How does telling the cops about someone you were involved with not reasonably potentially incriminate you? If he knows stuff about a crime, that's potentially incriminating isn't it?
Well yes, that is why I am asking if invoking the fifth will work in that case. Unless I am misunderstanding?
Here's how the Supreme Court characterizes the privilege in Kastigar v. U.S.: "[The Fifth Amendment]can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used."
Oh okay. So basically if a witness is shown a photograph like in one of the prior examples, and is asked to identify the person next to him in the picture, the witness can be given immunity if the person in the picture may incriminate him, once identified and caught later.
1. The police cannot charge him with obstruction for failing to name his co-conspirators. He has an absolute right not to say a damn word to police about his involvement in any crime. 2. I'm a little confused about your accessory question. If he was part of the crime, he can be charged. I only know the state I practice in but most jurisdictions have a conspiracy law where every participant in the crime can be charged with every crime committed by each co-conspirator. (For example, in a bank robbery, perp 1 waits in the getaway car, perp 2 acts as lookout, perp 3 shoots the teller -- all 3 get charged with murder.)
Yes, but he has the right not name the co-conspirators, and if he does not name them, then they do no have enough evidence to link him to the conspiracy, so he cannot be charged without him talking about it, therefore.
Well I was rethinking a lot of the story and how to apply this playing dumb, tactic. Let's say the perp said he met the guys at a party. He cannot say this without agreeing to be on the stand, right? Which means he has to be open to cross-examination. The prosecutor can ask him who hosted the party, and then the police can go after the party host. I feel that by doing this, it will make the defedant's alibi, very complicated, cause he would have to make sure that everyone at the party, did not have a prove-able alibi at the time of the robbery right?
