Point, Kroger.

Should mention that I'm biased as a former student of his. I even adopted his pronunciation of the word "co-air-zhun". I used to pronounce the word coercion the same way everybody else does. His glasses are so darned disarming.

So Shelli Honeywell, the DoE employee badgered by Riddell, continues to be primarily as a single mother with an ill mother. It was deep into the "O" article that it mentioned her attorney was present and she herself is a law school grad. Hardly a lack of representation. And her attorney didn't say anything when Riddell was badgering her?

No one in this whole Sylvia thing looks good or maybe because it's just full of shady people to begin with.

Riddell wasn't "badgering" Honeywell, he was lying to her about the evidence he had and threatening her with criminal prosecution if she didn't implicate her superior. What was her attorney, who didn't know Riddell was lying, supposed to do about that?

What's revealing is that, even after Holliwell said what Riddell wanted her to say, the DOJ still didn't have enough evidence to make their case. Doesn't that say something about their own confidence in the statement they secured by these methods?

Kroger is a real piece of work. Someone should do a story about the turf war between him and Brad Avakian. Here is a veterans group he is banging against.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-26689-oregon_war_veterans_association_blasts_kroger.html

"What was her attorney, who didn't know Riddell was lying, supposed to do about that?"
Most attorneys object, instruct their client not to answer, and cite the good ol 5th amendment prohibition against self incrimination, telling the investigator to go pound sand.

I assume from your answer, genop, that you are not a lawyer.

My legal bona fides for my last opinion about the typical lawyer's response in protecting their client from self incrimination is gleaned from years of watching those who play them on t.v.. As exemplified by the prosecutor wringing their hands in frustration while exclaiming: "Da perp lawyered up"

In addition to my T.V. law bona fides, the Wizard of Google Search instructs: "The privilege against self incrimination extends not only to criminal cases, but also to any trial, investigation, inquiry, or other proceeding in which a witness may be compelled to testify as to facts that could conceivably result in the filing of criminal charges." Ex parte Muncy, 163 S.W. 29 (Tex. 1913); McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)

Well, okay, now that I know you have valid credentials, I'll try to make a serious response.

The question had already been asked and answered. Riddell turned off the tape recorder, falsely told Honeywell that he had enough evidence to charge her with a crime unless she gave him evidence to use against her superior, Mark Long.

Taking the Fifth Amendment at that point was too late. Nor did her attorney have grounds to object to a question he hadn't objected to the first time he asked it (in depositions, objections are generally waived anyway except to the form of the question, which could confuse or mislead the deponent).

The dilemma Honeywell faced was not caused by poor representation by her lawyer, but by Riddell's apparent willingness to lie about the testimony of other witnesses and the evidence he had gathered to threaten her with criminal prosecution if she didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.

And the fact that Honeywell is also a lawyer raised the stakes, since a criminal conviction could cost her her license to practice law.