Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[childoftheking]

Would a gag order on the victims in the civil case "gag" them or prevent them from testifying in the criminal case? And is that what is being attempted?

[Johann]

Would a gag order on the victims in the civil case "gag" them or prevent them from testifying in the criminal case? And is that what is being attempted?

I suppose the only way we will ever know is if we notice the criminal case has been dropped.

I just don't feel that it is moral for them to keep covering things up and buying people's silence.

In a way this reminds me of why Martin Luther was protesting and what led to the Reformation. The pope was attempting to sell a silence by heaven.

Would a gag order buy such silence by heaven and keep 3ABN clear in the Final Judgment?

And if there is a settlement will 3ABN deny that there was one and hide the details such as how much they had to pay to settle?

If there is a gag stipulation added, 3ABN will have and can observe the right to keep the settlement details private.

Also in the final judgment?

The chances are that if settlement talks are occurring, which is possible, that any settlement could include a gag agreement. That means NO ONE will know if a settlement has been reached.

It is also possible that we could know a settlement was reached, but it would state and "undisclosed amount given to the plaintiffs."

Chances are there will be a gag stipulation and none of us will know.

Given the title of the OP, it appears this entire thread was a bit premature.

How will we ever know?

[Johann]

Is there any way we can know if this is going to ever be over?  We don't watch that station any more, so we won't know if they say so. 
Harold.

Isaiah 47:5
“Sit in silence, go into darkness, queen city of the Babylonians; no more will you be called queen of kingdoms.

[Gregory]

Child of the King asked:

Would a gag order on the victims in the civil case "gag" them or prevent them from testifying in the criminal case?

Again, that would be goverened by the law of the State in which the criminal action took place.  However, there are past examples of a civil agreement reached in which the parties agreed to a so-called "gag order" and then one of the victims was asked to testify in a criminal hearing or trial.  In several of those examples the victim refused to testify and the charges in the criminal hearing/trial were dropped.

Why?  Clearly the judge could have ordered the person to testify under the penalty of law whlich would generally have meant "contempt of court" sentence to jail.  Prosecutors and judges do not often want the publicity of an attempt to send a victim to jail for the refusing to testify.

So, ultimately it will probably be up to the people who settle the case as to whether or not they testify in a criminal trial.

[Gregory]

One might ask:  Why would a vistim refuse to testify in a criminal hearing/trial?  Well, let us look at what might be the objectives of each party.

The defendent in a civil case has the objective of settleing that civil case as well as wanting to evade a criminal trial. To accomplish both objectives, the defendent will want to persuade the plaintiff to not participate in any further action, either civil or criminal.  The plaintiff will likely have as one objective the desire to move on with their life and put this all behind them as far as is possible.

This may mean that both parties do not want a criminal trial.  The defendent certainly will not want such.  The plaintiff can not move on with their life during a trial.  There is publicity of all of the details.  There is the cross-examination under oath.  Even the monst honest plalintiff will likely make some statement of fact that is in error and will be so exploited by the defense.  In a criminal trial the vistim is often re-victimized.

All it takes is a financial settlement for the victim to say:  Well, with this, I can move on with my life. That is what I want to do.  Who can blame them for doing such?  I cannot.

[Johann]

So what it boils down to is if Tommy Shelton might be able to be completely free because a gag order through a deal in the civil case would prevent the victims from testifying for the prosecutor in the criminal case - is that what you are saying Gregory?

[Gregory]

Johann:  No, I am NOT saying that a deal in a civil case would prevent a victim in testifying in a criminal case.  I am saying that a victim might want to move on with their life and refuse to testify in a criminal proceeding.  In such a case the prosecutor and the judge might not want to re-vistimize the victim by sending them to jail for refusing to testify.

There is a difference between prevented from testifying and refusing to testifying.  in the first the person cannot testify and in the second the person could testify but does not.

[Bob Pickle]

The hypothetical scenario described sounds to me a bit like a Mafia figure offering a witness a sum of money in exchange for not testifying. I think there are statutes criminalizing such attempts to tamper with witnesses.

[Johann]

The hypothetical scenario described sounds to me a bit like a Mafia figure offering a witness a sum of money in exchange for not testifying. I think there are statutes criminalizing such attempts to tamper with witnesses.

Very important!

[Gregory]

Bob:  There is nothing hypothetical about my comments.  That has happened.  That has happened more than once. The news media has reported it.

The bottom line is:  No one wants to re-victimize a victim by sending them to jail for refusing to testify.

Victims often want to move on withtheir lives.  They often do not want to be involved in a criminal trial.

If you think that my situation was hypothetical, you simply are unaware.

[Gregory]

Bob said:

The hypothetical scenario described sounds to me a bit like a Mafia figure offering a witness a sum of money in exchange for not testifying. I think there are statutes criminalizing such attempts to tamper with witnesses.

Yes, Bob, in your situation there would be criminal statutes that would allow for a criminal trial.  But, your scenerio does not match the actual situations that have occured.

In the cases that have occured, the person is a victim--which is much more than a mere witness.  No one wants to re-victimize a person who is already a victim.

In my case, the settlement comes in relation to a civil trial.  As a settlement of a civil trial, the settlement agreement will be written by smart attornies that will make if very hard to prove that a criminal trial has been obstructed.

You will recall that the issue is NOT that the victim is prevented from giving testimony at the criminal trial, it is that the victim does not want to give testimony and so refuses to do so.  Under those conditions, it is not likely that one can prove that a witness was tampered with.  The attornies who write such agreements are smart and know what they are doing.
 
 
 

[Gregory]

O.K. Bob, let us say that a prosecutor in a criminal trial of TS choses to attempt to force Victim MJ to testify against MJ's wishes:

So, the prosecution calls MJ as a witness.  An early order of business will likely be for the prosecutor to address the judge and request permission to treat MJ as a "hostile witness."  Let us say that the judge grants that request.  Do you have any idea as to how a jury will react to the prosecutor treating MJ as a hostile witness?  Do you have any idea as to how doing such will potentially affect tlhe decision that the jury will make as to the guilt of TS?

Do you know what it means for an attorney who calls a witness to recieve permission from the judge to treat that person as a "hostile witness?"

The bottom line is that the jury who witnesses such will likely believe that the hostile witness is not telling the whole truth and that is only the beginning.  The defense will exploit that to the maximumn possible.


The jury will potentially think that there is an "out of control" prosecutor who is manipulating the system to force a reluctant victim to testify against the defendant beyond what it truth.  The defense will exploit that into sympathy for the defendant.

No none wants to be in this situation in a trial.  It simply helps the defendant.

[Gregory]

NOTE: I want to be very clear:  I am not suggesting in any of my posts that those who have chagred TS with crimes are either attempting to gain a financial advantage from TS, or that they would refuse to testify against TS in a criminal trial.

I am saying that I consider it to be unlikely that they would face criminal sanctions if they refused to testify against TS in a criminal trial.

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory, I said that I thought there were statutes criminalizing attempts to tamper with witnesses. It is the perpetrators and their lawyers who would then be involved in potentially criminal activity, not the victims.

At what point is a lawyer who is trying to persuade a victim of child molestation to not testify against the perpetrator selling his soul for ill-gotten gain?

[Gregory]

Bob, and what I said was that the attornies are smart and you are unlikely to have a "tampering with a witness" charge sustained if a victim refuses to testify.