> When someone swears to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' they're agreeing to express themselves to an organ of the government. The constitution doesn't forbid lying, but that doesn't grant you the freedom to engage in perjury.

These three activists didn't lie or take an oath - they simply refused to testify. You could argue that the courts' power to try cases allows the govt to imprison people to coerce testimony, but that's a different argument.

> I wouldn't rely on Russia Today for my legal analysis if I were you. The Validimir Putin Press Agency is not really in a position to report objectively on the theory or practice of fair trials, given the lamentable state of the Russian legal system.

And yet that logic never stops US papers from reporting on other countries' legal systems...

There are sources besides RT for this news - you can google them.

Please read the first line of the grandparent comment about how information from other sources establishes that the three were given immunity from prosecution. In other words, they made a deal with prosecutors to testify.

No they didn't, all three have been very upfront about their unwillingness to testify.

You don't have to consent to be given immunity.

After digging about a bit, I find I was mistaken - the court granted immunity but exercised its power to compel testimony by subpoena. Still, the court is not exceeding its authority in that area. Subpoenas do not viol;ate the constitution.

What facts does the RT article have wrong? I've read similar accounts of this case from other sources as well.

Well, leaving out the fact of an immunity deal is a huge omission. EDIT: immunity granted by the court, rather than offered by prosecutors.

And they quote one of the parties complaints about the time when the GJ was set up without mentioning whether it was set up specially or just in line with the normal calendar schedule. The jury in a trial is specially convened for that case. Grand juries typically sit for several months at a time and issue indictments on whatever happens to come before them. They're completely different from trial juries.

>Grand juries typically sit for several months at a time and issue indictments on whatever happens to come before them.

That's true, but grand juries can be convened for a specific issue as well.

True, those are important facts about the case.