Total Pageviews

Thursday, October 8, 2015

'DUCK' AND COVER UP?: Government Responds To Gayle Ingersoll's Motion To Quash; Will He Waddle Away From Testifying During Bro Steven Ingersoll's October 20 Sentencing Hearing?


“Gayle Ingersoll has not met his burden regarding his Fifth Amendment privilege in his motion to quash, and in fact, he cannot succeed in his motion without appearing at the hearing and asserting the privilege on a question-by-question basis. A generic fear of prosecution is insufficient.”
Government response
October 7, 2015

Duck in...and waddle out?

Not so fast!

In a response filed late yesterday afternoon (October 7), the government presented its opposition to Gayle Ingersoll's motion to quash the subpoena summoning him to testify during the October 20 sentencing hearing for Steven Ingersoll and Roy Bradley, Sr.

Gayle Ingersoll asserted in his September 30 motion a Fifth Amendment privilege and claimed “unspecified scheduling conflicts” with the date set by the court for the hearing. 

In its brief, the government stated that while the jury acquitted Gayle Ingersoll on all counts against him, the most likely way that he would incriminate himself by “testifying falsely or withholding information.” (Providing false testimony or obstructing the proceeding would be new criminal conduct for which Gayle Ingersoll could be prosecuted.)

Stating that Gayle Ingersoll has “the burden of establishing a foundation for the assertion of the privilege” against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, the government asserted Gayle Ingersoll had not met his burden regarding his Fifth Amendment privilege.

Further stating that Gayle Ingersoll could not succeed in his motion without appearing at the hearing and asserting the privilege on a question-by-question basis, the government said Ingersoll “must supply such additional statements under oath and other evidence to the District Court in response to each question propounded so as to enable the District Court to reasonably identify the nature of the criminal charge for which [he] fears prosecution.”

Gayle Ingersoll did not testify during the trial and, according to the government, he “therefore does not have a reasonable fear of prosecution for perjury in this district based on former testimony and his acquittal is a bar to further prosecution for the same offense.” 

Stating that Gayle Ingersoll’s obligation to appear and give unprivileged, truthful testimony at the sentencing hearing for Steven Ingersoll and Roy C. Bradley, Sr., cannot be avoided, and should not be postponed, the government asked U. S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington to “deny Gayle Ingersoll’s motion to quash the subpoena requiring him to testify without prejudice and allow him to make whatever showing he can during the sentencing hearing to establish the propriety of his invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination. The court then can make appropriate rulings regarding any vestigial Fifth Amendment privilege Gayle Ingersoll may have based on each topic of inquiry that is raised in the sentencing hearing.”

The government asked Ludington to “provide some guidance to the parties regarding the manner in which the sentencing hearing will be conducted.” 

Miss Fortune will be tracking developments and report any update...but you knew that!

No comments:

Post a Comment