After being pardoned, can one be forced to testify in civil and criminal cases?

Question

After being pardoned, can one be forced to testify in civil and criminal cases with no protection against self-incrimination?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">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/">accepts the pardon for his conviction of a federal crime?</a>Can Arpaio be compelled to testify in cases brought against him, such as federal and state cases that concern his past actions as sheriff?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?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?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?Can Arpaio decline the pardon in order to protect himself from being forced to testify?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/">for any other offenses... that might arise, or be charged, in connection...</a>?

Answer 1

given the changing supreme court justices even precedent may not decide the issue

a grant of immunity does foreclose the 5th Amendment, but even then there's a difference between use immunity and other immunity. There's a difference between immunity and pardons too.

OJ Simpson was acquitted and could never be tried again for the Twin murders, but then he testified in the civil trial over civil liability. His attorney advised him to take the 5th and refuse to answer. OJ ignored his attorney's advice and testified, answered all questions. And almost convinced the jury, as they afterwards said that had it been a criminal trial they would have all voted not guilty, due to reasonable doubt.

A pardon supposedly means you're guilty, and your acceptance of a pardon means you admit guilty. Yet Chief Justice Rhenquist ruled that actual innocence is not grounds for an appeal, and your remedy is seek a pardon. That sounds like a catch 22. Unless accepting a pardon no longer means you admit guilt.

Best legal advice will always be don't testify, and if forced to testify take the 5th or any other privilege applicable. Then let the courts decide the issue, which may go up to the Supremes.

IF still forced to testify, you suddenly have a surprisingly poor memory and say you don't remember. You're not sure. You're uncertain. "I don't know." It's harder to ever prove perjury if you don't remember. No one has a perfect memory. "I don't know. I don't remember" works as well as any 5th Amendment. Ask for clarification of the question. Act dumb. Stupidity works. surprisingly well.

While a pardon may keep you from prosecution from the crime for which you were convicted, it doesn't prevent prosecution for related crimes. and those potential crimes may be enough to invoke the 5th Amendment.