« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Presidential Pardons & Historical Warnings
"The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt."
- George Mason, from his "Objections to This Constitution of Government"
http://gunstonhall.org/documents/objections.html
Advertisement
Comments (4)
Of course, this can backfire. If a person has been pardoned, they no longer have access to "the right to remain silent" and can't take the Fifth. A court can compel the person to talk, and imprison the person for contempt of court if he does not.
April 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that true for a pardon, or just for immunity? Even if you've been pardoned for crime A, couldn't you still plead the fifth, since you could still be prosecuted for crime B?
April 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If crime B is "lying under oath", then you can't plead the Fifth because the crime hasn't yet occurred and you can prevent it (and have the duty to do so) by testifying honestly.
If crime B is "contempt of court", then (1) technically it's not a crime, though you can go to jail for it and (2) you won't commit contempt of court if you answer honestly.
"Your honor, I can't answer the question because if I were forced to answer the question then I would lie and be guilty of perjury. Therefore, I plead the Fifth." If that's the scenario, the Fifth won't work and you can be compelled to testify by, i.e., spending an indeterminate amount of time in jail.
April 4, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about crimes of a similar kind but that weren't proven or even weren't discovered.
For example, person A murders persons B and C (secretly for President D). After being arrested for the murder of person B, President D pardons person A. Assuming these murders are intimately connected, person A could still plead the 5th on affairs dealing with the murder of person B, however, since such testimony could be used to convict him/her for the murder of person C. Right? (I'm arguing from "common sense" and not from any actual knowledge of the law. Naturally, these two aren't always in agreement.)
April 4, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment