The Time article may have been a bit more expansive, but the nub is here:
The Fifth Amendment protections apply to civil cases too. Witnesses may plead the Fifth if testimony would open them up to criminal charges. However, they do not enjoy the same protections against jury bias concerning liability in civil cases. This means that a jury can make an adverse inference when a defendant decides not to testify in a civil trial.
Given your background, particularly, I think it’s not so hard to imagine something that one could be compelled to say in a civil trial (if the 5th didn’t apply) that could open them up to criminal exposure.
A little more on Trump’s Truth Social post that led to the gag order:
According to the above source, the post read, “Schumer’s girlfriend, Alison [sic] R. Greenfield, is running this case against me. How disgraceful! This case should be dismissed immediately." The post also has a photo of Allison Greenfield and Chuck Schumer, who appear to be doing nothing more than squeezing into the frame and smiling for the camera.
Redditors (and others) are saying that the gag order has no teeth, because no judge is going to move against Trump, but I think this has a better chance of jailing Trump than they think. Trump made it personal against the judge by attacking his staff, and I think that’s going to weigh heavily on the “treat him like anyone else” side if/when Trump does it again. The judge may well be willing to take the historic and personal risk if he thinks he’s protecting the people he entrusts to aid him.
Maybe its just me but IMHO opinion the only reason Habba is on the case is that she’s attractive. Trump has a tendency to hire people based on their looks and I think this is just another case of that. If she really did make such a major error, what other reason could there be for keeping her on? She doesn’t have a winning record as a Trump mouthpiece.
Yes, Habba is essentially a Public Relations/Press Secretary type person for Trump. I’ve often seen her representing him on TV for cases that she’s not even listed as being counsel for. She basically just repeats the “WITCH HUNT!” gripes on TV as her career. Having a law degree is supposed to give her a veneer of authority when she just repeats his claims.
That said, she also represents him in other ways. She signed the paperwork saying that they had complied with requests for sensitive documents in Mar A Lago (which was shown to be false). She has appeared in court in some of his civil cases.
Of course that could occur. Which is why you can use the 5th, but judiciously. You cant agree to take the stand and just say “5th” to every question. If the question might lead you to criminal exposure, then sure, say “I refuse to answer on the grounds…”.
But that cite does not address civil courts-
The Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself is not restricted only to cases where you are under indictment or actively being prosecuted for a crime. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case called McCarthy v. Arndstein.* Among other holdings, the court ruled*: “The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination applies to civil proceedings.”* You must assert the right yourself and indicate you refuse to answer on the grounds your reply may incriminate you.*
This does NOT mean you can refuse to provide answers to questions because they could lead to a jury finding for the opposing party in the civil litigation. What it means is, if your answers to the questions you are being asked could result in you facing criminal prosecution, you do not have to provide the answers. You also do not need to provide answers if the information you would provide could be enough to lead police to evidence that could be used to incriminate you.
In 1997, the 11th Circuit court explained in United States v. Gecas that the threat of future prosecution must actually be “reasonable, real, and appreciable” in order for you to be justified in asserting your Fifth Amendment right. You cannot simply claim you think you might some day be prosecuted for your answers in order to avoid providing information you have been asked about when you are involved in civil litigation.
Whether or not there is a credible threat your answers could lead to criminal prosecution is going to vary depending upon the specifics of the case and the questions being asked. An experienced Irvine civil litigation lawyer can advise you on whether you may be able to assert your Fifth Amendment rights when you are asked questions in civil litigation you are involved in.
And unlike a Criminal case, the Jury may use that against the plaintiff.
But it gets better, he then said (out loud, not on social media) “You saw what was just put out about Schumer and the principal clerk. That is disgraceful”
He started a rumor and then repeated it as if it was second hand information. That’s like telling one person the made up rumor that “John is cheating on his wife” and then telling another person that you “heard that John is cheating on his wife”.
Or…maybe she does.
[That’s a ‘sex with trump’ shaming joke, not a slut shaming joke. And just a joke, not actually suggesting it’s happening]
As Trump and Faux News always do. Thankfully it seems that the judge here isn’t buying any of that bullshit. My money says that this judge locks Trump up, if only for a night.
Someone help me out here please. I imagine the answer is likely no, but is there any reason why a defendant would need to be worried about a biased clerk? Does Engoran’s clerk make suggestions on how he should interpret law? Does she influence what the judge’s decision should be?
And, Jesus Christ, my mother just reposted Donny’s Truth tweet with the clerk’s photo and name on her Facebook.
It depends. Does a hypothetical defendant want to make sure that his unhinged fanbase (eta: including your mother, sorry) understands that the clerk is likely a Democrat, and therefore unfair? Rigged? Witchhunt?
I know it’s hard to keep all the Trump lawyers and Trump litigation straight, but I believe you’re thinking of a different young female lawyer, Christina Bobb, who signed the certificate of compliance with the subpoena. According to the Mar-a-Lago indictment, she was asked to sign it by the senior lawyer on the file, Corcoran, and did so even though she had not been involved in the hunt for the documents listed in the subpoena. One might wonder why the senior lawyer who had been involved in the document hunt delegated that task to a junior lawyer who had not been involved in the document hunt?
As an aside, I used that example for our articling students as well: never, ever sign a certificate of compliance with a legal obligation, unless you have been involved in the process and have personal knowledge that the client has complied.
I believe I read somewhere that Ms Bobb has felt it necessary to retain counsel. Could be wrong on that; it’s very difficult to keep this all straight.
No, and she could not make suggestions on what a judge’s decision should be. A clerk acts more in an administrative role—dealing with paperwork, forms, and so on. The clerk looks after the docket in docket court, and calls litigants before the court, but when it comes to acting in any sort of a legal capacity or advising on legal matters—nope.
It’s heaped new scrutiny on a months-old court filing in Trump’s New York case that was resurfaced by Politico on Wednesday.
In it, Habba claimed she looked for Trump Organization financial documents in many of the same places that the Justice Department would later describe finding top secret documents.
Different documents, different cases, different female lawyers, same Mar A Lago.