risk. Not just that there will be no reprisals, but there’s also risk that the government agents are actually promising something they can actually offer, and that they will follow through)
If people are thinking that the DA can just tell Weisselberg “you have immunity” and then that means that he has to get on the stand and spill his guts, they shouldn’t. Again, a witness can agree to cooperate with the prosecution (usually with a promise to get in lesser trouble), but it’s entirely up to them to decide, and not some formal mechanism in the law.
Weisselberg chose to go to jail rather than cut a deal. Pecker, you’ll notice, testified frankly, and has never been indicted; that’s not a coincidence.
This guy has been part of the Trump organization since 1973. It’s become clear the last few years that the Trump organization has been rife with crime and fraud for decades. He almost certainly knows a lot of shit about Trump that goes far beyond this little $130K peccadillo. Trump will likely pay him to keep his mouth shut about all that other stuff.
That’s my feeling as well. Trump will pay not because he’s a stand-up guy who honors his obligations (spoiler: he’s not), but because we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg with regard to his company’s criminal history. Weisselberg is the guy who could help send him away forever.
Not that anyone needs my further agreement, but I think it’s safe-ish to say that Weisselberg;s past, present, and future compensation argues that he is nearly as important to Trump (financially, which is what he mostly establishes value by) as Cohen thought he was.
Which explains a great deal IMHO, and ties in to the anger reported from Cohen in the ongoing testimonies.
I have no doubt that just about everything Trump has ever done has been totally without regard for ethics or law. And so you may be quite right about this.
But the other side of the coin is that the shenanigans of Trump Org and of Weisselberg himself have already been quite well scrutinized. The question is what Weisselberg can say to the DA, if he were inclined to want to sink Trump, that is both (a) provable, and (b) still within the statute of limitations. Maybe he can lead them to some really solid evidence of criminal wrongdoing, maybe not. It may be that the $750K is a small enough sum to Trump that he’ll pay it just to avoid the risk.