Moussaoui Case Over

[Rich Lucibella]

Invention-
You misunderstand....I'm not asking if something can be "proven"....I'm asking if it's a "crime". Crime is crime, whether it's detected or proven. So, there is no solace in saying, "well if you don't get caught", when the operative questions are:
1) Is it a crime to with-hold or refuse to "get involved"?
2) Is it in the same class as the actual crime committed?
3) Should it be in the same class?

See, when we speak of the citizen's "duty" to "get involved" under penalty of law, then I'd have to judge the Courts' opinions that LEO's have no "duty to protect" as an unjust double standard. The seminal case here was in DC:
- 3 women call the cops and state that the woman in the apartment below is being raped and beaten.
- Cops drive by and leave when there's no overt evidence of a "domestic disturbance"
- The women call again; the dispatcher never even relays the information to the LEO's
- The women then call down the stairs that the cops are on the way. They are attacked, imprisoned and repeatedly beaten and raped over the course of 14 hours.

The rationale for their suit:
- DC had prevented them the means to defend themselves or help their neighbor with its gun ban.
- The cops had been given information of a serious crime in progress and, for whatever reason, failed to act.

Now, we all know how that verdict came out. But, let me just ask you....
under the types of circumstances I've presented in my previous posts, would it not be logical that the dispatcher should be charged with Conspiracy to Commit Burglary, Rape, Kidnapping and Assault?

See the problem with equating 'knowledge of crime" with the crime itself?
Rich

 

[invention_45]

That's where I'm confused. The news reports have always stated that he was on trial for not "telling" the FBI what he knew or for "lying". To my limited knowledge the Prosecution put forth no evidence that he had any contact with the 9-11 hijackers and the only "evidence" in court was his own statements that he was to fly a fifth plane....of course, he also stated that Bush would grant him amnesty and he'd return to the Middle East to join his brethren.

I'll say again that I haven't been following the case. So I'm discussing it by what I see here. To me, if he admitted in court (which, from the very little I DID see from the news, is possible, from some of the comments he blurted out) that he knew about the plan (was to fly a 5th plane would suggest that pretty strongly) then he was a co-conspirator. In a crime that definitely had victims.

Now, don't take me as a hiding-under-my-bed terror fanatic from my statements here. I have gone on record here that I'm not afraid of terrorism.

But he DID conspire, in the legal sense, to commit a BIG crime (mass murder at the very least). To me, that in itself should be a crime. It should be an aggravating circumstance that he knew about it and denied knowing about it at a time when a truthful statement could have stopped it or mitigated it.

In fact, had he opted out of the conspiracy he'd still be a conspirator, but warning the FBI might have been seen as a mitigating factor in his sentencing.

From the little I know of the case, I don't see how it was mishandled.

 

[cuate]

Life without parole Vs. Death

It seems the actor would have liked to have been put to death and become a moslem martyr and go to his moslem paradise with his moslem 72 virgins. I really doubt that was his sincere wish.

Life withgout parole in the prison he is going to, 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, unable to preach his hateful garbage to others of the same mental quality is likely the best sentence.

Remembering 9/11 , I would have enjoyed seeing the creep burned at the stake but "Revenge is Mine, sayeth the Lord".

 

[invention_45]

Invention-
You misunderstand....I'm not asking if something can be "proven"....I'm asking if it's a "crime". Crime is crime, whether it's detected or proven. So, there is no solace in saying, "well if you don't get caught", when the operative questions are:

Glad you clarified. I was wondering, as I wrote, which one of those questions you were actually asking. That's partly why I included some philosophical mumbo-jumbo at the end of the whole thing to show how I think about the subject.

1) Is it a crime to with-hold or refuse to "get involved"?

Yes, IMHO, if there's a victim of the committed crime. But, as you are probably aware, at sentencing time the judge can consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Being afraid of gang retaliation would seem to me to be a mitigating circumstance.

2) Is it in the same class as the actual crime committed?

My understanding is that it is. But I seem to vaguely recall reading a statute or two that specify otherwise, specific to that crime. So I don't know, but I'll stipulate generally it is.

3) Should it be in the same class?

No, generally. But it depends on how mad I am about the crime committed.

See, when we speak of the citizen's "duty" to "get involved" under penalty of law, then I'd have to judge the Courts' opinions that LEO's have no "duty to protect" as an unjust double standard. The seminal case here was in DC:

OK, I can fix this problem, at least conceptually. I believe they SHOULD have a duty to protect.

- 3 women call the cops and state that the woman in the apartment below is being raped and beaten.
- Cops drive by and leave when there's no overt evidence of a "domestic disturbance"
- The women call again; the dispatcher never even relays the information to the LEO's
- The women then call down the stairs that the cops are on the way. They are attacked, imprisoned and repeatedly beaten and raped over the course of 14 hours.

The rationale for their suit:
- DC had prevented them the means to defend themselves or help their neighbor with its gun ban.
- The cops had been given information of a serious crime in progress and, for whatever reason, failed to act.

Now, we all know how that verdict came out. But, let me just ask you....
under the types of circumstances I've presented in my previous posts, would it not be logical that the dispatcher should be charged with Conspiracy to Commit Burglary, Rape, Kidnapping and Assault?

Yes. The dispatcher should be charged with that crime. Actually, more like misprision. The dispatcher knew or should reasonably have known (these should be two different levels of misprision, by the way, of which the dispatcher would likely be guilty of the latter) that a crime was in progress. What is at issue here is whether the dispatcher was merely thinking the report was already in the hands of the police or was willfully (for some odd reason) withholding the information that there was a second call. It would be for the court to decide whether there was abetting the crime's progress by failing to relay the second call to the police.

See the problem with equating 'knowledge of crime" with the crime itself?

The dispatcher handled the first call properly. No crime there. Knowledge of a crime was present, but it was reported to the police. That's not misprision. The second call came in. If the dispatcher thought, and it could be shown through recordings of communications, that the problem was being handled and no further communication to the cops was needed, then she's innocent of misprision. If it could be shown that the cops had reported back they saw no evidence of trouble and THEN she got the 2nd call and failed to relay it, then it's misprision, with laziness being no excuse.

--------

I was looking at this as an issue of my responsibility to YOU and yours to ME, not mine or yours to The People. If you come to know of a crime being planned against me, I want you to be compelled to call in help. And I don't mind being so compelled myself in return.

 

[invention_45]

Life withgout parole in the prison he is going to, 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, unable to preach his hateful garbage to others of the same mental quality is likely the best sentence.

I have no quarrel at all with the sentence. I suspect his prison stay is going to be particularly unpleasant.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Invention-
Again-
I can find no reports that claim he was charged as a participant in the 9-11 hijackings. He was charged with conspiracy, to my knowledge.
From the Associated Press

Not all jurors were convinced that Moussaoui, who was in jail on immigration charges Sept. 11, had a significant part in the attacks, despite his boastful claims that he did.

Obviously, then, he wasn't tried as a participant, otherwise there would have been a hung jury.

Using evidence gathered in the largest investigation in U.S. history, prosecutors achieved a preliminary victory last month when the jury ruled Moussaoui's lies to federal agents a month before the attacks made him eligible for the death penalty because they kept agents from discovering some of the hijackers.

This would indicate that he was charged with knowing where some of the hijackers were. As I understand it, it only came out in trial after the charges were filed, that he claimed to be a participant in the plot.

Ahhh, here we are:
The Indictment
Note that there is no evidence in the indictment that he participated in the attacks of 9-11 or had any contact with the hijackers. The charges of Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism were certainly valid and supportable...and he did plead guilty to these charges.

What I don't understand is the Media and Jury emphasis (see quote above) on the fact that he "lied" to the FBI:

On or about August 17, 2001, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, while being interviewed by federal agents in Minneapolis, attempted to explain his presence in the United States by falsely stating that he was simply interested in learning to fly.

Since when can you be charged with a crime and then "double jeopardied" for failure to implicate yourself in that crime when questioned by Federal Authorities? Since PATRIOT, that's when. However PATRIOT came after August 17th '01.

In researching this, I see that he was never charged with that offense...it was simply a good sound-byte for the Press to tsk-tsk over. If, as is reported above, the Jury considered his August 17 lie important, for the life of me I just can't understand why....though it clearly would not have changed the outcome.
Rich

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Back to the subject at hand. Report from AP on Judge Brinkema's sentencing statement:

Brinkema firmly refused to be interrupted by the 37-year-old defendant as she disputed his declaration from a day earlier: "America, you lost. ... I won."

"Mr. Moussaoui, when this proceeding is over, everyone else in this room will leave to see the sun ... hear the birds ... and they can associate with whomever they want," she said.

She went on: "You will spend the rest of your life in a supermax prison. It's absolutely clear who won."

And she said it was proper he will be kept away from outsiders, unable to speak publicly again.

"Mr. Moussaoui, you came here to be a martyr in a great big bang of glory," she said, "but to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper."

At that point, Moussaoui tried again to interrupt her, but she raised her voice and spoke over him.

"You will never get a chance to speak again and that's an appropriate ending."

Brinkema sentenced Moussaoui to six life terms without the chance of parole, with two terms to be served consecutively.

Gotta love the eloquence!
Rich

 

[invention_45]

Note that there is no evidence in the indictment that he participated in the attacks of 9-11 or had any contact with the hijackers. The charges of Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism were certainly valid and supportable...and he did plead guilty to these charges.

I could be wrong, but I thought an indictment was just a list of charges returned by a Grand Jury. I didn't think it needed to contain anything as precise as evidence. It contains some general background information, but the prosecutor has to present an argument with witnesses and evidence in front of the grand jury to get support for each count. There may have been more that you don't see written on the indictment that took place in the grand jury room that, in the minds of the grand jurors, linked him to 9/11.

What I don't understand is the Media and Jury emphasis (see quote above) on the fact that he "lied" to the FBI:

I understand their emphasis, though that doesn't mean anything about anything legal. They emphasize it because had he not lied the FBI would have been tipped off and might have saved some lives.

Quote:
On or about August 17, 2001, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, while being interviewed by federal agents in Minneapolis, attempted to explain his presence in the United States by falsely stating that he was simply interested in learning to fly.

Since when can you be charged with a crime and then "double jeopardied" for failure to implicate yourself in that crime when questioned by Federal Authorities? Since PATRIOT, that's when. However PATRIOT came after August 17th '01.

I don't see this as double jeopardy. If you are suspected of a crime and there's probable cause, you're charged with the crime. If what you have said during an investigation seems to contradict all other evidence (which we may not have seen publicly) then you have lied to the police and that's a separate crime.

In researching this, I see that he was never charged with that offense...it was simply a good sound-byte for the Press to tsk-tsk over. If, as is reported above, the Jury considered his August 17 lie important, for the life of me I just can't understand why....though it clearly would not have changed the outcome.

Are you saying it would not have changed the outcome of the trial, or the outcome of events on 9/11?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

the prosecutor has to present an argument with witnesses and evidence in front of the grand jury to get support for each count.

In his first interview of the case, last night, Moussaoui's attorney stated the following, in essence:
"I have not spoken to Moussaoui in a very long time and don't care to ever speak to him again."
"I don't think the verdict was a victory or defeat for anyone. I think the Jury's recommendation was fair; had they given him death, I would be saying the same thing. They were careful and weighed all the evidence. It was a tough call."

Those statements (and the fact that he's stayed away from the media) gave this guy some real credibility for me. As to Moussaoui's actual actions, he stated, "The prosecution never attempted to put forth a shred of evidence that he was connected with the 9-11 hijackers or had ever had any contact with them."

So, unless you can provide trial info to refute this claim, I lean toward the attorney's veracity.

They emphasize it because had he not lied the FBI would have been tipped off and might have saved some lives.

That's complete supposition. It supposes that the FBI would have acted immediately, when they had no evidence of what was about to come down. It further assumes that he is under an obligation to incriminate himself by stating, "Well I'm here to commit acts of terrorism".....kinda flies in the face of the 5th's guarantee that "nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

As an example, if my brother-in-law is wanted for parole violation and I know where he is, I'd be harboring a fugitive. Now, if I lie about my knowledge (refusing to incriminate myself) and he later robs a gas station, it would be a legal absurdity to charge me with Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery, wouldn't it? It would be just as absurd to have a law which allowed that charge while dismissing the Bill of Rights issues by claiming the Judge could always show leniency.

I don't see this as double jeopardy. If you are suspected of a crime and there's probable cause, you're charged with the crime. If what you have said during an investigation seems to contradict all other evidence (which we may not have seen publicly) then you have lied to the police and that's a separate crime.

You're right, it doesn't violate the 5th Amendment guarantee against double-jeopardy; it violates the 5th Amendment guarantee against self incrimination.

You really see no problem with that?

Are you saying it would not have changed the outcome of the trial, or the outcome of events on 9/11?

Wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial. My concern was if the following quote is reported accurately:

the jury ruled Moussaoui's lies to federal agents a month before the attacks made him eligible for the death penalty

If, in fact, the jury had so ruled based on this lie, I would have a real problem with a Death Sentence as a result. A man cannot be expected to sign his own Death Warrant on Pain of Death.....that's what the 5th Amendment is all about.

As it stands, the guilty plea was appropriate and the sentence was appropriate. I just don't believe that a lie to cover self incrimination should elevate the sentence for the underlying crime. To do so, turns the Constitution on its ear.
Rich

 

[Trapp]

"The prosecution never attempted to put forth a shred of evidence that he was connected with the 9-11 hijackers or had ever had any contact with them."

?!?!?!!? How could he conspire with them if he had no contact with them? I thought that this was about him and them "conspiring" about 9/11..... Heck, the indictment puts him in contact with them. ATTA in particular. The lie is only one part of the indictment. None of the charges say anything to the affect "Lying to the government". To me it seems that the lying was just aggravating circumstances to the real charges.

I just don't believe that a lie to cover self incrimination should elevate the sentence for the underlying crime.

Maybe, maybe not. Lying about it shows willful disregard. Lying was a tool to further advance the crime. Lying is also incriminating. The fifth is about NOT Talking. He lied.

I can relate it to a weapon......You plan on killing someone. The weapon can be a tool to advance your agenda.

Yes, killing is killing. It is wrong no matter what way you do it. Does the way you do have an effect on sentencing? Yes. Well, I think....

A guy who tortures someone to death should be delivered a harsher sentence than someone who kills a person quickly. Maybe I am off base here..

 

[Rich Lucibella]

How could he conspire with them if he had no contact with them?

He was accused of Conspiring, but not necessarily with them. I've been researching this much of the day and here's what I have.

It is pretty much a statement of fact that Moussaoui was trained by Al Qaeda, came to the US, enrolled in flight training, asked to be trained to fly a 747, purchased two knives , joined a gym and on and on and on. All actions taken by certain of the 18 hijackers on 9-11.

Thus the Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terror and related charges (more than reasonable).

It can be argued that he waived his 5th Amendment Rights, after being Miranda'd, by talking to (lying to) Federal Agents...and here's where it gets real sticky. In order for the Government to seek the death penalty, they had to prove that his actions directly or "substantially" resulted in the death of Americans. Simply "conspiring" to kill Americans was not enough for the death penalty....he had to be directly responsible for deaths.

As the prosecution could provide no real nexus connecting him to the 9-11 hijackers they introduced a novel argument: Had he not lied to Federal investigators, the plot would have been (at least in part) foiled and American lives saved. Thus, he was directly responsible for those deaths. (I would argue that, had he chosen to remain silent, the effect would have been no different than his statement that he had come here to learn to fly planes).

I think, despite Moussaoui's claims that he and Richard Reed were spit-swapping buddies, assigned the job of hitting the White House with a 5th plane, it was pretty much a given that he was training for a later wave of attacks and it was not directly connected to 9-11 plot or hijackers.

So this was the crux of the jury deliberations: Not whether he was guilty of Conspiracy...he'd already pled guilty; but whether, had he told the FBI on August 17th that he was training to fly US planes into US targets, any (or all) of the 9-11 hijackers would have been caught.

Obviously, the jury did not think so...at least, not with unanimity.
Rich

 

[Waitone]

<sniffs and wipes tear from eye>Makes me nostalgic for the good old days when people were tried for what they do, not what they think.

I think the bottom line here is the federales were going to prosecute someone for participation in 911. The same federales were going to convict someone local for the OKC bombing. The same merry band of lawyers determined Martha Stewart was going down. They exhibit the same attitude toward Scooter Libby. It makes no difference what you do. If someone in the political establishment decides a show trial is needed, there will be a trial. Whether or not it has anything to do with reality is right beside the point.

However, I fear the pattern being established with Mousoui. I think it a mistake to drag acknowledged terrorists into court and treating their offenses as crimes and not act of wars. Time will tell if a we screwed up.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Makes me nostalgic for the good old days when people were tried for what they do

Perzactly my point! Thanks for noticing.

- If you do something illegal, you should be charged with that crime.
- If you conspire to do something illegal, you should be charged with conspiracy or attempt.
- If you lie to a Fed, one could argue you should be charged with lying to a Fed (I won't argue it, but "one" could.)

But if you conspire to do something illegal and you lie to a Fed, you should certainly not be charged with the crimes committed by third parties.

In this case, the jury saw thru.
Rich

 

[Wildalaska]

But if you conspire to do something illegal and you lie to a Fed, you should certainly not be charged with the crimes committed by third parties.

Do you mean crimes that were unrelated or do you mean crimes that were related to the conspiracy that was the subject of false statements?

WildcuriousAlaska

Never mind, read your earlier post, carry on

 

[Rich Lucibella]

WA-
Don't run away so quick...I get "worse".

Here's the deal:
Let's say I conspire with two other TFL'ers to murder you in your sleep on Tuesday because of your sig lines....OK?

Tomorrow night I get picked up in your town for possession of a weapon with one of them illegal hearing protection cans on the end. See, I intended to sell it to a non-TFL'er to pay for my flight up. Well, after the arrest and Miranda, the cop asks me,"What are you doing in town." I answer, "Oh, just a little hunting."

On Tuesday night, the non-TFL stranger (to whom I was gonna sell the suppressed weapon) kills Spiff dead, while I vacation at the local hooskow.

Should I be charged with murder or conspiracy to commit murder? I murdered no one. I conspired to murder someone. I intended to murder him.....but the fact remains, I did not commit or participate in the act of murder....only a (separate) conspiracy.

I'm a criminal, by definition. Charge me with what I've done; charge me with what I planned to do; even charge me with my lies....just don't charge me with what others carried out. To do so turns punishment for the most petty of crimes into potential Capital Crimes.
Rich

 

[Trapp]

I'll just throw this on the record, cuz, frankly I don't have much else to say.

I am glad he got what he got.

It is wrong to charge someone with something they didn't do. It happens (as we've seen)

And last: Something needs to change.

 

[invention_45]

OK, now I see where the seed of our disagreement is, I think.

As it stands, the guilty plea was appropriate and the sentence was appropriate. I just don't believe that a lie to cover self incrimination should elevate the sentence for the underlying crime. To do so, turns the Constitution on its ear.

You think that lying to police to cover self-incrimination ("I didn't do it!") is what the 5th allows you to do. Yet somehow it is a crime to lie to the police. But it is NOT a crime to keep your mouth shut and ask for a lawyer.

Lying to the police is, far as I can remember, misprision, which is a crime. Saying nothing except through your lawyer is not a crime, because it is constitutionally protected activity.

Now, perhaps it ought not to be that way, i.e., lying to the police should be an accepted method of invoking your 5th amendment rights to not incriminate yourself. But that's not the way the law and courts have decided the constitution means it.

Here's an example of lying to the police that isn't merely refusing to self-incriminate: "I didn't do that. Jean did it." That's more than refusing to self-incriminate. That's implicating somebody else. The misprision law is, I'm sure, in place to protect the Jeans from such lies.

Now, if the guy had said absolutely nothing to the police during interrogation and this enabled 9/11 to happen, I would not like it. But the 5th would have protected him.

On the other hand, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I recall vaguely that the 5th is not absolute. A judge can order you to answer a question. I suspect that it doesn't happen frequently because there will be an objection to open a door for appeal and possible reversal, and the judge knows he better have a damn good reason for denying you your 5th amendment right. I have also heard that you must answer every question asked by a grand jury.

I think that my 2nd paragraph is the reason why so very many people, including lilysdad, a LEO himself, state simply and without qualification that if you have to shoot somebody to SAY NOTHING AND ASK FOR A LAWYER. These people do NOT say to tell the police a limited amount of information like "I had to shoot him" or anything else. If anything you tell them later turns out to be an error, it can easily be called a lie. Then you have done two bad things to yourself. You have added a charge of lying to the police and you are going to hear that error presented as a lie in front of a jury.

Somehow, given what I did hear about his behavior during trial, I don't see this guy being silent during interrogation.

Those statements (and the fact that he's stayed away from the media) gave this guy some real credibility for me. As to Moussaoui's actual actions, he stated, "The prosecution never attempted to put forth a shred of evidence that he was connected with the 9-11 hijackers or had ever had any contact with them."

That doesn't mean the prosecutor didn't think he was connected. The way the indictment background reads, it sure looks like some sort of connection was trying to be implied. Maybe that's what you do when you just KNOW the guy's guilty but can't prove it.

That's complete supposition. It supposes that the FBI would have acted immediately, when they had no evidence of what was about to come down. It further assumes that he is under an obligation to incriminate himself by stating, "Well I'm here to commit acts of terrorism".....kinda flies in the face of the 5th's guarantee that "nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

First, it's what a reporter said. Why are you surprised that it's complete supposition? Have you ever been a witness present at a newsworthy event and then later read the newspaper story covering it? If so, have you ever seen any better than 10% accuracy?

What it actually supposes is that the FBI *might* have acted immediately. Which I doubt, but they would have had the chance. What he is under obligation to do, by law, is NOT say "I don't know anything about it" if he does. By saying nothing and asking for a lawyer, that would be accomplished. If he gives an answer, he has done so voluntarily, so his 5th protection is gone. If it's a lie, he's guilty of a crime.

 

[invention_45]

Here's the deal:
Let's say I conspire with two other TFL'ers to murder you in your sleep on Tuesday because of your sig lines....OK?

Tomorrow night I get picked up in your town for possession of a weapon with one of them illegal hearing protection cans on the end. See, I intended to sell it to a non-TFL'er to pay for my flight up. Well, after the arrest and Miranda, the cop asks me,"What are you doing in town." I answer, "Oh, just a little hunting."

On Tuesday night, the non-TFL stranger (to whom I was gonna sell the suppressed weapon) kills Spiff dead, while I vacation at the local hooskow.

Should I be charged with murder or conspiracy to commit murder? I murdered no one. I conspired to murder someone. I intended to murder him.....but the fact remains, I did not commit or participate in the act of murder....only a (separate) conspiracy.

Yes, you should. Here's why.

How are we to know what went on in the meetings held during your conspiracy? You might have given the other two essential information then walked away. You might have PAID them to do it and then walked away. Without you, even though you were in the slammer during the murder, it might have not been successful.

You should be charged with murder because it's for a court to determine whether you were instrumental in commiting the murder, even if it was only by way of providing essential information or paying for it. You should also be charged with the separate crime of conspiracy to commit murder, because you did that, as well. I would buy that the penalty should be less for the conspiracy, but you should be charged even if no murder happened. Let a jury decide if what you did and what the result was should be punished.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Invention-
All very good points; and well stated.

I don't disagree that lying after Miranda is Misprision. But that's my point...it's a separate crime; it should not raise the level of the underlying crime; it should not create a "conspiracy to" charge (didn't in this case) and it should not result in a Life Sentence crime being elevated to a Death Sentence crime (it did in this case). Whether Moussaoui remained silent or lied about his reasons for being in the country would have made no difference in the events of 9-11. To believe otherwise is to believe that, had he invoked his rights under the Fifth, the FBI would have put US airports on high alert; but, having lied, they concluded that there was no threat to airlines.

Second Point:
The very fact that lying is becoming a regular and high profile charge used by the Feds (Martha Stewart, Moussaoui) has a chilling effect on their ability to do their jobs: because of the danger of a misstatement resulting in Felony charges, no honest citizen in his right mind (at least not me) will respond to Federal Agent questions absent presence of an attorney. The risks are simply too high...and to throw yourself on the mercy of The System to sort out whether you were, indeed, lying or mis-recalling is courting disaster for those who dislike confined spaces. For my own part, I will always invoke my Fifth Amendment rights, no matter the context of the interaction; I know not what the investigation is, whether I am a target, whether others have colluded to lie about my involvement or whether the Agency has simply targeted me for asset forfeiture.

Final Point:
My WA assassination example: I should not have framed the question as "should I be charged with Murder"; I should have asked, "Should I be found guilty of Murder". Your answer is, it's up to the Jury. Well, of course it is, but that does not prevent us from forming our own opinion. In my case, I don't believe the WA example should result in guilt for Murder; Conspiracy- Yes; Misprision- Perhaps.

Rich

 

[Al Norris]

I thought I knew what a misprision was... So I went looking.

Merriam-Webster Definition:
misprision
1 a : neglect or wrong performance of official duty b : concealment of treason or felony by one who is not a participant in the treason or felony c : seditious conduct against the government or the courts
2 : MISUNDERSTANDING, MISINTERPRETATION

Seems innocuous enough. But then we all should know that a common dictionary term does not have to have any relation to its legal meaning, so...

FindLaw:
misprision of a felony
n. the crime of concealing another's felony (serious crime) from law enforcement officers.

OK. But that still doesn't tell me a whole lot. Digging deeper...

From the Lectric Law Library:
MISPRISION - In its larger sense, this word is used to signify every considerable misdemeanor, which has not a certain name given to it in the law; and it is said that a misprision is contained in every treason or felony whatever. In its narrower sense it is the concealment of a crime.

Misprision of treason, is the concealment of treason, by being merely passive for if any assistance be given, to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there is no accessories in treason. It is the duty of every good citizen, knowing of a treason or felony having been committed; to inform a magistrate. Silently to observe the commission of a felony, without using any endeavors to apprehend the offender, is a misprision.

Misprisions which are merely positive, are denominated contempts or high misdemeanors; as, for example, dissuading a witness from giving evidence.

MISPRISION OF FELONY - Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the U.S., conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the U.S. 18 USC

Misprision of felony, is the like concealment of felony, without giving any degree of maintenance to the felon for if any aid be given him, the party becomes an accessory after the fact.
----

OK then.

I believe I now understand the terms being used. It is a crime to conceal knowledge of a crime, in and of itself, IF asked about the crime by a law enforcement officer.

On another note, it is also a crime to give false statements to a LEO. Yet, a LEO can lie to me? I've always been confused how one is a crime but not the other... And why it elevates to a Felony?