Tag: 5th amendment

Jan 6 Chairman Bennie Thompson says using the 5th Amendment implies guilt

Representative Bennie Thompson, who is the chairman of the January 6 committee in the US House of Representatives, said on Thursday that when a defendant uses their right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment, “in some instances, that says you are part and parcel guilty to what occurred.”

Thompson made the remarks to Rachel Maddow, who said it was “a fascinating pivot point in this investigation.” Thompson’s belief that a defendant’s use of their 5th Amendment rights infers guilt upon that person is not upheld by the Supreme Court.

In Griffin v. California in 1965, the Supreme Court upheld that if a defendant uses their 5th Amendment right to not incriminate themselves, neither the state, nor judge, may use the use of that right to tell the jury that silence is evidence of guilt.

Thompson, from his position as chairman of the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s special committee on the events of January 6th, has no basis to make this claim and this claim could indicate that the committee is already biased against those they have subpoenaed in their case. Pelosi alone appointed all members of the committee without input from the minority leader Kevin McCarthy.

Thompson made the remarks as the committee has issued subpoenas to more and more people who the committee believes is responsible for what they have termed an “insurrection” on January 6, when some Trump supporters left a rally at the ellipse in Washington, DC, and went to the Capitol.

Keep reading

This Forfeiture Victim Waited 2 Years Without a Hearing. Is That Due Process?

Civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow the government to seize property allegedly tainted by crime without ever charging the owner, are fundamentally rigged in favor of the law enforcement agencies that get a cut of the proceeds. Even when an owner manages to challenge a forfeiture by arguing that he was not involved in any criminal activity, he has the burden of proving his innocence, and the process often costs more than the property is worth. Adding insult to injury, the government can drag out the process for so long that even innocent owners feel compelled to surrender. The Institute for Justice (I.J.) challenges that aspect of civil forfeiture in an appeal it filed this week, asking the Supreme Court to rule that due process requires a prompt post-seizure hearing.

Early civil forfeiture laws in the United States recognized the importance of that safeguard. The Collections Act of 1789, I.J. notes, required a hearing within 14 days after the government filed its forfeiture complaint, which was supposed to happen shortly after the seizure. A decade later, Congress amended the law to emphasize that forfeiture suits must be commenced “without delay.” Nowadays, by contrast, property owners routinely wait months or years before they get a chance to challenge a seizure before a neutral adjudicator.

Keep reading