Monthly Archives: April 2021

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution ensures an individual does not self-incriminate.

MINNEAPOLIS The discussion within court this morning, even before the trial began, was about whether Morries Hall would take the witness stand.

This discussion happened before the jury even got into the court room.

Hall was with George Floyd that May night when Floyd was arrested by Minneapolis Police outside of Cup Foods.

Through his attorney Adrienne Cousins, Hall said he would 'plead the Fifth,' a constitutional right that prohibits self-incrimination and protects an individual from getting him or herself in trouble.

"At this point in time, Mr. Hall has no immunity," Hall's attorney Cousins said. "He has been provided no immunity, no protection for his testimony whatsoever. Because of that, Mr. Hall is invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination, in several key areas of questioning that we believe he would face, if he were to be called to testify."

Cousins explained that by opening her client up for questioning about many things related to the night George Floyd was killed, Hall could incriminate himself.

"[That would] put him in the position of being in very close proximity to Mr. Floyd," Cousins continued. "There is an allegation here that Mr. Floyd ingested a controlled substance, as police were removing him from the car, a car by the way that has been searched twice, drugs have been found in that car twice. This leaves Mr. Hall potentially incriminating himself for prosecution for third degree murder."

Mitchell Hamline School of Law professor Brad Colbert said that's what he would have done too, had he been the one to represent Mr. Hall.

"Absolutely," he said. "There is no benefit for him testifying, there is no legal way that's going to benefit him so it's a really easy call."

Colbert explained that there are several charges that Mr. Hall could open himself up to.

"Relatively minor charges like drug possession but there's also a serious possibility of a murder charge because the defense theory of the case is that Mr. Floyd died of drug ingestion and if the witness was the person who supplied the drugs, he could certainly be charged with Mr. Floyd's murder."

That's precisely what Hall's attorney Cousins had said.

That the 3rd degree murder charge can be interpreted in many ways.

"That statue is broad judge," Cousins said. "It doesn't just include a situation if A sells drugs to B, B then succumbs to an overdose, in fact it includes, any activity directly or indirectly, unlawfully, selling, giving away, bartering, exchanging, distributing or administrating a controlled substance classified as schedule one or two."

Colbert also says recognizing the Fifth Amendment, for what it is, involves realizing that whoever plead it, isn't innocent or guilty.

"It's important to recognize that it protects everyone, innocent and the guilty," Colbert said. "The idea is that in our system, we want to make sure everybody is able to keep their thoughts to themselves, that you have a private place for yourself. It's also the way our system works in that the government has the burden of proving that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

At this point the state has not offered any immunity to Mr. Hall. Judge Peter Cahill told defense attorney Eric Nelson to put in writing the questions he wants to ask Mr. Hall - and that judge will revisit the issue later this week.

Originally posted here:
Man who was with George Floyd during his arrest pleads the Fifth amid Chauvin trial - KARE11.com

(Minneapolis, MN) -- The man who was with the George Floyd on the night he died made a virtual appearance this (Tuesday) morning from jail before testimony in the Derek Chauvin trial. Morries (MOH'-rees) Hall invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination through his lawyer. That privilege would apply to any activities that took place on May 25th, 2020 before and after police arrived. Hall's attorney argued that without immunity, Hall would be open to future third-degree murder charges in Floyds death. Floyd's girlfriend testified that Hall provided George with the drugs weeks before Floyd died. Judge Pete Cahill is considering whether to allow Hall to testify on matters that would not be self-incriminating for Hall. Minneapolis police crisis intervention coordinator - Sergeant Ker Yang- testified this morning and Lieutenant Johnny Mercil is currently on the witness stand.

' + this.content + '

See the article here:
Floyd's Friend Invokes 5th Amendment Before Testimony Resumes in Chauvin Trial - Voice Of Alexandria

MINNEAPOLIS, (KTTC) -- The court has heard from almost 30 witnesses in total in the Derek Chauvin trial. On Tuesday morning, before testimony began, the court heard of Morries Hall's attorney. Hall is George Floyd's friend.

Hall is also the man that went to Cup Foods with Floyd on May 25, 2020, and he was in the passenger seat when officers approached Floyd. He is currently in jail and joined the hearing through Zoom.

Hall has been accused of selling opioids to Floyd, and drugs were found in the car that both Floyd and Hall were in.

"I notified all parties Mr. Hall would be invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination were he called to testify, I think subsequently filed my notice, my notion to quash the subpoena," Hall's attorney Adrienne Cousins said.

She told the court that Hall would not be protected if he testified.

"At this point in time, Mr. Hall has no immunity," Cousins said. "He has been provided no immunity, no protection for his testimony whatsoever, and because of that Mr. Hall is invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in several key areas of questioning that we believe he would face."

Cousins told the court that any questions asked of Mr. Hall could be self-incriminating, even questions that do not involve drugs.

Judge Peter Cahill told the defense to write down a list of questions that will be given to Hall and his attorneys, so Hall's lawyers can tell the court if the questions would be self-incriminating.

Cahill asked the defense to submit the questions on Thursday.

Witness #23 Sgt. Ker Yang

Ker Yang has been with the Minneapolis Police Department for 24 years. He is a crisis intervention training instructor. He talked about the department's Critical Decision Model.

"A lot of the time, we have the time to slow things down and reevaluate and reassess," Yang said.

Witness #24 Lt. Johnny Mercil

Johnny Mercil is currently on medical leave with MPD, and he has been an officer for 25 years. Mercil trained officers on use of force. He also conducted Brazilian jiu-jitsu training.

Chauvin attended use of force class in 2018

The prosecution showed evidence that Chauvin attended Mercil's use of force class in 2018.

He told the court that officers are trained to use the least amount of force.

"The minimum amount of force that you need to accomplish the objective of arresting or detaining somebody is what you should use," Mercil said.

Mercil was asked if the above photo is a MPD-trained neck restraint.Mercil said it is not.

"Knee on the neck would be something that does happen in use of force that isn't authorized," he said.

Witness #25 Nicole Mackenzie

Nicole Mackenzie has been with MPD for six years. She is the medical support coordinator, administrator of the Narcan program and conducts CPR training.

She was asked if officers are trained to believe that if a person can talk, they can breathe. She told the court officers are not trained to learn that.

"There is a possibility that somebody could be in respiratory distress and still be able to verbalize it. Just because they are speaking doesn't mean they are breathing adequately," Mackenzie said

During the defense's cross-examination, they asked Mackenzie if a hostile crowd could be a reason officers delay providing CPR, and Mackenzie said yes.

After attorneys finished questioning Mackenzie, she was told by Judge Cahill that she would be subpoenaed to come back Tuesday, April 13 at 9 a.m. for the defense's case.

Witness #26 Sgt. Jody Stiger

Jody Stiger has worked for the Los Angeles Police Department for 28 years.He's worked on use of force board and helped teach officer tactics courses such as de-escalation and use of force.

"In a normal situation where you are dealing with someone that's a counterfeiter or someone who is using a counterfeit bill, typically you wouldn't even expect to use some type of force," Stiger said.

Stiger gave his opinions on the May 25 incident.

"Initially, when Mr. Floyd was being placed in the back seat of the vehicle, he was actively resisting the officers," he said. "So at that point, the officers were justified in utilizing force to try to have him comply with their commands and seat him in the back seat of the vehicle."

Stiger said once Floyd was placed on the ground and slowed down his resistance, the officers should have done the same.

"They should have slowed down or stopped their force as well," he said.

Testimony will resume Wednesday at 9:15 a.m.

Read more from the original source:
Officers take the stand on training and protocol; Floyd's friend fears self-incrimination - WXOW.com

The murder trial of Derek Chauvin continued into its seventh day, with the prosecution and defense focused on whether Chauvin violated police policy when he knelt on George Floyds neck for over nine minutes, reports the New York Times. Today, the court heard testimony from Sergeant Ker Yang, a crisis intervention coordinator with the Minneapolis Police Department, and Morries Lester Hall, a friend of Floyds who had been in the car with Floyd moments before he had been arrested. Hall planned to invoke the Fifth Amendment, however Judge Peter Cahill ordered Chauvins lawyer to draft questions for Hall by Thursday which could be answered without self incrimination.

President Biden will announce a new deadline for states to make all adults eligible for coronavirus vaccines, moving the original May 1 goal to April 19, writes the New York Times. Biden changed the timeline after increases in vaccine supply prompted states to speed up their vaccination drives. Vaccinations in the U.S. continue to steadily increase, and over 3 million doses are administered each day.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive order prohibiting government-mandated vaccine passports, saying a system to track those vaccinated would tread on Texans personal freedoms, writes the Hill. Every day, Texans are returning to normal life as more people get the safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine. But, as Ive said all along, these vaccines are always voluntary and never forced said Abbott. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has also vowed to take similar executive action against companies requiring a vaccine passport.

The Chicago Project on Security and Threats released its initial findings on its analysis of the 377 Americans so far charged in the Capitol insurrection today in the Washington Post. Using court records to analyze the demographics and characteristics of those charged, the research showed that [c]ounties with the most significant declines in the non-Hispanic White population are the most likely to produce insurrectionists who now face charges. Specifically, the counties that had the greatest decline in white population had an 18 percent chance of sending an insurrectionist to the Jan. 6 riots, whereas counties with the least decline in white population had only a 3 percent chance.

U.S. and Iranian officials convened in Vienna to begin reviving the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal that President Biden pledged to rejoin, reports the Washington Post. The two nations will not meet directly, and European diplomats will act as intermediaries. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the U.S. expects to discuss, the nuclear steps that Iran would need to take in order to return to compliance with the terms of the [nuclear deal] and the sanctions relief steps that the United States would need to take in order to return to compliance as well.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy called on NATO to create a path for Ukrainian membership in the alliance, days after Russia began amassing troops in the Donbass region, reports Reuters. In a phone call with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Zelenskiy said NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbass, and that Ukraines entry into the alliance will be a real signal for Russia.

Jailed Russian opposition-leader Alexei Navalny was moved to a medical unit due to an acute respiratory infection yesterday, writes CNN. Navalny began a hunger strike last week to protest the lack of access to medical care in the prison, and will continue his hunger strike despite having a fever and severe cough, according to his team.

Over 1,800 inmates escaped in southeast Nigeria after heavily armed gunmen attacked a prison with explosives and grenades, reports Reuters. The Nigerian police believe the attackers were from a banned separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra, but the group denied involvement. Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari called the attack an act of terrorism and ordered security to apprehend the escaped prisoners.

ICYMI: Yesterday on Lawfare

Bryce Klehm announced an episode of Lawfare Live on April 8 at 7 p.m. ET, during which the National Security Law Society at the Georgetown University Law Center will host a live recording of the Lawfare Podcast on the continuing threat of white extremism.

Jen Patja Howell shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast, featuring Benjamin Wittess conversation with Lawfares Jacob Schulz and Justin Sherman, fellow at the Atlantic Council, about a report released by the New Zealand government on the Christchurch shooting.

Jordan Schneider shared an episode of ChinaTalk, featuring an interview with Derek Sandhaus about his book Drunk in China: Baiju and the Worlds Oldest Drinking Culture.

Jackson Neagli explained Hong Kongs election overhaul.

Darrell West shared an episode of TechTank, titled What We Can Learn About Mars From the Perseverance Exploration.

Jacob Schulz shared a report released by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on the use of Executive Order 12333.

Emma Svoboda asked if Kazakhstan failed Xinjiangs ethnic Kazakhs.

Email the Roundup Team noteworthy law and security-related articles to include, and follow us on Twitter and Facebook for additional commentary on these issues. Sign up to receive Lawfare in your inbox. Visit our Events Calendar to learn about upcoming national security events, and check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.

See the article here:
Today's Headlines and Commentary - Lawfare - Lawfare

The answer to that question is as old as the country itself, and it continues to evolve as Americans debate the right balance of individual freedom and public safety.

After every mass shooting and subsequent examination of gun violence statistics, a predictable argument is sure to follow as gun-rights advocates and gun-control advocates square off over what should be done next. Each side speaks with passion and fire about rights and law and the Constitution, the meaning of the right to bear arms and a well-regulated militia, and what these terms mean in the context of our Second Amendment rights.

But does anyone really know what those rights are? Even the experts cant say for certain because the Constitution is constantly being reviewed and reinterpreted. Some commonly held myths about the Constitution also cloud what we think we know about our rights, and that goes for our First Amendment rights as well as our Second. So, what is the Second Amendment, exactly, and what does it encompass?

A lot of people forget that the Supreme Court didnt recognize an individual right to own guns until 2008, says Adam Winkler, professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. That was when the Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller. The 54 ruling found that the Second Amendment protects the individuals right to bear arms for self-defense, and overturned a Washington, D.C., law that prohibited people from keeping handguns in their homes.

Nowhere else in the Constitutiondoes the people refer to anything other than an individual right, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. And thus the right to bear arms came to include the right of the individual to own a gun for protectionsomething that had never been articulated by the Supreme Court before.

RELATED: What Would It Take to Amend the Constitution?

The Constitution is a remarkably brief founding documentjust 7,591 words stretched over seven articles defining the authority invested in the government and 27 amendments generally laying out the rights retained by the people. Its brevity is both the beauty and the burden of the Constitution since it allows for interpretation in response to changing circumstances but also lacks specificity to easily settle disputes. When it comes to Second Amendment rights, the tension between these two traits is particularly sharp.

Heres what Second Amendment actually says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That short sentence has sparked endless discussion and disagreement.

The gun debate has been going in circles for decades, and it certainly doesnt bring us together as a society, Winkler says, noting that absolutists on both extremes often drown out more moderate discussion. Nonetheless, he says its important to let every side be heard when deciding which policy to pursue: Thats what makes us a democracy.

RELATED: Interesting Facts and Figures About the Constitution

Another key part of democracy is its ability to adapt to new g44conditions and societal norms. As attitudes that were once thought of as perfectly natural become abhorrent in more enlightened times, the law can change to reflect that. The subject of race relations is a perfect example.

In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that state-mandated racial segregation did not offend the Constitution. But in 1954, when civil rights advocates argued in Brown v. Board of Education that separate but equal was a fiction that legalized unconstitutional discrimination, a unanimous Supreme Court agreed. Government-sanctioned segregation was outlawed, in the North and the South, less than 60 years after Plessy.

That same changing dynamic could exist in the context of the Second Amendment. Will the next mass shooting change the hearts and minds of so many Americans that the right to own guns has to change to accommodate this new reality? Its possible. After all, its sometimes said amongst Constitutional scholars that all it takes to change the Constitution is the ability to count to five. In other words, can you get five Supreme Court justices to agree with what you think the Constitution means? Ultimately, the right to bear arms means what a majority of the Court says it means, and that can shift relatively quickly.

But the Courts respect for precedent and history is meant to prevent our fundamental rights from getting blown away too easily by political winds. Justices often look to the Founders struggle in crafting the Constitution for guidance.

RELATED: Why I No Longer Think Guns Are a God-Given Right

The gun control debate frequently focuses on what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, as the first 10 amendments are called. Was it so the people could take up arms to fight their own government gone tyrannical, or was the establishment of a well-regulated militia a way to discourage foreign threats? As Winkler and co-author Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote for the non-partisan National Constitution Center, its a little of both.

While the Constitution and the amendments that would become the Bill of Rights were being debated in the earliest days of the republic, two factions emerged with very different views of what the new nation should look like. What would the relationship between the individual states and the federal government be? Should one be superior to the other? Who should have the firepower to maintain that balance?

States rights advocates, the Anti-Federalists, argued that the proposed Constitution would leave the states vulnerable to federal force, while pro-centralized-government Federalists responded that the people were armed and therefore not easily controlled by a federal army. But the lessons of the Revolutionary War showed that building an army was difficult and a ready militia was necessary for national defense.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions, Winkler and Lund wrote. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.

RELATED: The Difference Between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

But while the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were hashing out the right to bear arms, the states were already regulating who could own guns and how they could keep them, Winkler notes. In 1776, Massachusetts required an oath of loyalty to the Cause of America from anyone who wanted to own a gun, with Pennsylvania passing similar laws to disarm those disaffected by the fight for independence.

Even after the Second Amendment became law, states were in the business of deciding who could own and keep firearms. In slave states like Virginia, for example, African Americans, even freedmen, were barred from possessing weapons.

In 2016s Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court extended the Second Amendment right to own weapons for self-defense to include all instruments that constitute bearable arms. But does that mean every individual has the right to own any weapon? The short answer is, no.

Like all of our rights, the Second Amendment is subject to commonsense restrictions, Winkler says.

Just as the First Amendment right to free speech doesnt protect perjury and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination doesnt cover voluntary confessions, the individual right to own guns can be regulated without offending the Second Amendment, he says. The Court has approved laws preventing convicted felons and the mentally ill from owning guns, for instance, a position not considered controversial except by the most ardent gun advocates.

Except for the few who favor totally banning firearms on one end of the debate, and the few who favor completely unregulated weapons on the other, the vast majority of Americans fall somewhere in between. They favor reasonable laws targeted at keeping guns out of the most dangerous hands while recognizing law-abiding citizens right to own firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sport. According to a November 2020 Gallup poll, 91 percent of Americans want gun laws to be stricter or to stay as they are, while just 9 percent want looser regulations.

But Winkler says revoking or significantly changing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely. The truth is, there are only about 10 states with restrictive gun laws, he says, including Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Notably, California is known for the strictest regulations, and it also has the seventh-lowest rate of deaths by gun violence. Since it takes a super-majority of 38 states to repeal an amendment, and roughly 40 states are gun-friendly, Winkler says the Second Amendment is more likely to be amended to expand gun rights than revoke them. Instead, we will have to continue talking about it and trying to find the sweet spot where our right to individual security and public safety are in balance.

RELATED: Why Is It So Hard to Stop Gun Violence in America?

Sources:

Read more here:
What Is the Second Amendment? | Second Amendment Rights - Reader's Digest

News and research before you hear about it on CNBC and others. Claim your 1-week free trial to StreetInsider Premium here.

Thursday, April 15 @ 1 PM, EST

New York, NY, April 09, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CommPRO.bizextends an invitation to please join us for this timely, informative, free webinar.Register here.

Webinar Overview

In an environment where misinformation, partisanship, and deep fakes abound, the role of the journalist has shifted from observer/reporter to advocacy and truth-telling. This panel discussion will explore why and where these lines are drawn and what the future will look like.

JoinAaron Kwittken(he/him), Founder and CEO of PRophet. and his panel featuring:

Discussion questions include:

Moderator

Aaron Kwittken (he/his/him)

Founder & CEO,PRophet

Aaron Kwittken is founder and CEO of PRophet, an AI-driven PR SaaS platform backed by MDC Ventures. He is also founder and chairman of KWT Global, a highly acclaimed PR and brand strategy firm with offices in New York, London and Los Angeles. A proud George Washington University alum, Aaron serves on GWs School of Media and Public Affairs advisory committee. Hes president-elect of PRSA-New York and past president of the Americas for the International Communications Consultancy Organization (ICCO); a former Board member of the PR Council; a former adjunct professor at NYU; writes for Forbes and The Drum; and is the creator and host of the popular Brand on Purpose podcast that features companies that do well by doing good. He has deep expertise in marketing technology, brand strategy, reputation management, crisis management and purpose-driven marketing. An endurance sports enthusiast, Aaron puts social impact at the center of everything he does personally and professionally.

Follow Aaron on Twitter:@AKwittken

Follow PRophet on Twitter:@PRophet_PR

Panelists

Sara Fischer

Media Columnist,Axios

SaraFischer is a media reporter forAxios. She joined the company in 2016 as a founding staff member. Fischer is considered one of the top reporters on her beat. Revue cited her weekly newsletter,AxiosMedia Trends, as the second-most popular media newsletter in the market and deemed it a must-read by media industry leaders. She was also recently named to Forbes 30 Under 30 Media list and to the 2019 Folio 100 in their Creator category. Beyond her weekly newsletter, Fischer overseesAxios media coverage for the newsroom, and steers the companys products and events around that topic. Her coverage spans corporate media, technology, social media, deals, entertainment, media regulation, policy and consumer habits.

Follow Sara on Twitter:@SaraFischer

Brian J. Karem

Sr. WH Reporter @Playboy, Author,Free the Press: The Death of American Journalism and How to Revive It

Brian J. Karem is an award-winning journalist, author, speaker and recognized defender of the First Amendment. Karem currently serves as the senior White House correspondent forPlayboy. He is also the host ofJust Ask the Question, a podcast featuring conversations with informed individuals about politics, current events and pop culture. He is also a frequent guest on CNN and other networks.

Karem has worked in both newspaper and television as an investigative journalist covering politics, crime, refugee issues, and state and local news. His work experience includes Americas Most Wanted (producer and correspondent);Peoplemagazine; Fox News; NBC News; and theCourier-Journal, among others.

Karem has received multiple awards for his work, including the prestigiousPieringer Awardand theFreedom of the Press Award, and was recently nominated as Journalist of the Year by theLos Angeles Press Club.

Throughout his career, Karem has been a champion of free speech and vocal advocate for freedom of the press. He has testified in support of afederal shield lawnumerous times before state legislatures and is the founder of the First Jailbirds Club, a group of 13 reporters who went to jail to defend a confidential source and who have toured the nation to rally for a federal shield law.

Most recently, Karem successfully filed a lawsuit against the Trump White House for suspending his credentials for a month, citing First Amendment and Fifth Amendment violations. The suit named President Donald Trump and White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham as defendants. He won the suit and has also successfully defended against two appeals.

Karem is a member of the White House Press Corps Association and the National Press Club and serves as immediate past president of the Maryland-Delaware-D.C Press Association.

Follow Brian on Twitter:@BrianKarem

David Kirkpatrick

Founder and Editor-in-Chief, Techonomy Media

David Kirkpatrick is a journalist, the founder and editor-in-chief of Techonomy Media, and author of the best-selling book The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World. Techonomys conferences gather leaders to discuss how tech changes everything and to help build a better society. In these Covid times, along with frequent virtual roundtables, it hosts regular virtual events. Most recentlyDigitally United in mid-March, about the many ways tech can bring us together and remedies for how it has fractured us. In April Techonomy joins withWorth Magazineto hostThe Health+Wealth of America, about how our country can maintain progress emerging from the pandemic and economic crises. Techonomy normally hosts two major annual physical eventsin New York in May and a fall retreat in California. Speakers at its in-person conferences have included Marc Benioff, Sen. Cory Booker, Steve Case, John Chambers, Jack Dorsey, Esther Dyson, Katherine Maher, Marissa Mayer, Tim OReilly, Sean Parker, Penny Pritzker, Peter Thiel, Jeff Weiner, and Mark Zuckerberg. Kirkpatricks bookThe Facebook Effectis in 32 languages. He spent 25 years at Fortune Magazine, and is a contributing editor at Bloomberg Television and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Follow David on Twitter:@DavidKirkpatric

REGISTER

Contact:Fay ShapiroPublisher/CEOCommPRO Global, Inc.p: 212.779.0181https://www.commpro.biz

Visit link:
Free Webinar: Battling Deep Fakes and Misinformation Media's Role and Responsibility - StreetInsider.com