You know Sussmann is scared when they started filing for mistrials immediately after the trial began... and will find some reason to file for a mistrial daily. They don't want to reach a verdict.
As it was Elias' response, Sussmann isn't testifying against himself.
While an objection of here-say might be used, it would seem that this would be creating a foundation and does NOT "compell Sussmann to testify".
Any statements by him to others about relative subjects are reviewable if not admitted.
What's 'funny' is the admission of any statement as being probably 'against himself'.
How does the prosecutor referring to Elias' response in redirect violate Sussman's 5th amendment right?
A person's choice not to be compelled to testify does not mean no one else should offer evidence against them, just because it would mean they might want to defend against it.
You know Sussmann is scared when they started filing for mistrials immediately after the trial began... and will find some reason to file for a mistrial daily. They don't want to reach a verdict.
As it was Elias' response, Sussmann isn't testifying against himself. While an objection of here-say might be used, it would seem that this would be creating a foundation and does NOT "compell Sussmann to testify". Any statements by him to others about relative subjects are reviewable if not admitted.
What's 'funny' is the admission of any statement as being probably 'against himself'.
How does the prosecutor referring to Elias' response in redirect violate Sussman's 5th amendment right?
A person's choice not to be compelled to testify does not mean no one else should offer evidence against them, just because it would mean they might want to defend against it.