In not all cases will knowledge alone necessarily be enough to convict you, but that doesn't mean a prosecutor might not try. An ex-con should probably not take the chance that a prosecutor will ignore prior knowledge of a criminal act.
Edit: I shouldn't say "knowledge alone." I should rather say that knowledge alone plus a zealous prosecutor. And then throw in prior conviction... Just a risky proposition. Knowledge alone with no other factors to tempt a prosecutor will probably not put you at any greater risk.
https://www.salon.com/2011/07/14/wired_7/
> MANNING: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning
> LAMO: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
Lamo didn't stumble upon evidence of a crime. He got it by claiming to be a journalist. And as a journalist, he would've had plenty of leeway in not revealing a source, even a source that admits to a crime.
This is incorrect. Being an accomplice generally requires active counsel or assistance to a crime before it happens (the usual “accomplice before the fact”, or “aiding and abetting”) or active concealment (which goes by a number of terms, including “accomplice after the fact”.).
There are a few special cases where particular people have special duties to report specific crimes, but that is not the norm in general.
I said generally. You said generally. I made edits before you quoted that to clarify that knowledge alone isn't likely going to make you a target of prosecution in the majority of cases. Maybe not even in 1 in a million cases.
I've had clients be targeted for prosecution on weak facts plenty of times.
If I were a lawyer for the ex-con, and he came to ask me whether to contact the FBI given the facts that seem to be stipulated, I certainly would not recommend not contacting the FBI.
Who does and does not have a duty to report is not really relevant in a whole lot of real world cases, unless you think that no ex-con has ever been railroaded on flimsy or fabricated charges.
I've had clients plead guilty when they probably could have fought it just because they can't risk doing long-term jail time, and I'm not even a dedicated criminal defense lawyer.
I've heard about, and read about, much worse. Surely, you have as well.
Edit: Just for example, say Lamo doesn't contact the FBI, and after Manning is prosecuted, they come after Lamo claiming that he advised Manning on how not to get caught, given Lamo's previous experience. Does Lamo beat the charges or go to prison? The system is not rigged in favor of ex-cons. Given the risk, I'd contact the FBI, too.
On its face, the federal misprision statute might appear to require exactly that, but it requires active concealment, not mere failure to report.
Snowden is a better example of how to handle responsible disclosure than Manning, however.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/bradley-manning-admits-...
> Private Manning said he first called The Washington Post and spoke to an unidentified reporter for about five minutes. He decided that the reporter did not seem particularly interested because she said The Post would have to review the material before making any commitment.
> He said he then tried to reach out to The New York Times by calling a phone number for the newspaper’s public editor — an ombudsman who is not part of the newsroom — and leaving a voice mail message that was not returned.
You should provide your argument rather than waving your hands non-specifically at federal criminal law.
Are you sure this is true? You don't have a duty to report anything just because you become knowledgeable of it. Mere knowledge doesn't make you complicit.