Not even the sibling he consumed in the womb can help him now
Anton Berlin
at least one prosecutor, up to 23 grand jurors, and a court reporter.
His attorney will have to wait outside, and no judge will be present.
By law, neither the prosecutors nor the jurors may even acknowledge
publicly that the investigation is taking place before issuing an
indictment.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:cc0a798d-7a95-4264...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Tyler may be alone in the room, but he's allowed to have an attorney
present outside the courtroom and may interrupt the proceedings and
consult with that attorney, if I understand things correctly. The idea
that someone can be separated from all elements of comfort and made to
sweat it out in hopes of getting them to crack is generally a bit of a
stretch. You can be made to look guilty by choosing not to incriminate
yourself, but you (or Tyler in this case) are not the subject of the
grand jury. The degree to which immunity is relevant depends upon what
the person testifying might have as a liability (what they can go after
criminally) and I doubt there's all that much there for Tyler.
But it's good drama & fun concocting all these scary but
probably-not-relevant scenarios!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
B. Lafferty
> "Anton Berlin"<truth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cc0a798d-7a95-4264...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> During his grand jury testimony, Hamilton will be alone in a room with
>> at least one prosecutor, up to 23 grand jurors, and a court reporter.
>> His attorney will have to wait outside, and no judge will be present.
>> By law, neither the prosecutors nor the jurors may even acknowledge
>> publicly that the investigation is taking place before issuing an
>> indictment.
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/08/01/2010-08-01_probe_looks_under_rock.html?page=1#ixzz0vNVIaqex
>
> Tyler may be alone in the room, but he's allowed to have an attorney
> present outside the courtroom and may interrupt the proceedings and
> consult with that attorney, if I understand things correctly.
True. as many times as you need to consult, you can.
>The idea
> that someone can be separated from all elements of comfort and made to
> sweat it out in hopes of getting them to crack is generally a bit of a
> stretch. You can be made to look guilty by choosing not to incriminate
> yourself, but you (or Tyler in this case) are not the subject of the
> grand jury.
Tyler may be the subject or target of the grand jury. We don't know
that. I suspect his attorney has worked out favorable terms for his
truthful testimony.
> The degree to which immunity is relevant depends upon what
> the person testifying might have as a liability (what they can go after
> criminally) and I doubt there's all that much there for Tyler.
That immunity is only for his own statements that might incriminate him.
Once granted use or transactional immunity, he has to answer. His
biggest problem, unless there is more that we don't know, will be
liability for perjury during his sworn testimony in the CAS hearing.
>
> But it's good drama& fun concocting all these scary but
> probably-not-relevant scenarios!
No drama at all. The proceeding is secret and Tyler can't say anything
about what was asked and how he answered, except to his attorney.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:95ednYzRzK3yY8jR...@giganews.com...
So how many different subjects or targets do you think there are? How
many were there in BALCO? I can't see a Grand Jury having a whole lot of
interest in somebody they perceive as a nobody. This case reaches back
quite some ways, and without star power (Lance) I don't see how they're
going to get much interest out of it from a Grand Jury. They're just
people, y'know?
>> The degree to which immunity is relevant depends upon what
>> the person testifying might have as a liability (what they can go
>> after
>> criminally) and I doubt there's all that much there for Tyler.
>
> That immunity is only for his own statements that might incriminate
> him. Once granted use or transactional immunity, he has to answer. His
> biggest problem, unless there is more that we don't know, will be
> liability for perjury during his sworn testimony in the CAS hearing.
But I seriously doubt Tyler has anything to lose by not recollecting.
Seriously, he's likely only to perjure himself in some way that could
come back to him, even with immunity. What does he have to gain from
testifying (remembering)?
>> But it's good drama& fun concocting all these scary but
>> probably-not-relevant scenarios!
>
> No drama at all. The proceeding is secret and Tyler can't say anything
> about what was asked and how he answered, except to his attorney.
I meant drama on RBR. Was I really that obtuse?
Kurgan Gringioni
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:GoKdnQSglerxj8vR...@earthlink.com...
:
: But I seriously doubt Tyler has anything to lose by not recollecting.
: Seriously, he's likely only to perjure himself in some way that could
: come back to him, even with immunity. What does he have to gain from
: testifying (remembering)?
Dumbass -
Not much.
He does, however, have something to gain by not saying much (pssssst, LANCE,
pass me some boxes of cash).
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
I have no idea. That is known by the US Attorney.
>I can't see a Grand Jury having a whole lot of
> interest in somebody they perceive as a nobody.
Grand Juries indict nobodies all the time.
> This case reaches back
> quite some ways, and without star power (Lance) I don't see how they're
> going to get much interest out of it from a Grand Jury. They're just
> people, y'know?
Recall please that this inquiry was well under way and involved many of
the riders now being interviewed before Landis made his allegations.
>
>>> The degree to which immunity is relevant depends upon what
>>> the person testifying might have as a liability (what they can go
>>> after
>>> criminally) and I doubt there's all that much there for Tyler.
>>
>> That immunity is only for his own statements that might incriminate
>> him. Once granted use or transactional immunity, he has to answer. His
>> biggest problem, unless there is more that we don't know, will be
>> liability for perjury during his sworn testimony in the CAS hearing.
>
> But I seriously doubt Tyler has anything to lose by not recollecting.
Tyler has a problem not remembering when he clearly remembered enough to
testify under oath that he remembered not using any PED or methods. He
also will be testifying before the grand jury without ( probably)
knowing what others have told the Feds and/or testified to in front of
the same grand jury he will be testifying in front of.
> Seriously, he's likely only to perjure himself in some way that could
> come back to him, even with immunity. What does he have to gain from
> testifying (remembering)?
He won't be perjuring himself by telling the truth with a grant of
immunity. Once he has the immunity he wants, it makes sense for him to
"remember" and tell the truth.
>
>>> But it's good drama& fun concocting all these scary but
>>> probably-not-relevant scenarios!
>>
>> No drama at all. The proceeding is secret and Tyler can't say anything
>> about what was asked and how he answered, except to his attorney.
>
> I meant drama on RBR. Was I really that obtuse?
Yes. :-)
Kurgan Gringioni
:
: He won't be perjuring himself by telling the truth with a grant of
: immunity. Once he has the immunity he wants, it makes sense for him to
: "remember" and tell the truth.
Dumbass -
He won't get any hush money that way.
How naive are you?
Magilla Gorilla
Where do people get this stuff? Witnesses can absolutely talk all they want about their grand jury testimony. Ever hear of
something called the First Amendment? Last time I checked federal courts enforce that little 'rule' too.
Thanks,
Magilla
Anton Berlin
> Anton Berlin wrote:
> > During his grand jury testimony, Hamilton will be alone in a room with
> > at least one prosecutor, up to 23 grand jurors, and a court reporter.
> > His attorney will have to wait outside, and no judge will be present.
> > By law, neither the prosecutors nor the jurors may even acknowledge
> > publicly that the investigation is taking place before issuing an
> > indictment.
>
>
> Where do people get this stuff? Witnesses can absolutely talk all they want about their grand jury testimony. Ever hear of
> something called the First Amendment? Last time I checked federal courts enforce that little 'rule' too.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla
You're out of your area of expertise - stick to bananas, whores and
Liz Hatch - which are all kind of the same thing. Use em once and
throw them away