Any lawyers here?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jim Bow
    Normcore
    • Jul 2008
    • 23985

    Any lawyers here?

    My wife said she heard that when someone (Trump perhaps) goes before a Grand Jury, his lawyer is not in the room with him. He is compelled, by law, to answer every question put to him, or else take the Fifth.

    Is this true?
    “Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles and see the world is moving" - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
  • Ian McColgin
    Senior Member
    • Apr 1999
    • 51639

    #2
    Re: Any lawyers here?

    Yes. But at least in Massachusetts (I don't know about other states or the feds) one can go out of the room to consult one's attorney.

    Grand juries are odd creatures. It's often said that a decent prosecutor can indict a dead cow if he or she wants. More or less true but sometimes the prosecutor will use the grand jury to avoid an unpopular prosecution, as all too often happens in white on black killings but may also be a smooth affirmation of something not well covered by law, as in a grand jury being shaped to decline prosecution of a woman who killed her notoriously (and documented) abuser.

    And then there are occasional "runaway" grand juries where, for example, the prosecutor just can't deflect them from indicting the governor or such.

    A grand jury is investigative and the prosecutor rarely has a complete case. But a grand jury is usually based on more than wish, is in action more than a random fishing expedition. It's designed to coerce information not otherwise obtainable.

    A disciplined and conscientious prosecutor will get a rational indictment.

    (I am not an attorney but I've had the odd brush with a grand jury and got an education.)

    Comment

    • jack grebe
      Misunderstood
      • Feb 2001
      • 13530

      #3
      Re: Any lawyers here?

      So what you are saying Ian, Is that Mueller calling a grand jury may be
      because he has nothing???
      Originally posted by George Jung
      Don't under-estimate Jack. He's purty damned talented

      Comment

      • Ian McColgin
        Senior Member
        • Apr 1999
        • 51639

        #4
        Re: Any lawyers here?

        Not likely. Way too high profile. Rather, this is the correct time to use the investigative powers of the grand jury to either clarify and add to what the prosecutor has or to show that there's an innocent explanation.

        Comment

        • SMARTINSEN
          Transplanted Yankee
          • Dec 2006
          • 10162

          #5
          Re: Any lawyers here?

          Your attorneys may be present for counsel, but they may not cross examine.


          Mueller has said that billowing clouds of smoke are evidence enough to empanel a grand jury as a vehicle to issue subpoenas to find the source of the fire. It is also a perjury trap, I have read that subpoenas have or will be issued for all of the known attendees of Don Jr.'s "adoption" meeting.

          I am not a lawyer but am playing one in the Bilge.
          Last edited by SMARTINSEN; 08-04-2017, 05:33 AM.
          Steve Martinsen

          Comment

          • Ian McColgin
            Senior Member
            • Apr 1999
            • 51639

            #6
            Re: Any lawyers here?

            I was looking it up to double check my memory, which proved about backwards. Massachusetts rules allow a witness to have an attorney present. That attorney may advise his or her client but may not address the grand jury, prosecutors, or other witnesses in any way. Federal rules, on the otherhand, appear to exclude anyone from accompanying a witness into the room. This assumes that the summary I read is correct and that I understood it.

            * * *

            (d) Who May Be Present.

            (1) While the Grand Jury Is in Session. The following persons may be present while the grand jury is in session: attorneys for the government, the witness being questioned, interpreters when needed, and a court reporter or an operator of a recording device.

            (2) During Deliberations and Voting. No person other than the jurors, and any interpreter needed to assist a hearing-impaired or speech-impaired juror, may be present while the grand jury is deliberating or voting.

            Comment

            • Glen Longino
              Senior Member
              • Jun 2008
              • 28863

              #7
              Re: Any lawyers here?

              Originally posted by jack grebe
              So what you are saying Ian, Is that Mueller calling a grand jury may be
              because he has nothing???
              Ha! Completely backwards!

              Comment

              • peb
                Papist and Texan
                • Feb 2004
                • 14281

                #8
                Why is a person always allowed a lawyer present for any law enforcement interrogation and not for a grand jury?

                Comment

                • Chris Coose
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2001
                  • 12283

                  #9
                  Re: Any lawyers here?

                  Cool thing about the GJ process is that they'll save SCROTUS for last. He will be in there by his crazy self not knowing what the previous out laws have said.
                  We know what this freak does when he is unscripted.
                  Study Peace

                  Comment

                  • John Smith
                    Senior Member
                    • Mar 2009
                    • 48681

                    #10
                    Re: Any lawyers here?

                    By the time Trump is called, the GJ will have seen a bunch of actual documents and heard a LOT of testimony. Trump will have no idea what they said, the witnesses or the documents, but would have to assume they told the truth.

                    Yes, he can go out and speak to his attorney, but the attorney cannot be in the room.

                    I'm not sure Trump knows what the truth is, and I can see him pleading, criminally, to "not guilty be virtue of mental defect." The man may prove unable to advance his own defense.

                    That, if bought, would cost him the presidency, but likely keep him out of jail. Might also cost him the ability to pardon. This could get quite interesting.
                    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

                    Comment

                    • AlanMc
                      Senior Member
                      • Jul 2017
                      • 7635

                      #11
                      Re: Any lawyers here?

                      all of my criminal law knowledge comes from 20 years of watching Law and Order (and matlock and perry mason). what i don't like, is that when prosecutors want someone to pay for something, they'll find a way to do it. it's a game for them. and if they start on something, and don't get a conviction out of it... they lose. i suspect that someone will get hung out to dry in this, but it won't be Trump. it'll be funny to see what kind of actual charge they come up with.

                      Comment

                      • Vince Brennan
                        Seymour TN 37865
                        • Jun 2005
                        • 10318

                        #12
                        Re: Any lawyers here?

                        What I don't like is when someone with no legal knowledge takes a FICTIONAL plot and tries to extrapolate a real-time scenario therefrom. CSI is a prime offender for investigative procedure.
                        http://www.frayedknotarts.com

                        Comment

                        • AlanMc
                          Senior Member
                          • Jul 2017
                          • 7635

                          #13
                          Re: Any lawyers here?

                          Originally posted by Vince Brennan
                          What I don't like is when someone with no legal knowledge takes a FICTIONAL plot and tries to extrapolate a real-time scenario therefrom. CSI is a prime offender for investigative procedure.

                          not A fictional plot. hundreds of them!

                          Comment

                          • paulf
                            Senior Member
                            • Jan 2012
                            • 6933

                            #14
                            Re: Any lawyers here?

                            Originally posted by AlanMc
                            all of my criminal law knowledge comes from 20 years of watching Law and Order (and matlock and perry mason). what i don't like, is that when prosecutors want someone to pay for something, they'll find a way to do it. it's a game for them. and if they start on something, and don't get a conviction out of it... they lose. i suspect that someone will get hung out to dry in this, but it won't be Trump. it'll be funny to see what kind of actual charge they come up with.

                            20 yrs TV law experience...impressive!
                            PaulF

                            Comment

                            • Canoeyawl
                              .
                              • Jun 2003
                              • 37698

                              #15
                              Re: Any lawyers here?

                              Originally posted by AlanMc
                              all of my criminal law knowledge comes from 20 years of watching Law and Order (and matlock and perry mason)...
                              Originally posted by paulf
                              20 yrs TV law experience...impressive!
                              That will look great on your resume.

                              Comment

                              Working...