Cleveland police officer takes the 5th in Michael Brelo trial sparking heated debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Watch as Cleveland police detective Michael Demchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and the heated argument that ensued after he was called to the witness stand by the prosecution to testify in the trail of fellow office
I bet he never took the 5th when testifying when he was putting others in jail
Damm right
John Smith that’s like saying I bet you don’t wipe your ass unless you just took a shit....
Your comment just shows that you haven't understood what's going on.
Kolya-The-Vodka-Guzzler lol you look just like him. Just add 75 years to him and a I like to fuck my sister smile and you’re the same person. And quit blowing my cover god damnit. They find out I’m over here on the internet and I’m a dead man.
Everyone has a right to remain silent. Even the people he put in jail.
The guy in the background around 11:00 minutes in when the prosecutor says “he should trust us” Lol hilarious
You should have more likes!
Haha did not expect his reaction to be so embellished
That was courtroom gold! 🤣🤣🤣
That mans head went up so quick 😂 he looked around laughed and shook his head 😂😂😂 priceless
LMAO 🤣 He even knows you gotta be R to do that.
Is the judge the cops lawyer?....damn. Cops should always have to testify if they are involved in a case. Period!
Might be my favorite youtube picture ever
One of the Judges roles is to stand up for the rights of the accused!
The judge is right in this case..the DA is basically saying "We promise not to charge him" when they've done it multiple times in the past, even with that particular judge's case. No matter what you say, the problem isn't the judge, it's the law which allows people to plead the fifth. Don't be mad at the person enforcing the correct law.
A cop charged?
Yeah.. No
I agree
Fifth amendment is a problem? Are you nuts???
@@Pozzaa90 I don't think you quite understand what I was saying.. or perhaps I didnt explain it clearly. I have no problem with the Fifth Amendment. I think it's necessary. What I'm saying is that everyone's gripe at the judge is misplaced.. their real gripe is the 5th amendment, and they expect this cop to incriminate himself. I believe that if they see their issue is the fifth amendment, they might realize that they are getting mad at the wrong entity (the judge, who is enforcing the law here). It's the other commenters who have a gripe with the fifth (not me).. they just think they have a gripe with the judge.
@@thebeasters well that's funny, considering the judge is literally claiming those same DAs have charged cops in previous cases. So your statement is verifiably false based on watching less than five minutes of the video.
This judge is a cop 👮♀️ soy boy
The guy has a right to plead the Fifth. Could the judge not have just said that as opposed to making an argument against the prosecutor?
How did someone using their fifth amendment right cause controversy
Never heard a prosecutor argue to not charge someone 🤦♂️
That would be a HUGE red flag that if they had more evidence they would charge him and use his own testimony against him..he shot into the car too and there is no statue of limitations when it comes.to.murder
They want to compel him to testify. Why would he?
"We will not prosecute this man." So what happens if he says... "So, I just happened to be high as a kite during this event."
Then they'll prosecute them. Prosecutors have about as much legal obligation to be honest as cops do, and it just happens to be a cop he's making promises to so he knows he full of it lol. Like they always say, get it in writing.
Well, I think their assurance related to not prosecuting him was based on his statement and a review of the incident and or reports. To that end, had he then got up on the stand and admitted to being high, it seems that his doing so would be an admission to something he hadn't previously disclosed and would perhaps kill their assurance to him not to prosecute.
I'm not an attorney but it seemed like the assurance was based on what he had disclosed and that a new admission would not be in keeping with the agreement.
Still, you ask a good question.
You can't have both qualified immunity AND the ability to plead the fifth. That's horseshit.
quallified imunity only goes so far and cops lose it if they ar found guilty of breaking the law..and everyone is entitled to the fifth
Wait, doesn't the fifth protect citizens against government infringement? Then how does a government employee use the fifth as a citizen while on the job as a government employee? Am I missing anything? Is there a jurisprudence scholar to elaborate on my understanding? This is the reason body cams are necessary. You don't have to worry about government bureaucracy when you have footage of the employee doing their job or not.
So cops who are suspected of criminal behavior have the right to plead the 5th?
just like anybody else yes.
fucking anoying the constitution isn't it.
It was 100% that the judge was gonna rule against lawyers
And if he states something under oath that the prosecutor did not know of before, then they could prosecute him as there is new evidence. Also, it does not preclude another jurisdiction (Feds) from charging him based on anything that may be exposed during cross-examination.
Not if they are a Democrat
My left ear has an opinion about this.
My right ear invokes the fifth.
A public servant doesn't have rights when acting in his offical capacity. A man has rights a fiction of the state certainly does not !!!!!
Seems like the judge does not have discernment and probably shouldn't be judging this case....geez...
What is the PD paying that judge?
I don't know why they just didn't give him immunity in writing and then say - OK now - speak!! Blue wall being held up by a judge... shame
They should trust us. Well, that's me not talking.
Wow, what a cool argument raised. Real court not like the crap going on in New York
This case will be appealed and this judge will be spanked when his decision is over turned.
For what? Defending an Americans right to remain silent? Police officer or not, he has every right to remain silent and this prosecutor is trying to remove a man's constitutional rights.
This is insane
i would ask him... let him say it out loud to EVERY QUESTION
CRIMINAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Just curious, which amendment is it again that protects the “Blue Wall” so I can read it for myself?
Snitches get stiches, blue wall, whatever you want to call it....people don't want to tell on their friends. Nobody.
The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically protects citizens against compelled testimony, if that testimony could be self-incriminating
This 5th Amendment protection was also ruled to include public employees in the 1967 Supreme Court Case: Garrity v. New Jersey
Yes everything you said was true, but how could one look at this and not raise some question as to whether this is a miscarriage of justice here? Do you want to live in a society where this is standard operating procedure?
Yes, I prefer living in a country with a codified Bill of Rights and established jurisprudence that protects the rights of the accused.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are *intentionally* designed to make the State's job harder, and limit their power. That is how it should be.
M Peters
Yes.
Is this being discussed in front of the jury? That judge is incorrect Unless the police officer is a defendant and not a witness as a representative of the police department he is compelled to testify.
No any person has the right to plead the 5th IF they fear they may incriminate themself.
This is why it is important to know your rights, even as a witness you can withhold infromation if the witness fears it maybe incriminating.
@@alberich3099 sorry but your law school is incorrect. A witness doesn't have the right to a 5th amendment plea. However the defendant does. Since the police officer testifying was named as a witness he couldn't plead the 5th. If during the deposition he along with his counsel decided to plead the 5th he would be with in his right to do so.
@@grump86169 Everbody does even witnesses IF their answer incriminates them.
There are even Countries which allow to remain silent if your answer would incriminate your spouse, parents or children.
Funny how even the judge agreed to the fivth for the witness - seems you got confused.
@@grump86169
"At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity (not limited to the case being tried). Witnesses (as well as defendants) in organized crime trials often plead the Fifth, for instance.
But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions. Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify"
Also look into the constitution ""[No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…"
As "any case" is cited, this means ANY, even others cases.
Source.
1.
criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html
2. constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-who-gets-to-decide-if-someone-can-plead-the-fifth
3. bjsmithcriminaldefense.com/blog/all-you-need-know-about-pleading-fifth/
@@alberich3099 as I said The officer in a deposition said 1 thing, on the "Witness stand" tried to plead the 5th, He can in those circumstances alter the out come of the case. He was told by the prosecutor that they WILL NOT PROSECUTE. thus an immunity is in place. The police officer being and employee of the agency to which he is testifying on be halve of can NOT PLEAD the 5th. He could and would be fired from his job for a dereliction of duty not to mention be held in contempt of court, Fined and or jailed. A police officer's Job responsibility is to give testimony they can not choose when and where the testimony is to be given. Let's say you're under arrest and the officer who arrested you slapped you in the process of arresting you. Now nobody else saw this action, you tell your lawyer what happened. If the police officer under direct examination under oath was asked if he slapped the person he arrested and he responded with "no" then he perjured himself and could be fined arrested etc. If he plead the 5th all of his testimony would be in question by the jury. What good is a Police officer's testimony if a jury may not consider it. Pleading the 5th is "refuse to testify on the grounds that the testimony you give may tend to incriminate you". But if the Prosecutor say's that his office can't and won't prosecute the that refusal is a moot point. So the testimony must be given.
Sounds like a cop, just trust us and tell the truth and we won't charge you, until you fall for it and you find yourself incriminating yourself on a trumped up charge.
DON'T THEY TAKE A OATH ???
Shame me into giving up my rights.
cool. I am 100% gonna refuse to testify without immunity.
not a cop. but that is completely accurate. if there is a chance I could self incriminate, without legal immunity I will forever be pleading the 5th. clearly I, as the witness, get to decide my level of fear. and I am terrified.
jail sucks.
This guy is a judge????
This officer has something to hide trust and believe. The judge is helping the cop out, but they are ALL FRIENDS IF THE COURT.
Imagine how many people would do better in court if there were any judges this worried about defendants who were normal people and not dirty cops. It's a black and blue wall.
corrupt system. the corrupt judge acting like he's the pigs lawyer
Lawyer “he should trust us” lol that’s laughable
well sort of, persecution and cops generally work quite well together as they are both part of the executive power of the state, but as the judge said.
Trust on someones word is hard, especially after the innitial slip up of the attorney of calling the witness the defendant.
Maybe that slipup just fucked that up for them.
@@alberich3099 no thats not it at all, u heard that older prosecutor all the cops were filling for the 5th, that man was doing it because he shot his gun at un armed ppl so he didnt wanna say anything at the behest he gets charged for blank, i do see why though they didnt wanna give immunity, because then anyone that thinks they did somthing wrong but is told they arent being charged would be able to play the 5th game
@@alberich3099 the fact that you said “generally work well together” is the whole point…. The 5th amendment protects him from the times that don’t fall into the general situations
dude in the back right legit smirks/laughs too.
A real life example of this case is Bill Cosbey. He was told submit your testimony and we won’t charge you by the prosecutor at the time. Then later when a new prosecutor was in office turned around and used that information to convict him. Just for clarification I’m only use this as example of why a prosecutor can’t just say trust us not as to weather he was guilty or not.
THE GOLDEN MOMENT: 10:53.
When a prosecutor says that a witness should "trust us" (the prosecution) -------- RUN!
The DUI Guy ayyy good seeing you here DUI Guy! 😎
I just watched a video of yours where the prosecution was actually in the wrong. Here? It seems like they're in the right. Are you just against all prosecution? Or for all judges?
So "trust the government" trumps our constitutional right, @@teancoffee208? Listen closely to the judge. The prosecution is trying to invent an argument running afoul of a basic right outlined in the Bill of Rights (and they lose, by the way, if you watched the video). So yes, I am against them in this video, and don't try to slippery slope fallacy me into being "against all prosecution" -- prosecutors are to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I have met honest, hardworking and talented prosecutors in my career and we defense attorneys all know who they are.
I watch your videos and thoroughly enjoy then. But how can this guy claim the 5th Amendment when he’s on duty as a public servant and has a testimony that may be crucial to justice. To me, it’s kinda like how we have a right to be secure with our property but the police may seize a cell phone or camera if they believe that their is evidence that may be crucial to a case or incident. Isn’t that a violation of our 4th amendment, yet it can be trumped in order to have the truth and justice? Curious on your thoughts
@@TSammut0219 You need to learn some basic civics. He's a public servant, not a slave.
In the movie version of this trial, Jonah Hill will play the prosecutor, Ted Danson will play the judge and Sam Rockwell will play the witness.
Jason Kifner 🤓😊😂😅
any role for the USA king trumpet
Absolutely hilarious.
I'm thinkin' the judge is a little bit more of a Bill Hemmer, personally.
@Robert Slackware Speaking of the Props Dept., I'm surprised the cops on scene didn't have a drop gun from the Plants Dept. that night.
"You know what's in the constitution? The same amendment we're talking about" I fucking died lmao
This cop doesn’t need a lawyer he got the judge
Well stated .. dang wow
Shit, I wouldn’t say anything just because the prosecutors said they wouldn’t use what I said against me. I don’t have a problem with any of this, honestly. Unless I’m missing something. Nobody should get on the stand if they thing the government might fuck with them. Cops know the system is rigged more than anyone else.
Edward Gray Of course, its the police vs the people, not for the people
Judges are usually bigger butt-buddies with prosecutors. Though I have seen plenty of judges who side with the defense. Judges know that prosecutors have unlimited time and resources to destroy lives. Watching the impeachment hearings really brought that home. All of “the evidence” for quid pro quo was how people felt and what they thought. You can bring an army of people who’s professional opinion is that a crime was committed. It’s the judges job to keep that shit from looking like evidence. I think most judges take that job seriously.
He pleaded the 5th so he doesn't need to say a thing. His lawyer told him to. The prosecution is wanting 2 suspect's with one hearing.
This cop knows not to trust the system,he is a part of it and knows what they do.
Freedom Inc. yet was totally cool with it provided it wasn’t himself in the hot seat
@@genemachine13menges14 I'm as anti cop as they come. I 100% think that judged should have forced him to testify in an official role. Period. He abused the protection when it suited him. Well,the judge should have forced him.
Freedom Inc.: Exactly right.
I think they should have had them in uniform, paid them for there time have them on duty. They then could not use there civil rights because they acted as law enforcement, they should be charged wuth obstruction.
Freedom Inc. your name is “Freedom Inc.” and you’re advocating for compelled testimony hahahahaha this is rich.
The camera person putting in the finest of work to make sure we have the right person on screen at all times
Uh, yeah. You think?! What else are they supposed to do with the camera?
@@talontodd2354 grow up
@@infernogamers168 Nope.
@@talontodd2354 fair enough
lmao
Ha ha ha, "the defendant"
oopsie I meant the witness.
Guess where my head is at judge!
maybe that that slip swayed the jugdes opinion of the persecution.
Now I maybe to picky but if the persecution calls a witness defendant after he pleaded his constitutional right to remain silent it would get very causicous on what comes next.
@@alberich3099 prosecution - big difference
The DA has a point if you give this cop immunity then why not everyone can ask for immunity for information. The Judge is basically lawyering for the witness. Blue ISIS
True
Immunity asked for/granted or not, as an American citizen he is entitled to invoke and assert the 5th amendment, is he not?
"He doesn't have a real, appreciable right." Are you kidding me?! EVERY American has that right.
@@jefferycsm - That "right" however, is upheld for some ie. your uniformed thug seen here....and arbitrarely bulldozed for others ie. John & Jane Q. Sheeple.
Judge dude here is practicing law from the bench.
The question is why....
Your statement makes no sense. Isn't the judge supposed to be "practicing" the law from his bench. He's just playing devil's advocate. More power to him. As for the "uniformed thug" statement. I'm all for prosecuting bad cops. But I INSIST on finding them guilty FIRST. Have a nice day!
The minute a police officer invokes the 5th while simultaneously invoking all the rights and privileges and immunities provided to police- they must be fired immediately.
😊😊😊a
Why? Its a constitutional right, ones occupation dosent negate thoes rights
@dogguy8603 Because if what the cop is withholding will incriminate him or her then they shouldnt be cops. Also, none of his or her civil rights will be violated by firing them.
@@thetroof5525 yes they will its called retaliation, and that is his right you can not force another person to self incriminate
@@thetroof5525 why not just get rid of the 5th amendment, make people self incriminate, like in North Korea or Iran
***** ***** Phil MrAdvise
This is a perfect example of cops being protected by the judicial system. This judge just told all the cops that were involved in this murder of 2 unarmed people that they don't have to testify against other cops. Since they were the primary witnesses to the crime. The judge was able to support his not guilty verdict.
This is justice?
Pro-active self defense.
***** bullshit . there was never a command to exit the vehicle. The car was at a standstill boxed in. They had no weapons and they weren't going anywhere. The cops opened up on them without warning. After initial barrage of shots and no responding shots from the victims "Dirty Harry" jumps on the hood and fires 15 more shots into them. Suicede my ass that was murder by cop. Brelo was getting off based on the judge's demeanor which he demonstrated throughout the trail. I don't trust cops. Never have and never will. The fucking cops were making jokes about killing them.
***** fine arrest them and charge them. That is the law. They were killed when they presented no threat. You sound like a cop apologist.
***** look they were shoot when their car wasn't moving. What threat were they presenting then?
GREG PORTER you got that right dude.
If a police office takes the 5th on stand, He should be removed from the police force.
t c lol that is literally the stupidest thing I have ever heard! so you are saying if a police officer invokes his or her Constitutional right provided by the LAW of the land then they should be fired? hahahahahaha you better watch out that is a very slippery slope because if that was the case then what would protect you and insure you of your rights
Dang that pesky Constitution is always getting in the way of a good communistic society
t c omg stfu
youre insane.. try china
johnny llooddte *you're
All the money the spent on this clownshow for years after the shooting and no one goes to jail.
The Judge may be right but I wonder if he would have taken the same rigorous stance if the witness was not a cop
Not
Uh yes? You said it. He was right. And blatantly disregarding the law and someone’s constitutional rights would be grounds for a mistrial in any circumstance. They absolutely could re present evidence to a grand jury even though they say they won’t charge him. The prosecution is a slimy little fuck with his answers. Really is.
Josh Rauzi questioning a judges integrity. Hmmm.
The judge represents the Constitution not the prosecutor the whiteness has his right to do this. NEVER trust the prosecutor prosecutorial misconduct is rampid in this justice system. And there's nothing you can do about... Even the cop knows this
Absolutely not
The blue wall. “I won’t talk, but just keep paying me.”
more like "I won't do my job, but give me your fuckin money now or I'll shoot"
Bruce Wilson the best part is all of them are being paid. Whose paying the judge, cop on the stand, prosecutor, court reporter, person operating the camera, bailiff, etc.
I was charged with assualt on a officer. My brother invoked a 5th amendment right. State fault it. Judge did the same thing for my brother against the state. So to say judges are on cops side is BULLSHIT! Get off it
Blue code of silence
Everyone has a right to remain silent. What's your problem with that?
The police should be held accountable for all their actions!!
Yooooo where can I hire this defense judge!? Dude is good.
That jump scare at 0:20 really freaked me out. He was still talking but his lips were not moving!
I thought he had subliminal powers...
The Detective knows that the system is crooked .
The detective knows that he’s crooked
Yes, he witnessed a crime and did nothing... He has the right to remain silent though and he used it. Jokes on everyone
The detective is the crooked one . He literally won’t testify against a fellow cop
This judge is backing the cop ... America ... land of the free and the home of the brave. 🇮🇱 oops I mean🇺🇸
Freemasons of a feather flock together.
He forgot to mention he's also a ventriloquist.
if they wanted his testimony that bad all they had o do was grant him immunity instead of just promising to not charge him lol the DA was being sneaky and they know it
Michael Stepp I think you said it brilliantly sir.
that is correct.. theyll hang him if he makes even a slight misstatement
johnny llooddte *they'll
I disagree, if they has said that behind closed doors I would agree with you, but this was in OPEN COURT, ON THE RECORD. This USELESS bastard was just upholding the blue wall of corruption.
Then they have to do it for everyone
The camera going back and fourth when everyone is talking makes this so much more dramatic lmao
'back and fourth'? How about 'forth'?
"His testimony will not self-incriminate himself." Okay.
But if he talks it looks bad for the officers who is guilty . All the judge is doing is trying to eliminate witness to help the cop that shot and killed two people.it is so obviously he even had to say sorry for being so defense that shows you what side he was on.pittafull excuse for a judge.
I heard the same thing. "self" was not necessary there. young ADA.
LAWYER-100
Weird almost like The Judge and Police work together to make sure Police Officers do not get charged. Great Job people.
The judge simply applying the law.. If he didnt this would have been tossed on appeal.. Without immunity the officer has every right and is sensible to take the 5th.. If the state were being sincere, they could have just drawn up an immunity contract as suggested They up to no good as usual and the state lawyers arguments were verging on embarrassing and infantile..What sort of lawyer be using Pinky Swear instead of a legally binding contract
@@johnflynn5044 This is probably a city or country prosecution. Since they can't speak for the entire state on state infractions, they can't issue immunity without agreement of the highest authorities, likely the state attorney general. Even then, federal immunity would probably have to be granted as if his gun was fired there are likely federal statutes in play that no state office has the authority to issue immunity. Seems most likely to me the prosecution would have issued the immunity if they had such authority. Obviously, the judge realizes all of this, but the prosecution is just whining because that is what bullies do when their bullying fails.
I’m pissed that he’s protecting his (probably) corrupt cop buddies. But the judge is right that just taking prosecution ‘at their word’ is laughable
Maybe, but there is a reason you're never suppose to talk to the police. And that reason is the prosecution. If he makes a mental fumble, and self-incriminates (even if its mispoken, or incorrectly phrased by him) then he's culpable and can be tried at any time. "trusting" someone else aside from your council with your life in a court is idiocy.
did you not watch the video..he wasnt protecting his buddies he was protecting his own ass..he shot at the car too..if they had given him imunity he would have testified
They all shot at the car so act of shooting wasn't on trial..it's mr Rambo who jumped on the hood of the car that's on trial
When a lawyer says something to a judge, that becomes inherent. Otherwise, the lawyer can lose their license.
When a prosecutor says they won't charge someone in court, that is the same as immunity.
The judge is practicing law from the bench!!!
I agree
Upholding it and explaining why you mean
As is his duty! These anti-freedom nuts in the comments section who says we shouldn’t have 5th amendment rights are just fascists in the making.
I believe this sort of thing is common. The witness was in court without representation, so the judge sort of stepped in.
Not really. The witness invoked his 5th amendment right against self incrimination. The DA then motioned that the court deny the witnesses ability to assert this right based on established policy and legal arguments already filed in a previous brief based on the prosecutions knowledge of the witnesses intent to invoke this right. The judge then heard the argument for the motion, asked clarifying questions to multiple members of the DAs office. He then made his ruling, allowing the witness to invoke his 5th amendment right and thus bringing an end to his testimony.
And the truth is, the judge was right in his ruling. The DA simply promising not to pursue charges against someone isnt enforceable, and if they really have no intention of charging him they need to grant immunity in order to compel his testimony against interest.
Confused--The family was awarded 3 m. And yet the cops involved were found not guilty. So why was the family given a judgement of 3m?
Different standards of evidence and cop unions. Brelo got off because the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the other cops had their charges dismissed because of the blue wall meaning the prosecutors knew they couldn't get them convicted. At civil trial, however, the standard is "preponderance of evidence", meaning it is more likely than not. This the civil court found it more likely than not the killings were wrong, while the criminal court found that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brelo acted wrongly.
The not guilty was tried in criminal court, the judgement is civil court. Liability for damages is different criteria than criminal liability.
because civil court requires preponderance of the evidence and criminal court requires beyond a reasonable doubt (basically civil court has a lower threshold for how much doubt you can have if someone is guilty. preponderance of evidence is over 50% of the evidence shows guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt is like over 90% sure they're guilty)
Cause they were guilty as sin but they had to keep the blue line in tact
Maybe if all the witnesses to the murder were compelled to testify the outcome of the criminal trial would have been different. I don’t know, just sayin. I’ll bet his ass wouldn’t have a problem testifying against you or me, but since it’s another cop he needs this protection.
When the prosecutor accidently slipped called him "defendant" instead of "witness" he goofed big time, look at the witness' reaction to that comment you know he knew what they were planning to do. Detective done the smart thing.
Yep, that Freudian slip is all any reasonable person needs to hear to shut the f up...
This is why police always go for bench trials. Because the Judge is going to act as one of their attorneys and manipulate the law for the benefit of the officer.
Innocent till PROVEN guilty..go back to N korea
johnny llooddte *North Korea
why are you not showing the comments with these videos?
11:00 did this Prosecutor really just say
"he should trust us" ????
someone please save this tape until the day this young prosector becomes a criminal defense attorney and completely argues the opposite side of his argument when he's fighting FOR a defendant one day
Fasho!✊🏾
Shouting prosecutors are always a clear sign they have something really foul up their sleeves...
Corrupt judge how much was he paid do you think maybe or in on it
The judge is right here. Without the DA's office granting him immunity, he's allowed to take the 5th.
Sounds like the DA was saying an "informal" transactional immunity was "offered". "But your honor we told him he wouldn't be charged". As we all know verbal agreements are worth the paper they are written on.
As much as I've seen cops clearly lying, and proven as such by video, sound file, etc etc, on the witness stand, the Constitution protects him as much as anyone else.
Don't talk to cops or talk in court unless you got immunity, looked over by your attorney, signed by the DA.
And the DA granting immunity is not a sure thing. One of the core issues in the case against Bill Cosby was that he was granted immunity so that he would testify in a civil case. That immunity was later ignored and he was charged criminally. While I think that he was guilty ( based on his own words after the grant of immunity ), that testimony and anything developed from it should not have been used in a later case against him.
This is what the cop is afraid of when he's taking the Fifth.
@Steve SmithBroadFU So? Does that mean he's not allowed to use his 5th Amendment rights? Last I knew the Constitution applied to everyone; Even those charged of crimes.
@checkoutmyballz I would say the prosecutor's argument is an immoral one. He's trying to convince a judge to order a witness to give up a constitutional right against self incrimination based on his verbal assurance he wont be charged with a crime. There is absolutely no assurance some DA wont take his evidence tomorrow and pursue charges. It's all semantics anyway. The witness has the right to take the 5th. in any case where he believes telling the truth might incriminate him in some way. That's his decision to make. The prosecutor can still ask questions, the witness just doesnt have to answer those he feels might incriminate him. That is the prosecutor's job to provide evidence, not force a confession from a witness.
@checkoutmyballz Everyone here seems to have strong opinions stated as fact but they are mostly wrong.
A wise man is never sure he's right. A stupid man is always sure he's right.
The judge has officially become the defense attorney for the cop
he's the official defense attorney of the law.
The right to plead the 5th is not some common law, but a fundamental constitutional right of any witness.
The jugde knows that, and knows that if he orders the witness to answer (which he can do) and any other persecution (other than those in the video) from another jurisdiction get hold of taht statement and decide to go for him, as they could, the jugde, the whole case and a large portion of trust into the system will be shattered.
So he doesn't become a defense attorney of teh cop but the defends the constitutional right and rightfully doesn't rely on someones word.
Alberich how could he force him to talk? Put him in jail for life? No human has to talk.
@@Chasecka Well I'm not sure how it works in the US, but we have a similar law here and the law states taht it can be overruled by a judge if what you were to say would not incriminate you (either by beeing immaterial or by you having immunitiy) if you then would not answer you would be held in contempt of court which would lead to a fine or depending - prison.
Yes no one can be forced to talk but not talking if ordered so by court has it's consequences.
Alberich all that typing means noting man you are an idiot would of the judge ruled the same if a regular citizen was pleading the fifth
That’s why mark furman took the 5th in the OJ trial. He didn’t want to commit perjury for a case against him down the road
The witness may be compelled to speak if he is granted transactional immunity.
It says a lot when even the Judge doesn’t trust the DA.
@ahmed King okay bro. Just upholding God given human rights but meh, whatever.
ahmed King Is you think the huge is a piece of shit but not the DA then you are a fucking moron! The DA is literally sayin “we won’t charge you, take our word for it.” Do you trust a DA to just take his word for it? Not saying the cop isn’t wrong for not wanting to talk. But the DA is just as much of a crooked piece of shit.
ahmed King You’re a fucking idiot!!
Lee Shackelford AMEN!!
This is in regards to shooting of unarmed innocent people 137 times because their car backfired.
This judge seems to be a part of the defense team representing the officer
100%
More like the judge was protecting the man's constitutional, legal right to not incriminate himself. Remember we are all guaranteed the same rights both cops and robbers. If the prosecutor was not going to prosecute him all he would have to do is give him immunity from prosecution for his testimony, his word alone is not valid.
That's how it always goes, they always take care of each other.
Dennis White you are correct and that’s called the 5th amendment to the constitution. Now, my comment. Wasn’t based on that but instead based on the fact (based in this video evidence) that the judge spent longer than necessary regarding this. His ruling is his ruling. So, if the prosecution doesn’t like it too bad. In that instance that is why we have appellate courts. So, finally, I am on the side of law enforcement. My brother-in-law is a police officer within a very dangerous city but the comment was regarding hw the defense was essentially remaining silent and allowing this presiding Judge to argue the case. The judiciary has a role but that role isn’t universal, that “checks and balances” thing. If he wants to clarify all this then call either the defense/prosecution or both parties into his chambers outside of the court’s time. He doesn’t need to argue anything. All he has to do is make a ruling and if someone doesn’t accept this then he can hold them in contempt of court to make sure that the court proceedings go through in an efficient and lawful manner. In essence, my comment that he was on the side the defense was due to the fact he argues for the defense instead making a courtroom ruling or decision regarding what goes on in his court. The time take for this could’ve been used in a much better way because it’s no secret that the judicial system has a, in general, a backlog regarding anything argued, heard, and/or tried within a courtroom. So, Mr. Dennis White, I believe you misunderstood my comment and I can see from the briefness of it where you assumed I was saying someone’s basic rights being upheld shouldn’t fall under the purview of the court/judiciary.
@@edub1894 Yes, I see your point now that you've explained it thoroughly. I'm sorry you had to but appreciate you doing so. Thank you.
fire the cop and judge because both are corrupt and should never work in law enforcement again.
Wow. The judge is actually defending this officers right to the 5th amendment, although he was a witness to a crime as he's sworn under duty to give statements of.
He is corrupt politically .
so,, millions of witnesses wont testify, for fear of legal reprissals
johnny llooddte *won't
That's what Judges are for asshole
That's why it's called a RIGHT. Everybody has them!
kodos to that last prosecutor who stood up to the judge.
Yea he was, appeal and lose.
Yep, kudos to all the prosecutors who would rather skirt the Bill of Rights because it is an inconvenience.
@commonsense Dumb Ass no he was not.
Tf is a kodo?
Say hi to your fellow corrupt prosecutors for us.
Our judicial system is a joke
Have you been to Australia 😂 bro our justice system is a joke
This is why we the people have to bring justice against in this country
The judge definitely didn’t want this cop to testify
He would have made him testify if the prosecution had given him immunity. The prosecution refused to give him immunity, so they can't compel him to testify. That's how the law has always worked and the prosecution has nobody but themselves to blame for the ruling.
Yea but even if they compel him to get on the stand, he can just say "I dont recall" to every question, and they cant prove perjury because they cant read the witness's mind.
Pac West yes, because as is the prosecution was just giving their word he wouldn’t be charged. That means as much in court as a fart in the wind. Granting him immunity prevents them from charging him, thus he wouldn’t be able to self incriminate.
They could have given immunity. I don't get it.
I do, the DA was correct in the notion that if they gave THIS POS immunity, then couldn't EVERYONE ask for it prior to testifying? Kind of a pandora's box thing. But the idea of giving this bastard immunity was pointless HE was not in danger of being charged, that was made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, his ONLY MOTIVE WAS TO NOT TESTIFY AGAINST ANOTHER POS COWARD COP. Nothing more.
Here is why you can't just grant immunity on a whim
www.foxnews.com/us/seal-medic-who-confessed-to-killing-isis-captive-could-face-perjury
The REAL murderer walked.......
If he had been attacked while at home or the grocery store and he had to shoot someone, fine, immunity would work..... he fired and saw others fire their weapons while performing their duty as POLICE OFFICERS, they should be REQUIRED to testify, not seek immunity or plead the fifth. Maybe he shouldn't be a police officer.
@@ricoaztec1 NOT ON YOUR LIFE! The union would never allow such a search for the TRUTH!
I'm pleading the 5th for what I'm about to do to all these courtrooms releasing single-channel audio
Single channel audio😠😡🤬😡
Attorney - your honor he CANT plead the 5th
Judge - why not?
Attorney - because it's devastating to my case!
#MurderPoliceForSport
A witness does not have the right to plead the 5th . A police officer must testify
@@bubbasmith179 everyone has the right against self-incrimination
@@bubbasmith179 Of course they do. That's the only thing it applies to. That's like saying the right to freedom of religions doesn't mean you can worship what you want. Um, yeah, it does, that's ALL it does.
That's not the meme. The meme is when you WANT someone to plead the 5th and shut up like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case where the witness gives evidence against your case.
Saying someone can't/shouldn't plead the 5th is perfectly natural otherwise you could never have any witnesses. Every witness could potentially stone wall you, plead the 5th and then every case would fall through.
"because it's devastating to my case!" Yeah no shit. If everyone stonewalls you and hides evidence then you don't have a case anymore? Who would have thought that 🙄
THIS JUDGE IS ALSO PART OF THE GANG , CAN THEY REALLY BE TRUSTED .... TWO LAWS ONE FOR GANG MEMBER AND ONE FOR US ....... FTP
IS THE JUDGE THE COPS LAWYER ? HE IS ARGUING FOR THEM / LET HIS LAWYERS BRING THIS ARGUMENT ......
Read the book “the man in the arena” and you will cringe when you hear the prosecutor say “trust me “
Note his partner was detective O’Donnell and the judges name is O’Donnell. I’m sure most people didn’t see the correlation there. Cover up!
Idiotic comment. I think most people can see that. sheesh.
Your right
@@KB4QAA your an asswipe.
@@droidnick 2:1 you lose.
@@droidnick facts
WOW, almost sounds like the judge could be crooked.
ALMOST?...ya think?🤣
Only an idiot would think that. The judge is following the law.
Yes, how dare someone have rights, the cheek of it!
Gary Gagnon WOW, almost sounds like you haven’t read the constitution. I don’t like cops, and the blue wall is real. I like the constitution more.
Why, because he is upholding the law. Really silly to think this. Everybody, even cops have the right to refuse to testify, if THEY believe it may incriminate them. Read the books.
He’s taking the fifth to keep from crossing that blue line.
Lol. Not true.
Was on trial on a lawsuit and before court started lawyers and defendant and lawyer went to the back with the judge before the bench trial. Judges mind was made up
I hate that fucked up blue line it only helps bad cops
If you crossed the blue line the blue line crosses you out homie
Until we destroy corruption within the "thin blue line" this will not change. If he did speak, he would have a huge target on his back. Sadly this is why none of the good cops speak out.
John Smith pfff get a clue
All cops need to have cameras everywhere and one on each officer and if evidence comes up missing the supervisors or chief should be charged.
Dave Franklin are you sure that’s what you want.
I like how the judge is challenging the prosecutor who says they won't charge someone but can't guarantee but won't give immunity for his testimony. In essesnce, the judge is challenging them as liars.
I think the judge's point was that even if he trusted them then that's not a legal argument. They could be telling the truth that they won't press charges against the cop, but if there's no legal guarantee of that then his fifth amendment rights still apply. The judge can't compel a witness to possibly incriminate themselves just because the judge thinks the prosecutor is an honest guy.
That, and you're right, they're probably liars.
@@Altitudes Exactly! If they aren’t going to prosecute the witness, then make it concrete and grant him immunity. But to “trust” the DA would be foolish on his part.
but prosecutors are notorious liars...they care about conviction rates not justice
Exactly...all it would take is to drum up "new evidence" at a later date and charge the guy. Lawyers are lawyers and they're scummy. Defense lawyers are scummy because they lie and protect criminals for a living, prosecutors are scummy because they lie and create criminals for a living.
@@jektonoporkins5025 Then any reports and testimony this cop gave should be thrown out. If someone was convicted on his "report" that he could incriminate himself over? Didnt he just say "What I did, that has been proven now, incriminates me. And differs from the official report"?
The whole country is corrupt but Ohio does stand tall, live in n.e Ohio
A prosecutor saying, "He should trust me," is the most rediculas thing I've ever heard. The Rittenhouse prosecution proved that.
Exactly what I thought when I heard it. Trust the people who'll introduce blurry as shit (and possibly tampered with) video evidence to a court to try and convince a jury you did something you didn't do, then (possibly intentionally) withhold the high quality version of that footage from your defence? Get bent. Get absolutely bent.
So rediculas
If that child stayed home 2 more people would be alive today so even though he was found not guilty he still is the soul reason 2 people died if his little adolescent brain stayed home we would have a burned dumpster but 2 more people would be alive.
@@jeremystern1471, had that thug not chased him down and lunged at him, no one would have died. The last two victims may have verywell thought they were doing good by trying to stop an active shooter, but the first man who died was the true criminal.
Furthermore, you cannot blame, or at least you should not blame, an innocent person for the result of their just behaviors. He had every right to be in those streets that night as anyone else. If you are going to blame him for being there, then every person in those streets are to blame, which is obviously idiotic.
@@michaelnaak with your logic we should give ever 17 year old a gun and send them to a protest. Let the rest play out. You understand how insane that sounds that child's brain wasn't developed enough to use proper judgment on weather he should pull the trigger or not... he was to young and didn't understand the implications of his actions so he started shooting people. Oh and let's talk about why he shot them shall we? He attacked the first guy because the first guy started a dumpster fire so let me spell it out if that child stayed home we would have one less dumpster and 2 more people alive today so don't try and tell me he had the right to uphold the law himself and start executing criminals in the streets
Needs to go to another judge ! Something isn't right with this judge !
That's why they ain't choose a jury because this judge is crooked
Yes, he respects the Constitution, you morons!!!
@@jacobgalloway9123 - Obviously not you imbecile.
Your all stupid. General public has no brains, leftist p.o.s.
I'd bet that the Judge has family in law enforcement. A son-in-law perhaps?
Let's make a trial where everyone takes the 5th. A silent trial. Justice at its best.
Fascinating argument. Without immunity always go with understanding “never trust anyone.”
I guess after this the judge is going out with the witness for a drink
And a little action afterwards if you know what I mean.
Nah, the judge is simply following the Constitution!
This is corruption....when a judge automatically takes the side of law enforcement.... seriously...wtf !
🤔Eye seriously don't believe what Eye'm seeing!😱
@Cool Breeze Agreed. =
Cool Breeze eloquently stated
What the Judge is saying is that the police officer cannot be forced to incriminate himself through his own testimony. Imagine a prosecutor makes you put yourself in jail, when it is the full burden of the prosecutor to prove your guilt. Furthermore, the prosecutor is saying here that they CANNOT charge him anyway, and they PROMISE not to prosecute him, therefore they should be able to compel his testimony in the Michael Brelo trial.
The police officer ia an acting government actor. The 5th is there to protect the PEOPLE from the government...NOT THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. This police officer does not have a personal protection to the 5th...it disappears as soon as he puts on the badge and takes the oath....and because he was on duty during the time in question...he must give answers. This judge is acting AGAINST the constitution...because it is in place to protect the PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The officer is the government. Judge in error. Period.
@CaliforniaCheez yes, they are, however. When they are on duty their role changes...and therefore do NOT have the same protections. This officer was as government official ...do you really not understand this? Are you a policeman?
This guy does NOT look like a cop.
But the judge does...
he is undercover vice...said it at the beggining.
All good lawyers say dont talk to cops even if ur one. Good advice...
Cop corruption. Ok he can plead the 5th and not do his job, but he should be fired for not doing his job!