Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Immunity Jeopardizes Iraq Probe
Guards' Statements Cannot Be Used in Blackwater
Case
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 30, 2007; A01
Potential prosecution of Blackwater guards allegedly
involved in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians
last month may have been compromised because the
guards received immunity for statements they made to
State Department officials investigating the incident,
federal law enforcement officials said yesterday."
"Several of the Blackwater personnel, however, asserted that they had already told their stories, under
immunity grants from the State Department, and declined FBI interviews that could be used against
them, law enforcement officials said."
"The immunity claim rests on what are called "Garrity warnings" and "Kalkines warnings," both named
after federal court cases from the 1960s and '70s that recognized the special circumstances of
government employees in criminal cases involving their jobs. "The government wears two hats" when it
launches internal criminal investigations, one law enforcement official said. The rulings were intended
to protect the rights of government employees."
Last edited by Nonarchist; 04-20-2013 at 02:57 PM..
"Solari: So the Supreme Court said that a public agency can’t force employees to give statements to an investigator by threatening them with loss of their jobs and then still expect to use those statements to criminally prosecute the employee. If investigators do that, then it would have the same effect as if a prosecutor granted the employee, what we call, “use immunity”, that is, a guarantee that the statement, or any information gained as a result of their statement, can not be used to prosecute them for a crime."
"Solari: So the Supreme Court said that a public agency can’t force employees to give statements to an investigator by threatening them with loss of their jobs and then still expect to use those statements to criminally prosecute the employee. If investigators do that, then it would have the same effect as if a prosecutor granted the employee, what we call, “use immunity”, that is, a guarantee that the statement, or any information gained as a result of their statement, can not be used to prosecute them for a crime."
So, I guess it comes down to whether or not the Boston bombers were on the FBI's payroll.
That is exactly what we have been saying the entire time.
Any information gained FROM their statement.
In this case, they have videos of him planting the bomb. Those videos were obtained prior to even questioning him. If he them says "I planted the bomb" that doesn't make the videos they found inadmissible.
That is exactly what we have been saying the entire time.
Any information gained FROM their statement.
In this case, they have videos of him planting the bomb. Those videos were obtained prior to even questioning him. If he them says "I planted the bomb" that doesn't make the videos they found inadmissible.
Unless the FBI was working part and parcel with them.
"Solari: So the Supreme Court said that a public agency can’t force employees to give statements to an investigator by threatening them with loss of their jobs and then still expect to use those statements to criminally prosecute the employee. If investigators do that, then it would have the same effect as if a prosecutor granted the employee, what we call, “use immunity”, that is, a guarantee that the statement, or any information gained as a result of their statement, can not be used to prosecute them for a crime."
So, I guess it comes down to whether or not the Boston bombers were on the FBI's payroll.
WTF are you talking about. Use immunity =/= Miranda violation. Use immunity is where the prosecutor grants a limited form of immunity to a person in exchange for what they hope will be valuable testimony. A Miranda violation is where a person is not informed of their rights when needed and as such any statements and non-attenuated related evidence is not admissible.
WTF are you talking about. Use immunity =/= Miranda violation. Use immunity is where the prosecutor grants a limited form of immunity to a person in exchange for what they hope will be valuable testimony. A Miranda violation is where a person is not informed of their rights when needed and as such any statements and non-attenuated related evidence is not admissible.
Planned sidestepping of Miranda by the prosecutor/police and defendant for a desired objective.
Unless the FBI was working part and parcel with them.
I wonder what his hospital security is like.
Take the conspiracy bs elsewhere, please
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
