Monica Goodling, counsel to and White House liaison for Alberto Gonzales, will refuse to answer questions based on her fifth amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against herself. The Fifth Amendment protects a person from giving testimony where her answers would provide evidence of a crime that she has committed. The judge must be satisfied that the witness's answers would tend to provide evidence of a crime, or a link in the chain of evidence. But the reason her lawyer gives is not that Ms. Goodling's testimony would provide evidence of a crime but that, in giving her testimony, Ms. Goodling might commit a crime.
In Goodling's attorney's words, Congress is laying a "perjury trap" for his client. Now, it is a laughably obvious political ploy for this guy to accuse Congress of intentionally trying to set it up so that an innocent person will be tried for perjury. The only "perjury trap" that could result from this testimony would be a trap that his client sets for herself. In any event, you can't assert the Fifth Amendment to protect your right to maybe lie to Congress later. The Eighth Circuit has held as much* by denying a witness's assertion of the Fifth Amendment despite her fear that her testimony before a grand jury "would subject her to later perjury prosecution." This is a pretty sensible rule, given that there is a really simple, obvious way to avoid a "perjury trap." But it is nice to see that someone associated with Gonzales and this administration has finally found some use for the Constitution.
*97 F.3d 1090, 1093 (8th Cir. 1996), described here.
Comments