US: Grand Jury imprisons three young people for the crime of silence, apparently?

[spiralsheep]

If any of the people on this com who're more aware of the subtleties of the US "justice" system than I am, or at least have useful links to share, could help me understand WTH is going on in this case then I'd be grateful.

News via: http://nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/leah-lynn-plante-a-third-anarchist-comrade-jailed-for-silence/

Leah's statement on tumblr: http://leahxvx.tumblr.com/post/33298924637

Leah's statement at anarchist news: http://anarchistnews.org/content/we-are-made-star-stuff-statement-leah-lynn-plante

I first heard this story via: http://nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/katherine-olejnik/

Write to the three prisoners: http://supportresist.net/letters.html (my postcards are on their way).

Comments

[giandujakiss]

It sounds like she's being jailed until she agrees to testify. If a court compels you to do something and you refuse, you can be held in jail until you do it. The U.S. Constitution protects people from being forced to give evidence that can incriminate them, so sometimes people can refuse to give court-ordered testimony on that basis, but that rule doesn't apply if the prosecutor grants you immunity for your own crimes because he/she is seeking information on someone else. Here, she was ordered to give testimony, and was promised that she would not be prosecuted for any crimes she herself committed, and she refused, so she was jailed until she complies.

Ta!

[spiralsheep]

Ah, thank you for the explanation of the specialist use of immunity in this context. That's a clever legalistic way to circumvent the idea of non-self-incrimination and/or a right-to-silence. So... I suppose the trick is for the state to pick on innocent/unprosecutable/unthreatening/&c acquaintances of the people the state wants to [attack in various unspecified ways that presumably don't include legal prosecution as the state clearly has no evidence of a convictable crime] and bully them into saying anything that might allow a (pretence of) reasonable cause to extend the bullying/witch-hunt/imprisonment-without-prosection to more targets. That's a helluva power to circumvent the more ordinary processes of criminal law and hypothetical human rights.

Apart from the famous case of McCarthyism that has lent its name to these sort of "witch-hunts", can anyone tell me if this sort of thing happens much?

Re: Ta!

[giandujakiss]

Well, you have to keep in mind that usually this power is used to force people to testify in serious crimes. I mean, this is how you get drug rings and other kind of conspiracies. It's really pretty standard throughout criminal prosecutions. It's also common in civil actions - one guy was jailed for contempt because he refused to reveal his assets to his wife in a divorce action. Jail and fines are really the only way to get people to comply with a court order.

Re: Ta!

[spiralsheep]

Oh, I have a general understanding of contempt of court, especially in relation to the provision of evidence, in ordinary criminal law (although not the specifics, especially in the US). Forced testimony feels different to having to hand over documentary evidence though (in England & Wales the hypothetical "right to silence" was removed in terrorism cases during my lifetime). And, to me, a Grand Jury fishing for ?some sort of anarchist "conspiracy"*? feels different to a criminal prosecution for a physical crime. But I'm aware Europeans and USAmericans have different sensitivities on these legal issues due to our differing histories.

* Old joke: Q. How do anarchists conspire? A. Very badly.

Re: Ta!

[giandujakiss]

But I don't know what crime they're pursuing. I see a lot of blog posts about attacking anarchists but I'm unclear what crime they're investigating. And possibly yes, it's a trumped up charge for political harassment - in which case the problem isn't civil contempt, the problem is that the prosecutor is not pursuing an actual crime. But I don't know that because I can't tell from the posts what crime they're seeking information about. I mean, it's clear that this is an anarchist group, but that doesn't mean someone didn't actually commit a crime worth investigating. But then I didn't read all that carefully so maybe the information is there.

Note to self: rough definition of "Grand Jury" US-style

[spiralsheep]

Wikipedia (usual warnings for pinches of salt apply):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

Re: Ta!

[spiralsheep]

I'm not linked in to US anarchist circles, and this doesn't seem to have been taken up by mainstream media, so your guess about the offence(s) is as good as mine, although I have tried following this story beyond the above links. As far as I can tell the FBI seem to be pursuing "anarchists" for vandalism at an anti-capitalist protest. They seem to be casting quite a wide net for a story that the media aren't apparently interested in, unless I'm googling wrong or there rly is some sort of super secret conspiracy going on.

Disclaimer: my own experience is that most "anarchists" couldn't organise their way out of a paper bag, quite apart from threatening the state, but there have been a few notable exceptions, obviously. ::wryface::