It's not a loophole @Sack-a-Doo! It is quite purposeful and intended to guard against government abuse and coercion, and to prevent the government from using a person's silence as evidence of guilt.
Pleading the fifth alone isn't enough to get a warrant. There could be any number of reasons someone pleads the fifth. Another witness testifying is a different matter, and might or might not provide probable cause depending on the circumstances of that specific situation.
Okay thanks. I could write it so that witness A pleads the fifth then, but I was told that if a witness pleads the fifth, then legally she still has to talk, she will just get immunity, but she still has to talk and offer testimony to the case at hand, since she was subpoenaed too. So if that is the case, and she has to incriminate herself but with immunity, the cops will still know that she did it. Even if it's not enough to get a warrant cause she has immunity, they will be very aggressive in finding some way to investigate her since, if she legally admits to the crime while having immunity. So she can either lie on the stand about, or plead the fifth. But I was told that if a witness pleads the fifth, they still have to legally testify with immunity, or they will be in contempt of court. So is it still worth her admitting she committed a crime if asked, even though she has immunity, cause the cops would still try to find a way around the law if this was the case I assume.
My research has indicated that witnesses, unlike defendants, can selectively apply pleading the fifth to specific questions. Unless the entire testimony is self-incriminating, witness A could answer some questions and plead the fifth on others. I don't know who told you that last part, but they sound wrong to me. I can recall a fair number of instances where subpoenaed witnesses pled the fifth on certain matters and weren't held in contempt. I'm also not sure why you're so set on having the police aggressively pursue an investigation even if the witness were granted immunity. Edit: yeah, subpoenas definitely don't stop a witness from exercising their right to plead the fifth. http://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/civil_law_suits/my-legal-rights-as-a-subpoenaed-witness.htm
No I read that a witness can plead the fifth, if subpoenaed, but they still have to testify, and are given immunity instead. I was told that even though it's call the right to remain silent, you still have to testify but are given immunity. So even though it's called the right to remain silent, technically it's more like the right to immunity in real life, cause they still have to talk, and are just given immunity. But this is what one person in law told me, and maybe he's wrong. As for the witness, not all of the testimony is self-incriminating but some witness B's testimony will incriminate her, in which case, they will back her back to the stand, she will have some explaining to do. I was told before that if she confesses to her crimes, it will cause the cops to get creative and find ways around the law to get away with investigating her, and have it hold up in court later, as oppose to her lying and making everyone think she is innocent. That's just what I was told by readers who thought that is how the police would behave, if someone confessed to a crime, and were given immunity.
That is incorrect. They have to appear, but they can't be forced to answer questions that would be self-incriminating. Copy pasted from the article I linked: "Yet once they invoke their right to "plead the Fifth," their testimony cannot be compelled. That is, a witness may not be forced to answer any incriminating questions."
Oh okay, I was told that only the defendant has the right to remain silent, and witness have the right to immunity. But thank you for clearing that up. Well I can write it she either remains silent, or she can lie and give an alibi to throw off suspicion. Whatever is best to get the cops to not want to think of ways to investigate her, after her and the defendant go free. I want them not to investigate her, so that the main character, is compelled to do it on his own.
There is one thing that occurred to me. It was said that a prosecutor will want to know what a witness will have to say before offering her immunity. But if a witness is to give up her incrimination before getting the immunity, then wouldn't that be a paradox, and she could still be charged, since the immunity wasn't given before hearing what the crime was?
That normally wouldn't happen, because if a prosecutor is contemplating an offer of immunity, it's almost always so they can take down a bigger fish.
Well the bigger fish in this case would be the defendant, rather than the witness testifying. So would the prosecutor go on blind faith and give immunity to the witness, not knowing what the witness will say against the defendant? This is just a deposition and not a trial, and the witness has been subpoenaed without giving any prior statement before. So he would have to offer her immunity without knowing her crime or what she will say against the defendant, since she was subpeonaed to find out what she has to say.
