Jihad Janes and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
[Guest post by DRJ]
One of two American women accused of terror-related charges entered a silent plea to avoid the possibility of incriminating herself:
“With a shake of the head, a pregnant Colorado woman pleaded not guilty Wednesday to a charge of helping foreign terrorists who authorities say were plotting to kill a Swedish artist.
Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, 31, entered the silent plea to avoid giving prosecutors a sample of her voice. The government evidence includes hard drives and other computer files that may contain voice recordings, and her lawyer did not want to provide a sample for comparison.
“If there’s any voice recordings, I would not want to be creating evidence against her,” said lawyer Jeremy Ibrahim, who spent several years at the Justice Department.”
Authorities charge Paulin-Ramirez and a second woman, co-defendant Colleen LaRose, of planning a Muslim jihad to murder Danish artist Lars Vilks, “who angered Muslims with a drawing depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a dog’s body.” They apparently met on or via the internet:
“Acquaintances describe both women as isolated, troubled individuals who spent increasing amounts of time on the Internet, where LaRose allegedly used the online name “Jihad Jane.”
There is no evidence the women ever met before they moved to Ireland to join what LaRose hoped, according to the indictment, would be “a training camp as well as a home.”
I didn’t think the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prevented the government from obtaining blood, hair, fingerprint, DNA, handwriting or voice samples when a defendant is lawfully accused and detained. I could be wrong or maybe defense counsel just doesn’t want to waive a defense.
— DRJ
From the script of the TV show GENERIC PROCEDURAL CONFIDENTAL:
While slapping a baton against his palm;
New Detective: Let me at her chief. I’ll make her talk.
Ira (28a423) — 4/8/2010 @ 3:53 pm
Ira (28a423) — 4/8/2010 @ 3:57 pmCONFIDENTALCONFIDENTIALVery creative lawyering but I’ve never heard of a judge refusing a prosecution request for a voice exemplar, handwriting exemplar, or other generic items from an accused. The fact that the prosecutor went along with this defense request and the judge acceded to it is troubling.
eaglewingz08 (1e4d33) — 4/8/2010 @ 4:09 pmI expect the government will want a good quality recording and, more importantly, foundation/chain of evidence, rather than catch as catch can in a cavernous, busy courtroom. (And they would still need the judge’s permission to bring in the recording equipment.)
nk who shops at Goodwill (db4a41) — 4/8/2010 @ 4:19 pmIt would be funny if the closest match was the judge’s voice.
nk (db4a41) — 4/8/2010 @ 4:24 pm“The fact that the prosecutor went along with this defense request and the judge acceded to it is troubling.
Comment by eaglewingz08”
Well, the judge can’t do the prosecutor’s job for him. Perhaps the prosecutor doesn’t need the sample for whatever reason, and is happy to have her look extremely guilty. I know this is prejudicial stuff that they will try to keep from the fact finder, but if they are acting like this, they are going to look pretty damn guilty to any careful observer.
nk is right that the quality of this sample is probably inferior to what the state is entitled to anyway.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/8/2010 @ 4:36 pmAnybody want to photoshop an image of the Prophet Muhammad’s head onto the tip of the finger?
…………………./´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\
I’ll sign it.
GeneralMalaise (139767) — 4/8/2010 @ 4:45 pmJudge: “Miss Paulin-Ramirez I am directing you to read the paragraph of text on the paper the bailiff is handing to your attorney, or I’ll hold you in contempt.”
Defendant: Smirks at judge, and shakes her head indicative of a negative response.
Your move, your honor…
Horatio (55069c) — 4/8/2010 @ 6:14 pmDon’t fault the judge.
Basically, the remedy when a defendant tries to do anything quirky at a plea hearing is for the judge to enter a plea of not guilty. If the defendant pleads guilty, there’s a whole drill to go through to ensure (and to document on the record) that it’s a voluntary and well-informed plea. If anything else happens — the defendant uses Morse code to signal that “9/11 was an inside job,” or the defendant insists that the judge has no jurisdiction because the U.S. left the Gold Standard, whatever — the judge enters a plea of “not guilty.”
When and if the prosecution asks to compel a voice sample, the court can take up argument, even briefing, on whether that would violate the defendant’s rights. (I’m inclined to agree with DRJ on that, albeit without having done any research on the subject any time lately.) But unless the defendant is announcing a guilty plea, which is usually the result of a plea bargain, the taking of the plea is mostly a formality with “not guilty” as the default answer.
Beldar (9fbe63) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:02 pm(Which is to say: This was grandstanding by the defense lawyer, either for his client or for the press.)
Beldar (9fbe63) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:04 pmRipped from the headlines.
This will all be answered when Law and Order does the episode based on this case.
MU789 (00e597) — 4/8/2010 @ 7:39 pmMU789,
the big question with the Law&Order episode is how they will twist it to make it germane to L&O reality – I’m voting for making her an evangelical Christian who was working with Israeli agents. L&O reality doesn’t allow for the possibility of muslim violence.
max (383bf5) — 4/8/2010 @ 10:46 pm