Judge approves Mueller request for immunity for witnesses in Manafort trial

[mystery-ak]

Judge approves Mueller request for immunity for witnesses in Manafort trial
By Avery Anapol - 07/23/18 12:30 PM EDT

A federal judge on Monday approved special counsel Robert Mueller's request to grant immunity to five witnesses so they can testify against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis said that he would unseal documents containing the identities of the witnesses, according to Talking Points Memo.

Mueller's team submitted the request for immunity last week, and asked that the identities of the potential witnesses not be revealed because they had not yet been publicly linked to the case.

Manafort is facing multiple charges related to alleged financial crime from work before he joined the Trump campaign. He has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to all charges. He is being held in a Virginia jail ahead of his July 24 trial.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/398369-judge-approves-mueller-request-for-immunity-for-witnesses-in-manafort

[mystery-ak]

Rumor is it's Podesta...Clintonoids never held accountable for anything they do.

[austingirl]

Hard to watch this BS.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Well, at least there's this @mystery-ak

Manafort judge deals blow to Mueller probe
NY Post, Jul 23, 2018

A federal judge in Virginia agreed Monday to grant immunity to five potential witnesses in Paul Manafort’s upcoming trial — but, in a blow to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, said their identities would be made public.

Mueller’s team wanted the identities of their witnesses to remain confidential, saying in a filing last week that they haven’t been criminally charged and to avoid “undue harassment.”

But Judge T.S. Ellis, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said they would be identified.

He also ordered Mueller’s office to provide a list of about 30 witnesses to Manafort’s lawyers.


More:  https://nypost.com/2018/07/23/manafort-judge-deals-blow-to-mueller-probe/

[Right_in_Virginia]

Imagine how bad this is going to be for Mueller when the list of names include:  Podesta, Clinton, Comey, Strzok, Stormy, Sessions   

[edpc]

Manafort judge deals blow to Mueller probe


Sounds like they confused have Ellis and Cocaine Mitch.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Need some legal input here @Oceander .  If granted immunity can a witness plead the fifth under *any* circumstances once on the stand and under oath?

[edpc]

Compelling a Witness: “Use” Immunity

A witness who is not a criminal defendant in his own trial, and who has refused to answer incriminating questions, may be forced to do so when the government grants the witness “use” immunity. This is a promise, enforceable in any court in the United States, that the statements will not be used in a subsequent prosecution for crimes associated with the testimony. “Use” immunity does not extend to civil or other non-criminal proceedings.

Granting immunity to a witness does not mean that the government cannot prosecute the witness for crimes related to those statements. Instead, in any future prosecution, the government must prove that the evidence it will rely on was derived independently from the immunized testimony. For example, imagine a store clerk (A) who acted in concert with another clerk (B) to take money from the cash register. Both are charged with theft, and are slated for separate trials. With a grant of use immunity, clerk B will be compelled to testify against Clerk A. Later, at Clerk B’s trial, Clerk B’s testimony cannot be used against him. But if a witness, such as a customer, saw Clerk B surreptitiously take bills from the register, that evidence will be admissible in a criminal prosecution against clerk B.

“Use” immunity is very different from “transactional” immunity, which is rarely given. With the latter, the government promises not to prosecute for crimes related to the testimony, even when an independent source of evidence exists. In the example above, had clerk B received transactional immunity, he could not be prosecuted for the register theft, no matter how many people saw him take the money.

Immunity is normally granted by the prosecutor, not the judge. But in many jurisdictions, the court can order the prosecutor to grant immunity when the defendant’s case would be severely compromised without the witness’s testimony. For example, the judge might insist on immunity if the testimony will be the only evidence bolstering the defense’s theory of the case.

Conflicts Between a Witness’s Fifth Amendment Right and a Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to Cross-Examine

Judges face a tricky situation when a government witness, testifying generally against a criminal defendant, invokes his or her right against self-incrimination. The problem here is that the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him. If the judge allows the witness to remain silent, the defendant’s right has been compromised, and arguably he has been deprived of a Constitutionally acceptable trial. Most of the time, the witness’s right trumps the defendant’s right. But as a result, the judge may excuse the witness from testifying or strike all or part of the testimony (that is, instruct the jury to disregard it).

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/taking-the-5th.html

[mystery-ak]

Judge reveals identities of 5 witnesses immunized to testify against Manafort

excerpt:
The witnesses, who Mueller's team submitted for immunity last week and whose identities were not released publicly until Monday, are James Brennan, Donna Duggan, Conor O'Brien, Cindy Laporta and Dennis Raico, according to Talking Points Memo.

Each of the witnesses are connected to financial institutions, according to The Washington Post's Rachel Weiner.


more
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/398415-identities-of-5-witnesses-immunized-to-testify-against-manafort