What Do You Do If The Police Take The Fifth In Court?

[OldCoyote]

A Cuyahoga County Prosecutor is faced with several police officers taking the fifth amendment when testifying in court about another officer.

He calls it the blue wall.

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cleveland-police-20150517-story.html#page=1

[djAdvocate]

May 17, 2015 22:42:55 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

A Cuyahoga County Prosecutor is faced with several police officers taking the fifth amendment when testifying in court about another officer.

He calls it the blue wall.

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cleveland-police-20150517-story.html#page=1

i think the standard method is to try to convict on circumstantial evidence.  or was that a rhetorical question?

[fairlycrazy23]

It is the blue wall. But I guess they could grant the officers immunity from there testimony and then they can not take the fifth

[happyhoix]

From what I understand, it's very dangerous for police officers to testify against other officers.

You might end up answering a call that needs backup, and backup refuses to come.

It's a chronic problem, and I know good police officers probably hate it when dirty cops go undetected.

[OldCoyote]

The officer was acquitted on all charges,   This only shows me that it is almost impossible for a police officer to ever be convicted.

I wonder,  Is there any possible case where a police officer could ever be convicted of murder??

I also wonder if the reason that people run is because they think they will be shot or maybe their neck broken?   Not like that ever happens.

[swamp]

You grant them immunity. Then you have them declared a hostile witness so you have more leeway in questioning. If they refuse to testify you have them charged with contempt. If they testify differently than statements they gave previously you prose yor them for perjury. If you can prove a she systemic issue, you may be able to get the cops treated as unavailable witnesses and read their prior statements into evidence. 

[swamp]

Cops are covered by the constitution too. They also have certain duties to assist that dint apply to civilians. By testifying they are admitting yo a crime. 

Id advise my cop client to take the fifth too. 

[OldCoyote]

I don't think they had anything to worry about, If the Judge found this officer not guilty after firing 40 rounds, having to reload, standing on the hood of the car shooting through windshield,  

They won't the other guilty of anything.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 17, 2015 22:42:55 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

A Cuyahoga County Prosecutor is faced with several police officers taking the fifth amendment when testifying in court about another officer.

He calls it the blue wall.

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cleveland-police-20150517-story.html#page=1

They would have the option ONLY if testifying would incriminate themselves, otherwise, there is no 5th Amendment right against incriminating someone else- it is rather called obstruction of justice.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 24, 2015 6:28:20 GMT -5 swamp said:

Cops are covered by the constitution too. They also have certain duties to assist that dint apply to civilians. By testifying they are admitting yo a crime. 

Id advise my cop client to take the fifth too. 

The police have absolutely no duty to defend the public.  But, yeah- if it was an available option, of course I'd advise it as a defense attorney. The prosecutor does have the option of offering them immunity in exchange for their testimony, no?

www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

[swamp]

May 26, 2015 19:09:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 24, 2015 6:28:20 GMT -5 swamp said:

Cops are covered by the constitution too. They also have certain duties to assist that dint apply to civilians. By testifying they are admitting yo a crime. 

Id advise my cop client to take the fifth too. 

The police have absolutely no duty to defend the public.  But, yeah- if it was an available option, of course I'd advise it as a defense attorney. The prosecutor does have the option of offering them immunity in exchange for their testimony, no?

www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Actually cops do have a duty to assist when they see a crime or someone in distress. The average citizen doesn't. Although their duty is usually civil, not criminal. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 26, 2015 19:11:38 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Oh great...now we don't want police officers to be afforded the same rights as the criminals under the constitution??


Remind me again who would want this job?

What you have here are police who are effectively saying that if they testify they would potentially incriminate themselves.  Now, far be it from me to begrudge anyone their rights. If a person wants to smear their naked body with mayo and sell pictures door to door, that's their right- but they don't have a right to a job as a school teacher. And I think these cops are fine to exercise their rights, but they should lose their jobs on the public payroll immediately.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 27, 2015 6:05:59 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

May 26, 2015 22:28:09 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

What you have here are police who are effectively saying that if they testify they would potentially incriminate themselves.  Now, far be it from me to begrudge anyone their rights. If a person wants to smear their naked body with mayo and sell pictures door to door, that's their right- but they don't have a right to a job as a school teacher. And I think these cops are fine to exercise their rights, but they should lose their jobs on the public payroll immediately.

Well sure, why would we let a little thing like due process get in the way of things.  You know what let's just change the law where we assume guilt until proven innocent for officers. Oh wait...I guess we already do that. 

Here again, you don't have the right to a job.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 27, 2015 7:51:23 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

May 27, 2015 6:42:54 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Here again, you don't have the right to a job.

You are correct,  but you fail to concede that you have the right to due process and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  

In the legal system, yes.  I have already conceded that if it was an option, I completely understand an attorney's position that their client should say nothing which might incriminate them.  However, I think it is a stretch that their testimony in this case would be "self incriminating".  I think rather that they are obstructing justice.  However, let us assume for the sake of argument that they are simply exercising their rights in a court of law. I have no objection to this in principle. I understand that in court the exercise of one's 5th Amendment rights cannot be used against the accused. No issue with that.

My issue is one of the employer's judgment. Here are people that work for the taxpayers, and I think that under the circumstances their relationship with the public is damaged, and it would be detrimental to have these men on the public payroll in a position to use deadly force.  I think the circumstances warrant dismissal- not even necessarily for anything they've done, but because the goal should be to preserve the public trust in law enforcement.