26 ms·
What does this imply?
by ganfortran 10y ago
What does this imply?
- drwl 10y agoHe invoked the fifth amendment
- tyingq 10y agoWhich is interesting because you don't invoke the fifth in a civil case unless "the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it" Doesn't imply guilt, but it shows that Uber recognizes the alleged conduct could be criminal versus just a tort.
- amluto 10y agoAlso, since when does the 5th amendment protect documents?
- MaxfordAndSons 10y agoI too am confused by the article's wording in explaining that he invoked the fifth "to avoid incrimination in turning over documents relevant to the case" - is it perhaps to make a technical distinction of "here, these are my documents" vs. "oops, I don't know what these documents in my bedroom are or how they got here"?
- tyingq 10y agoThere's a techcrunch article with better detail. "Uber’s lawyers claim that the company doesn’t have the documents Levandowski allegedly stole from Waymo and therefore won’t be handing them over tomorrow as part of a scheduled document production." So more like "I don't have those documents, and I can't say more." https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/30/ubers-anthony-levandowski-invokes-fifth-amendment-rights-in-waymo-suit/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/30/ubers-anthony-levandowski-...
- inlined 10y agoThe article seems to suggest that uber is complying with discovery by saying they have 0 documents and his lawyers are saying that revealing any documents he had would be testimony against himself.
- superioritycplx 10y ago>Uber recognizes the alleged conduct could be criminal versus just a tort ...or that his lawyer is competent.
- tyingq 10y agoI'm not convinced citing the 5th is always a great idea in a civil case[1]. Of course, he may be more worried about the future, outside this case. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/28/what-happens-if-you-take-the-fifth-in-a-civil-case/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- badnew 10y agoI don't think exercising your rights should imply anything
- wavefunction 10y agoThat asks the rest of us to abandon inference, which I'm not inclined towards.
- DannyBee 10y agoIt does in the civil context, but not in the criminal context, which seems precisely right. In the criminal context, the government is trying to punish you with jail. Actual deprivation of liberty. In such cases, we require they make be able to make their case without you saying you did it. In the civil context, you can avoid saying you did it if it would cause you to possibly be convicted of a crime, but unlike the above, there is no possibility of deprivation of liberty. As such, if you do try to avoid saying you did it, people are allowed to use it to make their case that you did it.
- ams6110 10y agoPractically, it implies that he doesn't want to talk about something that is incriminating to himself. Legally it doesn't imply anything. Innocent unless proven guilty.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoI believe that's only true in criminal matters against you, not if you're called as a witness as part of a civil suit.
- anamexis 10y agoNot sure why you're getting downvoted - [T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them. Baxter v. Palmigiano https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7744352446580251902 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=774435244658025...
- DannyBee 10y ago"Legally it doesn't imply anything. Innocent unless proven guilty. " This is wrong in the civil context.
- dehugger 10y agoMy impression of invoking the fifth amendment has always been "If I say something I might go to jail, so I'm going to exercise my right to say nothing." Personally, I view it as more or less an admission of guilt, but I'm sure there are a host of legal reasons to do this (besides actually being guilty) that I am unaware of.
- akerl_ 10y agoThat's an unfortunate but accurate description of the average person's understanding of the 5th amendment. The reality is more complex: it's pretty easy for any statement, even one which is 100% accurate and made from a position of actual innocence, to contribute to a guilty verdict. An interesting video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
- guelo 10y agoYet civil trials happen all the time with hours upon hours of witness testimony without anybody invoking the 5th amendment for fear of being prosecuted.
- mattmanser 10y agoWithout watching the video, don't talk to the cops is an entirely different ballgame. Having been arrested myself for driving a red car with 2 males inside where the crime happened miles away. They really, really aren't your friends, repeatedly say yes for a lawyer. Your first arrest will disabuse you of any relic of your childhood "cops are your friends" bullshit. Any parent who hasn't told you by the age of 17 that cops are not your friends anymore is wildly negligent of their basic duty as a parent. While you live in that wonderful pre-adult age, they are your first call.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ryanSrich 10y agoCertain truthful arguments just naturally come off as lies. I could see invoking the 5th when you feel like you'll be misinterpreted no matter what.
- sokoloff 10y agoThat he has a Constitutionally provided right that he is choosing to exercise. It is improper to draw any firm conclusion beyond that, IMO.
- SilasX 10y agoLegal vs rational evidence. To borrow the excellent exchange from A Man for All Seasons: More: If, therefore, you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied. Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it? More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_(1966_film) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_(1966_fi...
- jacquesm 10y agoSuper good movie and highly recommended.
- sokoloff 10y ago> Legal vs rational evidence. In a high-stakes (or even potentially high-stakes) legal situation, it is entirely rational to invoke your 5th amendment right, provided that it even remotely plausibly applies. You don't need to actually be guilty of anything to invoke the right and I don't draw a conclusion that you are likely guilty by your exercise.
- IgorPartola 10y agoI am not a lawyer, but basically it means he is innocent until proven otherwise and he has the right to not testify in a way that might incriminate himself and he is exercising it. There is the sort of popular view that if you do this, it must mean you are guilty and by testifying you would actually be proven so. The problem with that is that you might actually be innocent but not be able to give evidence in a way that does not make you look guilty. Any lawyers here willing to elaborate on how to better view this from a social point of view?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- valkea 10y agoNot a lawyer. Levandowski is trying to avoid turning over (some) documents in the discovery process of the civil lawsuit Waymo is filing against Uber. They are doing this by claiming it could incriminate him and open him up to the possibility of criminal charges. Will this actually work? Maybe. The fifth amendment is more complex than it might at first seem. One thing that's for sure is that if he is found to be withholding any documents that are relevant to the civil suit, but couldn't realistically incriminate him, this could backfire spectacularly. Hence the statement from his lawyers: > One of Mr. Levandowski’s lawyers said the Uber executive’s position on invoking the Fifth Amendment may change as they examine the case.
- lern_too_spel 10y agoSaying anything here can only hurt him, regardless of whether he is innocent. Waymo's lawyers can use his evasion against Uber in the ongoing civil cases, but the government can't use it against him if the government later decides to bring a criminal suit. He's basically throwing Uber under the self-driving bus to save his own skin.
- tgjsrkghruksd 10y agoIt's not a question of innocent or guilt. You're talking criminal terminology. In the case at bar it's a question of liable or not. If you're sued for a bazillion dollars and you didn't do anything wrong, then saying something that would help your case could save you a bazillion dollars. On the other hand, if you did do everything you are accused of, then you're probably right, it can only hurt you.
- lern_too_spel 10y agoAs I said above, it's a question of whether he is innocent or guilty of the crimes he will be accused of in the potential criminal case that will follow. Remember, pleading the fifth can only be done to avoid self-incrimination, not to avoid testifying about your employer.
- tgjsrkghruksd 10y agoYou said "regardless of whether he is innocent." There is no criminal case or publicly announced investigation. So pleading the 5th every time you are asked a question in litigation is always the winning strategy, in case you end up being prosecuted? What about obstetricians and neurosurgeons and such other high net worth people practicing in litigious environments, who are liable to be sued a few times through the course of their career? Even if the doctor committed borderline malpractice, answering every question in a document demand or deposition with "I plead the fifth" is a good way to lose everything on a case that could have been dismissed early on without trial. When pretty much zero doctors are prosecuted for injuring or even killing their patients in a professional context. There's pretty much no way to build a multi-billion dollar enterprise without attracting at least a few lawsuits along the way. This is obviously not an ordinary case.
- tgjsrkghruksd 10y agoA lot of people here with their TV law degrees are giving you gibberish answers that pleading the 5th doesn't imply anything. They are wrong. The fifth amendment is only available to avoid testimony that could potentially implicate oneself in a crime. Proper exercise of 5th amendment rights cannot be used against a person in a criminal prosecution. This isn't a criminal case (yet). It's a very high-stakes civil case. Pleading the fifth may result in an adverse inference jury instruction, or an adverse inference determination by a judge in a nonjury trial. In other words, it makes you look very bad, and the finder of fact is free to assume the worst. Not applicable here yet, but in rare cases prosecutors will also get around the 5th is by offering immunity, in which case you may be ordered to testify, and your testimony cannot then be used as evidence against you in a criminal trial; refusal to testify under immunity can result in punishment for civil or criminal contempt. You cannot invoke the 5th to protect yourself from civil liability, or to avoid implicating another person in a crime. There's all sorts of things that "pleading the fifth" doesn't protect you from. For instance, public employees are often required by law to cooperate with all public investigations, including criminal investigations. Pleading the fifth as a public employee in an public investigation can result in mandatory termination, even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
- DannyBee 10y ago". Pleading the fifth may result in an adverse inference jury instruction, or an adverse inference determination by a judge in a nonjury trial. " Yes, but they lose nothing as a strategy by having him do it unless the inference the judge threatens is so negative, and then, as they said, "his view on whether to claim the fifth may change as the case progresses". .... Now, certainly, most companies are ethical enough not to try such a strategy, but ...
- tgjsrkghruksd 10y agoThey lose nothing if the disclosure is, in fact, highly damaging. Which is the obvious point. What we have here is 10 fools going in "But the Constitution" and "Innocent until proven guilty" and "It means nothing." No, it means a hell of a lot, in this context. Like, when you get pulled over and the cop asks you, "Do you know why I pulled you over?", you could say "On the advice of my attorney I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent because the answer to that question may incriminate myself. I'm not answering any questions without my lawyer." This is almost always the wrong way to start off a traffic stop, no matter how many times people post the "NEVER SAY ANYTHING TO COPS" video.