Let us have more of this please

[Ken King]

What law makes it an obligation to report this particular person to the police?

18 USC 4 - Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

 

[vraiblonde]

18 USC 4 - Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Your turn, Chris.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

18 USC 4 - Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Your turn, Chris.

18 USC 4 does not apply here because this requires active concealment of a known felony, not just failing to report it. It also would assume that VICE knew/witnessed him committing the crime. In actuality, they reported him saying he did it and reported that he was a person of interest in the crime.

The mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4.

United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

18 USC 4 is usually only used to prosecute people who have a special duty to report the crime, like a govt. official. It came up in Chris Christie's case a few years ago.

My sense is that while Wildstein has no information about Christie criminal activity – if he did, he wouldn’t have begged for immunity so publicly – there is a little known federal statute called “misprision of a felony” (18 U.S.C. § 4), which could be used against Christie if Wildstein can prove that he told Christie of the bridge closing contemporaneously. The statute, used against people who fail to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities, is generally only applied against those in a special position of authority.

Chris Christie Is Toast

The good news for Chris Christie is that some of the country’s most prominent pundits believe that nearly three months after the George Washington Bridge scandal first broke, the New Jersey governor is in good shape. “You go around and you talk to Republicans, and they like Chris Christie more...

www.politico.com

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Your turn, Chris.

Sure is a good thing all these folks are doing your research free of charge.

 

[Ken King]

18 USC 4 does not apply here because this requires active concealment of a known felony, not just failing to report it. It also would assume that VICE knew/witnessed him committing the crime. In actuality, they reported him saying he did it and reported that he was a person of interest in the crime.

18 USC 4 is usually only used to prosecute people who have a special duty to report the crime, like a govt. official. It came up in Chris Christie's case a few years ago.

So you say. The confession given gave explicit knowledge of the commission of a felony. Because the law wasn't used doesn't mean there is no law.

And your use of "usually " indicates that even you agree that it could be used.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So you say. The confession given gave explicit knowledge of the commission of a felony. Because the law wasn't used doesn't mean there is no law.

And your use of "usually " indicates that even you agree that it could be used.

VICE did not knowingly conceal a felony. They did not witness the guy do it. They did not prevent the police from finding him or any other hindrance of their investigation. So I'm not sure how it would apply. Especially given the case law that specifically says:

The mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4.

It's not "my use", it was a quote from the article provided.

 

[Ken King]

VICE did not knowingly conceal a felony. They did not witness the guy do it. They did not prevent the police from finding him or any other hindrance of their investigation. So I'm not sure how it would apply. Especially given the case law that specifically says:

It's not "my use", it was a quote from the article provided.

The law does not require one to "witness" the crime and they didn't report it as soon as possible as required, thus they did conceal it (until they could publish their interview and gain their benefit from the knowledge they had).

And it was your use of the word "usually". It is right up there in the post I quoted and the use of usually means that while not normal to do so it could be done, right?

Do you think we can make 50 pages or more on this?

 

[vraiblonde]

Sure is a good thing all these folks are doing your research free of charge.

I was going to go with harboring a fugitive.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The law does not require one to "witness" the crime and they didn't report it as soon as possible as required, thus they did conceal it (until they could publish their interview and gain their benefit from the knowledge they had).

And it was your use of the word "usually". It is right up there in the post I quoted and the use of usually means that while not normal to do so it could be done, right?

Do you think we can make 50 pages or more on this?

Has a journalist ever been charged under 18 USC 4? VICE in particular has interviewed multiple drug dealers, terrorists, and otherwise bad people. Numerous journalists have interviewed Bin Laden since the 90's (including one where he admitted to instigating bombings).

If it didn't require one to witness it, then someone can be convicted based on hearsay.

Your interpretation is not in line with any other legal interpretation of this law. And since I highly doubt any journalist who has ever done the very same thing VICE did here has ever been charged with this crime, I stand by the idea that it's simply not applicable and VICE will not face any charges. But you're correct in your assertion that we have so many broad laws that anyone could be charged, so perhaps there is a microscopic chance that they be charged.

Your argument would assume that VICE knew he did it. Your argument would assume that VICE took steps to conceal the fact that they knew this guy did it. That's not what happened.

Almost every state has rejected the crime of misprision of felony. Thus, persons are under no duty to report a crime. One policy reason for rejecting misprision is that the crime is vague and difficult to apply to real situations. Another reason is that the crime is seen as an unacceptable encroachment on civil freedom. In 1822 the U.S. Supreme Court cautioned against misuse of the misprision of felony statute, stating, "It may be the duty of a citizen to … proclaim every offense which comes to his knowledge; but the law which would punish him in every case, for not performing this duty, is too harsh"

The federal misprision of felony statute remains on the books, but the crime rarely has been prosecuted. On the state level, most states have either abolished or refused to enact misprision of felony laws. South Carolina is the only state that has prosecuted the misprision of a felony.

Misprision - Further Readings

Even the DOJ says:

The federal definition of misprision requires that, (1) the principal committed and completed the felony alleged; (2) the defendant had knowledge of the commission of the felony; (3) the defendant failed to notify the authorities that the crime had been committed; and (4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the crime.

Pennsylvania Man Pleads Guilty to Misprision of a Felony

St. Thomas, USVI – Michael Leonard, 21, of Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty today in District Court before District Court Judge Curtis V. Gomez, to misprision of a felony, United States Attorney Gretchen C.F. Shappert announced. Sentencing is set for November 29, 2018. The federal definition of...

www.justice.gov

In order to be convicted of misprision of felony, the court must prove the following:

• A completed felony exists
• The defendant knew about the felony
• The defendant failed to notify authorities
• The defendant took steps to conceal the felony

Concealment includes making false statements, hiding evidence, and harboring the felon. Judges rely on jury’s to decide if concealment took place in a misprision case.

Mostly, misprision only exists in states that adopted the common law through a statute or in their constitutions. A few states outline their own misprision-related laws as well. Prosecutions are extremely rare even if a state includes a misprision clause.

Courts also must prove the defendant has an "evil motive" in hiding the felony. Simply ignoring the crime is not enough to prosecute. An example of this would be Commonwealth v. Lopes, 1945.

Misprision of Felony

LegalMatch discusses on what proofs a court can use to convict a person of misprision of felony. You may read about accomplice liability here. A criminal lawyer can help explain other things related to this and seeking advice is possible by connecting using (4150 946 - 3744

www.legalmatch.com

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I was going to go with harboring a fugitive.

Was an arrest warrant issued for Reinoehl? Was he charged with the crime?

 

[Ken King]

Has a journalist ever been charged under 18 USC 4? VICE in particular has interviewed multiple drug dealers, terrorists, and otherwise bad people. Numerous journalists have interviewed Bin Laden since the 90's (including one where he admitted to instigating bombings).

If it didn't require one to witness it, then someone can be convicted based on hearsay.

Your interpretation is not in line with any other legal interpretation of this law. And since I highly doubt any journalist who has ever done the very same thing VICE did here has ever been charged with this crime, I stand by the idea that it's simply not applicable and VICE will not face any charges. But you're correct in your assertion that we have so many broad laws that anyone could be charged, so perhaps there is a microscopic chance that they be charged.

Your argument would assume that VICE knew he did it. Your argument would assume that VICE took steps to conceal the fact that they knew this guy did it. That's not what happened.

Okay, so we're going for 50 pages or more.

I don't know if a journalist has ever been charged, do you? Guess not, since you say you highly doubt it, but offer no proof and then concede that there is a chance (even if microscopic).

Is having knowledge hearsay? A recorded interview would not be hearsay, right?

Yes Vice knew it, he told them that in the interview. Vice did take steps to go to production with their interview without informing anyone about it, or do you have knowledge that they did inform authorities and are saving that for page 49?

 

[vraiblonde]

Was an arrest warrant issued for Reinoehl? Was he charged with the crime?

I chalk that up to poor programming.

 

[Hijinx]

No dog whistle, you just need to be better at searching. That's been a problem with you for some time. You even made a thread about it.

Think about it, Vrai. How many times have journalists interviewed people who claimed to be terrorists, drug dealers, murders, and other criminals? Ever wonder why there aren't more journalists in jail (though I'm sure you would love to see that) for those interviews?

What law makes it an obligation to report this particular person to the police? What law mandates compulsory reporting by journalists to police?

Citizens and journalists largely have no obligation to turn in criminals. There are some crimes and some states, but it typically involves child abuse, which doesn't apply here. There are no laws prohibiting associating with criminals. If there were, half of Washington DC would be in jail. How many of Trump's picks for positions in his administration are criminals?

I thought the way this started that an answer was forthcoming, but no, it wasn't/

 

[Ken King]

Was an arrest warrant issued for Reinoehl? Was he charged with the crime?

From NPR - "In a statement, the U.S. Marshals Service said the Portland Police Bureau had issued an arrest warrant for Reinoehl on Thursday on a charge of murder. Members of the U.S. Marshals Service Pacific Northwest Violent Offender Task Force "located Reinoehl in Olympia (Wash.) and attempted to peacefully arrest him.""

 

[Gilligan]

This is actually amusing now. Put the whiny failure kid on ignore and can still easily figure out everything he posts by the responses.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I chalk that up to poor programming.

From NPR - "In a statement, the U.S. Marshals Service said the Portland Police Bureau had issued an arrest warrant for Reinoehl on Thursday on a charge of murder. Members of the U.S. Marshals Service Pacific Northwest Violent Offender Task Force "located Reinoehl in Olympia (Wash.) and attempted to peacefully arrest him.""

So, for the harboring charge to be legit, we have to have proof that the interview was done after the warrant was issued. We have to have proof that VICE knew he had a warrant and actively concealed the guy from arrest. I don't think we have that proof. Thus making harboring a moot charge.

Section 1071 makes it an offense to harbor or conceal any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued, so as to prevent the fugitive's discovery and arrest, after having notice or knowledge that a warrant or process has been issued for the fugitive's apprehension.

1827. Harboring -- Applicable Statutes

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

 

[Gilligan]

Oh look..there's another...

 

[Ken King]

So, for the harboring charge to be legit, we have to have proof that the interview was done after the warrant was issued. We have to have proof that VICE knew he had a warrant and actively concealed the guy from arrest. I don't think we have that proof. Thus making harboring a moot charge.

Who the **** said anything about harboring? Oh it was Vrai. No one pays attention to her.

 

[PJay]

This is actually amusing now. Put the whiny failure kid on ignore and can still easily figure out everything he posts by the responses.

Yes, because of years of the same. I think why his cork popped today is because of him being ignored.

 

[Gilligan]

Yes, because of years of the same. I think why his cork popped today is because of him being ignored.

LMAO..oh the irony. The little chit so loves to throw words like "narcissist" around all the time.