…she is compelled to admit to criminal behavior, could the ABA revoke her license to practice law?
If that’s a likely possibility, might she still be able to invoke the Fifth on the grounds that her financial stability depends on her clamming up?
(I’m planning to launch a career in political corruption and need to know the ground rules.)
I don’t think the Fifth Amendment protects her from all consequences of her testimony, but I could be wrong.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I don’t think the Fifth Amendment protects her from all consequences of her testimony, but I could be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as far as I know there are two forms of immunity: limited and transactional. The former doesn’t seem like it’d fully protect her, but maybe the latter will.
I don’t see how any agreement with Congress (or any organization) will protect you from the actions of an entirely separate and autonomous organization.
You can give Barry Bonds full immunity from prosecution for steroid use, but you can’t make MLB allow him to play, you can’t make the hall of fame honor him, and you can’t make sponsors hire him to hawk their products.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
I don’t see how any agreement with Congress (or any organization) will protect you from the actions of an entirely separate and autonomous organization.
You can give Barry Bonds full immunity from prosecution for steroid use, but you can’t make MLB allow him to play, you can’t make the hall of fame honor him, and you can’t make sponsors hire him to hawk their products.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if your argument applies. If Bonds got full immunity against prosecution for steroid use, and he testifies, could MLB ban him from the game? IANOL so I don’t know if they could. I’m even more certain that if MLB had a choice they wouldn’t, Why? Greed. Just about any club would salivate to hire a home run hitter such as Barry B.
If Bonds, in good faith makes an agreement with a prosecutor to testify in order for the law to go after bigger fish _ e.g., suppliers, etc., but then the Commish bans Bonds ass., what kind of message does that send out to future whistle blowers?
This doesn’t make sense to me. After all, there’s no point in immunity if you’re not immune. However, I will not be the least bit surprised if a lawyer comes on to prove I’m dead wrong.
But I’m looking for the truth, so I won’t mind at all.
His argument does apply because of the Commissioner’s “best interests of baseball” power, which is pretty broad.
Again, the commissioner doesn’t have to worry about public policy arguments. The government makes deals with “itself” all the time, to encourage one type of action or discourage another. Rape shield laws (which fly in the face of the rules of evidence in order to encourage reporting of the crime) and the Rockefeller Drug Laws (which fly in the face of common sense and defy the business model of drugrunning, in an attempt to discourage the practice) are examples of this. But that’s the government weighing its own priorities, which are social order and rule of law. The Commissioner’s only job is to benefit baseball as a sport/American cultural institution/business.
You’re immune from prosecution not repercussions.
It’s the state bar associations or legislatures that determine who is fit to practice in their state or not. Each state bar association of which Goodling is a member could expel her or not based on its bylaws or procedures. She could apply to another, but I’d imagine that bar applications are like boxing licenses- no state is going to step on another state’s toes by admitting her if she’s been suspended or disbarred elsewhere.
The short answer, however, is that immunity means that the government won’t do anything to you. A private organization can do what it wants, and is subject to suit or not based on how much autonomy it has under the rules to which it subjected its members when they joined.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
His argument does apply because of the Commissioner’s “best interests of baseball” power, which is pretty broad.
Again, the commissioner doesn’t have to worry about public policy arguments. The government makes deals with “itself” all the time, to encourage one type of action or discourage another. Rape shield laws (which fly in the face of the rules of evidence in order to encourage reporting of the crime) and the Rockefeller Drug Laws (which fly in the face of common sense and defy the business model of drugrunning, in an attempt to discourage the practice) are examples of this. But that’s the government weighing its own priorities, which are social order and rule of law. The Commissioner’s only job is to benefit baseball as a sport/American cultural institution/business.
You’re immune from prosecution not repercussions.
It’s the state bar associations or legislatures that determine who is fit to practice in their state or not. Each state bar association of which Goodling is a member could expel her or not based on its bylaws or procedures. She could apply to another, but I’d imagine that bar applications are like boxing licenses- no state is going to step on another state’s toes by admitting her if she’s been suspended or disbarred elsewhere.
The short answer, however, is that immunity means that the government won’t do anything to you. A private organization can do what it wants, and is subject to suit or not based on how much autonomy it has under the rules to which it subjected its members when they joined.
[/QUOTE]
Are you a lawyer, Happy Scrappy Hero Pup?
[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
This doesn’t make sense to me. After all, there’s no point in immunity if you’re not immune. However, I will not be the least bit surprised if a lawyer comes on to prove I’m dead wrong.
But I’m looking for the truth, so I won’t mind at all.
[/QUOTE]
From The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note that this offers no protection against civil/tort claims or any ethical transgressions or other issues with private institutions; if you are subpoenad to testify before a court (including Congress) you can’t demur just because it is inconvenient for you, or because you don’t want to admit to wearing ladies undergarments, or that you drink pink wine. The purpose of granting of immunity to Goodling isn’t to benefit or protect her–she’s clearly willing to fall upon her sword for the Administration (though no doubt there’s a cushy job awaiting her at some politically affiliated law firm)–but to remove any crutch by which she can claim to be legally imperiled by testifying. It’s not clear that she did anything illegal anyway, and at most was tacit witness to the “cleaning” operations which are the primary crime.
The central irony is that they could have just been arrogantly defiant about the whole thing, and they would have been both legally in the right and it would have blown over quickly, as these have in prior cases. Instead, by furtively trying to conceal evidence of “wrongdoing” they’ve committed tangible crimes. ‘Laak my momma always said, stupid is as stupid does.’
I expect Bricker or Campion to be by shortly to give an authoritative statement on the topic of self-incrimination and immunity from prosecution.
Stranger
[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
I don’t know if your argument applies. If Bonds got full immunity against prosecution for steroid use, and he testifies, could MLB ban him from the game? IANOL so I don’t know if they could. I’m even more certain that if MLB had a choice they wouldn’t, Why? Greed. Just about any club would salivate to hire a home run hitter such as Barry B.
[/quote]
If Barry B. admitted to taking steroids when they were banned by the league, they’d basically have to suspend or ban him, since it’s encoded in the rules.
What doesn’t make sense is that some governmental group can grant a person immunity and that immunity restricts the rights of private individuals who interact with the person.
It has already been ruled that fear for one’s life from criminal action in response to testimony is not grounds to refuse to answer when a sworn witness in a court case. (The value of such testimony is generally not highly regarded by juries, though.)
Tris
I’m not going to stick my neck out where I don’t know the answer, but my firm guess is that if she gets full transactional immunity, she cannot be disbarred. Why? Because it is the court system which actually does the disbarring; the bar associations simply provide the self-policing hearings, etc., which lead to disbarment. Note, however, that she could be censured for an ethics violation by the bar association, for what value that may be.
For use immunity, anybody’s guess. I strongly suspect she could be disbarred for testimony gained under use immunity – but I’d hate to make the logical argument on the reasons. Perhaps the Doper Jurisconsults will grant us their wisdom.
I think the more interesting question is the extent to which Congress can grant immunity (and therefore compel testimony). Can Congress compel testimony before itself that would still open up the testifier to criminal charges. Can a court in Michigan compel testimony involving a 20-year-old murder in New York?
Basically, how are these issues worked out when a court (or, of course, Congress) offers immunity and the crimes may still be prosecutable in another jurisdiction?
I don’t think that it matters what all sort of “other” repurcussions may or may not be possible if she says something incriminating to herself. Granting immunity is simply a loophole around the fifth amendment to be able to force her to testify. Its goal isn’t to protect her from repurcussions, just to give congress the legal option to force her to appear as a witness and speak everything she knows. And she has to comply because otherwise they can lay fines and other punishments on her. She can’t use the fifth amendment as a protection against this since it becomes impossible for her to “legally” incriminate herself.
I’ll be interested in hearing the answer from someone who knows.
All I’m thinking is if she did something wrong and she is getting immunity, the prosecutors had better get something good out of her cooperation. I’m thinking of the Plame investigation. Weren’t some major players such as Armitrage given immunity, leaving the prosecution of Sooter to concern lower-ranked officials’ cover-up instead of the misdeed itself?
And I know it is not on point as it did not involve immunity, but the first thing to pop into my mind was the fact that Clinton was not convicted following his impeachment, but he was disbarred (at least temporarily).
[QUOTE= BarnOwl]
Are you a lawyer, Happy Scrappy Hero Pup?
[/QUOTE]
I am not a lawyer.
I am a law student who is in the middle of reading period for finals, two of which finals are Evidence and Criminal Procedure.
So I have notebooks, textbooks, and hornbooks in front of me when formulating my answers.
Quite a few threads have popped up on these topics in the last few days; I’m justifying posting to them as “studying.”
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
I am not a lawyer.
I am a law student who is in the middle of reading period for finals, two of which finals are Evidence and Criminal Procedure.
So I have notebooks, textbooks, and hornbooks in front of me when formulating my answers.
Quite a few threads have popped up on these topics in the last few days; I’m justifying posting to them as “studying.”
[/QUOTE]
Fine with me.
I asked because although you seem to know what you were talking about, you don’t write like a lawyer - yet. (That’s a compliment. 
)
[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
If Bonds got full immunity against prosecution for steroid use, and he testifies, could MLB ban him from the game?
[/QUOTE]
The Chicago Black Sox were acquitted in a court of law of charges arising from their deliberate throwing of the 1919 World Series; nevertheless eight of them were permanently ejected from the game of baseball by Commissioner Landis, appointed to the newly created position largely due to the fallout of the expanding scandal.
Okay, Cervaise, your point is well taken. But back to Goodling…
If she’s got some Rove-nailing testimony, could there be a quid pro quo? Suppose the the Dem’s lawyer meets with Monica’s lawyer. Assuming it can be done, could it go something like:
Dem’s Lawyer: What has she got for us? Off the record.
Monica’s Lawyer: He spells it all out.
Dem’s Lawyer: What does your client want for her testimony besides full immunity.
Monia’s Lawyer: She wants to keep her license.
(Hondle, Hondle, Hondle.)
Dem Lawyer: I’ll see if I can get the DC Bar to promise they’ll revoke for 1 year only.
ML: She wants it in her home state, too.
(Hondle, Hondle, Hondle.)
DL: Okay. I’ll try for that too. Deal?
ML: Deal.
If the Dems could get Rove, they’d line up to kiss Monica’s at the Jefferson Memorial and give her 30 days to draw a crowd. Me too. 
[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
Okay, Cervaise, your point is well taken. But back to Goodling…
If she’s got some Rove-nailing testimony, could there be a quid pro quo? Suppose the the Dem’s lawyer meets with Monica’s lawyer. Assuming it can be done, could it go something like:
Dem’s Lawyer: What has she got for us? Off the record.
Monica’s Lawyer: He spells it all out.
Dem’s Lawyer: What does your client want for her testimony besides full immunity.
Monia’s Lawyer: She wants to keep her license.
(Hondle, Hondle, Hondle.)
Dem Lawyer: I’ll see if I can get the DC Bar to promise they’ll revoke for 1 year only.
ML: She wants it in her home state, too.
(Hondle, Hondle, Hondle.)
DL: Okay. I’ll try for that too. Deal?
ML: Deal.
If the Dems could get Rove, they’d line up to kiss Monica’s at the Jefferson Memorial and give her 30 days to draw a crowd. Me too. 
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, except what kind of sway is the Democratic National Party going to have with the State bar? Also, the ABA has nothing to do with being a member of the bar. The ABA is purely voluntary. To be licensed in say Virginia, you have to be a member of the Virginia State Bar.
I’m expecting that Goodling will be affected by the same extensive memory lapses that AG Gonzales had during his “testimony.” She just won’t remember anything of interest. Here’s one thing I think the Dems (and any honest Pubbies on the panel) could do in response. Generally, there’s an introductory session to these things where they talk about the achievements and background of the person testifying. The Dems need to dig up every bit of bio they can about Goodling that talks about her intelligence, her breadth of knowledge, her command of the facts, etc. They might even find something that directly addresses her powers of memory. Then when she starts her long recitation about how she slept through her life during the DA firings coverup, the Dems can make startled remarks about how differently her testimony portrays here. Was this other stuff wrong? How did she get through law school with such a poor memory? Etc. Etc. Etc. In short, make part of the cost of her testimony the complete destruction of her credibility as a lawyer.