Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Whens and Whys of Asserting Fifth Amendment Privileges
The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination is one of the foundational rights of the America justice system. It provides that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” It protects witnesses from what Justice Field called the “cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury, or contempt.” Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 637 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting). In this post-Enron era of corporate prosecutions, it is critical that corporate insiders understand the scope of the Fifth Amendment's protection.
Internal Corporate Events
In today's world of real-time investigations into corporate fraud, the government often seeks documents and testimony related to internal corporate events as they occur. Consider a company that discovers reason to believe its finance department is cooking the books. The company hires outside legal counsel and prepares a press release announcing that the law firm will conduct an internal investigation. Upon leaving the meeting at which the press release was drafted, employees may find waiting in their offices messages from assistant U.S. Attorneys wanting to interview them about the meeting. Shortly after the meeting, the company may be served with a subpoena requesting all drafts of the press release. At this early stage of investigation, it is important that attorneys counsel their clients regarding the potential answers and acts that are covered by the Fifth Amendment.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.