Patchogue, NY Criminal Defense Law Firms & Lawyers | Page 2 Results

It depends on the the type of accident. Under Oregon law, there are basically two different types of "hit and run" crimes. If you are in an accident that involves only property damage, you could potentially be charged with Failure to Perform the Duties of a Driver When Property is Damaged (ORS 811.700). This crime is a class A misdemeanor which carries up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $6,250. If you are in accident that involved injury to a person, you could potentially be charged with Failure to Perform the Duties of a Driver to Injured Persons (ORS 811.705). This crime is a class C felony which carries a maximum of 5 years in prison and a maximum $125,000 fine. If the accident involved "serious physical injury" to another, the crime can be charged as a class B felony which carries up to 10 years jail and a $250,000 fine. However, the statutory maximums for felonies can be very misleading and a person convicted of felony "hit and run" will not serve anywhere near the statutory maximum, even if sentenced by the harshest judge. In "hit and run" scenarios, the prosecutor may also choose to charge the crime of Reckless Driving, which is a class A misdemeanor.

Thank you for your inquiry Your question is confusing. The 5th amendment is the right against being compelled to testify against yourself. In other words, a confession or admissions cannot be compelled. Our Supreme Court has held that it is coercive to question someone while in custody without giving them miranda rights. If this is done, then a confession can be excluded from evidence. The 5th amendment can be asserted at trial if a person is asked questions that may incriminate themselves, or a statement is offered at trial in violation of miranda. Immunity is the possible response to an assertion of the 5th amendment. The best way to explain is by an example. If a witness is called to testify against a defendant, and the statements the witness may make about the defendant will possibly incriminate the witness, then the witness could assert the 5th amendment and refuse to testify. However, the prosecutor can offer immunity to the testifying witness. This offer of immunity will protect the witness from being proseuted for the statements the witness may make about the defendant while being questioned at trial. In this way, a witness can be compelled to testify over their assertion of the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Therefore, a person is not "given immunity to plead the 5th." Instead, a person may assert their 5th amendment privilege to not testify against themselves by making admissions or incriminating statements. The prosecutor can offer immunity to the witness, in which case, there is nolonger a sustainable 5th amendment objection to questions based on the grounds that the testimiony may incriminate them. The witness cannot refuse to answer questions. The witness must answer questions or possibly be held in contempt. I hope that this was helpful.