criminal-law civil-law fifth-amendment pardon
After being pardoned, can one be forced to testify in civil and criminal cases?
<p>After being pardoned, can one be forced to testify in civil and criminal cases with no protection against self-incrimination?</p>

<p>My example is how <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-pardons-former-arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio/2017/08/25/afbff4b6-86b1-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html?utm_term=.66a6af6a8084" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Trump has pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio</a>; does Arpaio's protection against self-incrimination disappear if he <a href="https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/president-trumps-pardon-of-former-arizona-county-sheriff-joseph-arpaio/2539/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">accepts the pardon for his conviction of a federal crime?</a></p>

<p>Can Arpaio be compelled to testify in cases brought against him, such as federal and state cases that concern his past actions as sheriff?</p>

<p>I.e., such as civil or criminal cases concerning Arpaio's department's past treatment of prisoners, instances of racial profiling and immigration-related cases?</p>

<p>Can Arpaio be compelled to testify against co-defendants in the same case(s) he was being prosecuted for that were nullified by the pardon?</p>

<p>Is there a difference between between civil and criminal cases as to what he can be compelled to do? And a difference between state and federal cases?</p>

<p>Can Arpaio decline the pardon in order to protect himself from being forced to testify?</p>

<p>And, can Trump preemptively pardon Arpaio, as the pardon states <a href="https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/president-trumps-pardon-of-former-arizona-county-sheriff-joseph-arpaio/2539/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">for any other offenses... that might arise, or be charged, in connection...</a>?</p>

<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/02/if-youre-pardoned-can-you-be-compelled-to-testify-about-your-crime/?utm_term=.1867ffe09796" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This analysis by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh</a> concludes that the answer is <strong>yes</strong>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person may refuse to testify, even when subpoenaed, on the grounds that the testimony may expose him to criminal liability. But if the prospect of criminal liability disappears — whether because he has been granted adequate immunity by prosecutors, or because he has accepted a presidential pardon — then the privilege against self-incrimination also disappears. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course, Arpaio could still claim (plausibly, in my opinion) that his  testimony would incriminate him as to other crimes with which he has not been charged / convicted / pardoned. (Unless the pardon was so broad as to cover all related federal crimes of which he might have been guilty; I cannot find the exact text of the pardon.)  He could also claim that his testimony would incriminate him as to crimes under state law; the President cannot pardon those.</p>
