Skip to main content

View Diary: Miranda Rights and the Bombing Suspect (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think that's what he said. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    •  Ah, I misunderstood. (0+ / 0-)

      I took "immunity" to imply no prosecution even if independent evidence exists.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:36:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would even go that far (0+ / 0-)

        Let's say the police find out he set some third bomb somewhere else because he told them about it.

        It's hard to argue that "independent lines of evidence" would have existed otherwise. It's all contaminated now because how would you have known to start looking...?

        I would argue that under this immunity deal he simply could not be prosecuted for the third bomb.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:41:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's two types. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Transactional-You can never, under any circumstances, be charged with any crimes you testify about under a grant of immunity.

        Use-Your testimony and any evidence derived from it can't be used, but if the police can independently prove their case, you can still be tried for the crime you testified to.

        Some states have transactional immunity, but the fifth amendment only requires use immunity.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site