Client Asserts 5th Amendment in Federal Sex Trafficking CaseApr 05 2019, by Case Results, Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes in
Sometimes, even if you initially avoid arrest and criminal charges, it does not mean you are out of the woods. Law enforcement investigations are long, complicated, and may take unexpected turns – potentially exposing you to more trouble than you anticipated. That’s why it is always best to work with a skilled defense attorney who will aggressively protect your rights.
For instance, in mid-2017 a man was detained by police for allegedly paying to engage in sex with a minor. While it was evident that this was not the individual’s intention, the officers who were part of a large federal task force investigating sex trafficking wanted his cooperation and testimony against the “pimp” who was trafficking in young women. While the man was not formally charged at this point, he was unsure of his options or if he could face charges later.
This led him to retain veteran Philadelphia federal crimes attorney Michael Fienman. This allowed Fienman to act as an intermediary between his client and those conducting the child sex trafficking investigation to keep his client from being charged. Instead of his client exposing himself by making a statement or answering direct questions, attorney Fienman shielded his client and asserted his rights under the constitution.
Eventually, in late 2018, the U.S. Attorney issued a subpoena to compel Fienman’s client to testify against the true target (the “pimp”) of their investigation. However, doing so would still expose Fienman’s client to possible criminal charges because any testimony would likely lead to incriminating statements concerning the man’s involvement in a prostitution ring. As a result, Fienman contacted the federal prosecutor and made it clear that his client would assert his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. By having a legal professional to efficiently and effectively handle things for him, Fienman’s client was not bullied into testifying in a case that could have ended with his freedom in jeopardy.
The outcome of an individual case depends on a variety of factors unique to that case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any similar or future case.