Vance Phillips Pleads the Fifth

Filed in Delaware by on July 17, 2013

At least that is what is being reported in the Cape Gazette today. You’ll remember that Phillips is being accused of sexually assaulting a campaign staffer in 2011 — repeatedly. So much for looking forward to Phillips telling his side of the story — as his legal team claimed he was eager to do.

Phillips declined to respond to all other claims made by Dunlap, basing his silence on the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects defendants from answering for infamous crimes unless the person is indicted by a grand jury; the amendment also protects defendants from testifying if their answers may be self-incriminating.

In Phillips’ answer, Wilmington attorney Kurt Heyman questions Dunlap’s claim that the Attorney General’s Office is investigating the case. “In a recent interview she announced that she remains in contact with the Delaware State Attorney General’s Office and that a criminal investigation into the allegations of her complaint is ongoing. Defendant has, to date, been unable to confirm whether that is the case,” Heyman wrote.

So he won’t answer unless he knows that there is not an ongoing criminal investigation? Or is it how much can he fabricate without fear of a criminal case coming back to smack him in the face? Whatever is going on, it certainly isn’t making this thing go away.

But hey, this seems to be the summer we live through more reminders that Sussex conservatives have more issues that we care to know.

h/t Anonymous tipster

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SussexWatcher says:

    If he does run again, which is highly doubtful, his opponent for the 5th District council seat has the perfect slogan: “Jane Smith: Fighting For the Fifth – Not Taking It.” That’s a freebie.

  2. I dunno. Guy hasn’t been indicted, this is a civil case, and, I’m sorry, I still don’t know whether there was a rape involved, or whether this was consensual sex.

    I don’t see why he should abandon his constitutional rights here. And I don’t see why we as progressives should expect him to.

  3. V says:

    I hate to say this (because the allegations are horrifying) but I’m pretty sure anything he said in the civil trial could be used in a later criminal trial (like the 1 Enron guy that got charged after they settled with the SEC) so I can understand why he’s keeping his mouth shut.

  4. SussexWatcher says:

    It makes sense from a strictly legal perspective, maybe, but from the general public POV, it stinks. i.e., The guy says he’s innocent in the newspaper – why not just say that to the court? What’s he got to hide? etc.

  5. Occasional Dem says:

    Know the playas and know the girl. Vance dun it alright but he’s the teflon Vance and may not be indicted. He’s been around for a while and has the goods on a lot of powerful people. This is not about justice or the girl, it’s about who’s more powerful and who in the system they can control.

Switch to our mobile site