CHICAGO-(AEAE) THE ISSUE TODAY IS WHETHER A PERSON WHO TAKES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN A ALLEGED CIVIL CASE CAN HAVE THE JUDGE HOLD LAWFULLY HOLD IT AGAINST THE PERSON IN A RULING? We know the states my no constitutionaly compel an individual to testify himself Twining v. New Jersey 1908. In Ullman v United States (1956) The High Court stated protection against compulsory self incrimination applies only to prosecution for crimes. But in a civil case where the Court warns an individual that case has "criminal" consequences can that individual take the 5th when there is a related grand jury invistigation proceeding against the same individual and not have the parties position become prejudiced by exercising a persons first amendment rights of self incrimination. It is the position of AEAE that it is fundamentally unfair to allow a defendant's silence be used against him in a civil case when that defendant is facing a criminal grand jury investigation in which he is the target. What is your opinion? Please comment. Stoller can always be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org Stoller is a constitutional scholar, appellate and trademark expert. Stoller has a new book out called Juice for Peanuts a true story of a false arrest and false imprisionment in which a party can learn to turn a "no win" situation in your favor.
EQUAL JUSTICE PARTY
Help the Equal Justice Party www. equaljusticeparty.org a registered political party in Illinois, support conservative candidates and endorses AEAE. Contribute today!