6 ms·

My 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." Person

My 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 ago
That'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 ago
  Yet 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 ago
    Without 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 ago
Certain 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.
cle 10y ago
You'd also invoke the fifth if your testimony could appear to be self-incriminating. The legal system is still run by humans, the normal (very large) margin of error exists.
- ori_b 10y ago
  > You'd also invoke the fifth if your testimony could appear to be self-incriminating. That's true in theory. In practice, there are few cases where invoking the fifth appears less incriminating than speaking. As you said, the legal is run by humans, and humans tend to view invoking the fifth as suspicious.
  - will_brown 10y ago
    actually it is exceedingly rare for a criminal defendant to ever take the stand and offer testimony...in fact, most legal professionals would say a defendant taking the stand is more often a Hail Mary and such a move indicates guilt.
    - tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
      And this is not a criminal trial. It is exceedingly rare for a head of a division and the former CEO of an acquired company to plead the 5th in response to litigation demands. Therefore, it looks damning and is damning to Uber's case, which is why their lawyers are in full damage-control mode. Having bought Otto, Uber has assumed its liabilities, including liability for Levandowski's past actions as founder of Otto.
      - will_brown 10y ago
        In any case (criminal or civil) the gut reaction/bias the public or a layman may feel when one opts for the 5th (silence = culpability/liability) is ignored in favor of the law (5th != guilt) applied by both judges and informed juries. Take a real-life case: -OJ criminal case for murder, doesn't take the stand (found not guilty) -OJ civil case for wrongful death, takes the stand gives inconsistent statements/impeached - not regarding anything to do with the case itself but his prior record (found liable) Yes, the standards are different in civil and criminal but the legal strategy is the same...the defendant doesn't have to do anything, the burden is on the other party to prove their case, and opening yourself up to cross when there are criminal allegations (whether in a actual criminal case or civil case) would be a questionable legal decision. All this is compounded in this Uber case where allegations of (potentially) criminal acts are being made in the civil case because potentially a criminal case may follow, but it does beg the question if this theft of intellectual property is so obvious why hasn't law enforcement brought the charges yet (they in fact may, but see how silence doesn't really indicate anything). FYI, yes in a acquisition Uber likely assumed all liabilities, but that would also generally exclude liabilities as a result of criminal acts.
aanm1988 10y ago
Say you get asked about your wherabouts, but you were cheating on your spouse at the time. Admitting that in court is a big problem for you, but doesn't really show you are guilty of anything but being a shitty husband/wife. Wouldn't that be a reasonable time to do this?
- RobAtticus 10y ago
  As far as I'm aware, you cannot falsely take the Fifth. As adultery is not a crime, you could not take the Fifth. Disclaimer: IANAL. EDIT: I'm getting some downvotes, so I will link to this that seems to support what I'm saying: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar_crimes/perjury_fifth_amendment.htm http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar... Perhaps my use of 'falsely' is confusing, but what I mean is if what you are refusing to say is not actually a crime, and it is discovered, you could be charged with a crime (i.e. perjury, giving false statements under oath).
  - poikniok 10y ago
    Can you elaborate? As stands your logic makes absolutely no sense.
    - RobAtticus 10y ago
      I added a link above that hopefully clears up what I was saying.
  - akerl_ 10y ago
    It doesn't matter that adultery isn't a crime: you're being questioned by the police, and any answer has the possibility of including details which might seem incriminating for whatever they're actually investigating, regardless of your innocence. It seems like you're approaching the 5th amendment as a direct point/counterpoint arrangement: the police accuse you of robbing a bank, you know you didn't because you were cheating on your spouse, you can't take the 5th because cheating on your spouse isn't a crime, so you must answer "I couldn't have robbed the bank because I was cheating on my spouse at another location". But the amendment is much broader than that. Since you don't know what other information the police are attempting to validate or even what crimes they're aware of, you have no way to know if "I was at $hotel with $other_person at $time" may incriminate you in this case or some other case.
benchaney 10y ago
This is of course, complete nonsense. There are a huge number of reasons that an factually accurate statement made by a factually innocent person could harm their case.
- desdiv 10y ago
  Exactly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
MegaButts 10y ago
It's funny. I regularly watch crime documentaries and am a big supporter of my rights (I am a US citizen) and detest that people are assumed to be guilty and that is largely how our legal system works. I like to believe I am decent at filtering out useful knowledge from the media. But my first thought when I saw this headline was "oh fuck - that's bad" Emotions are so good at getting in the way of critical thinking. And nowadays I think most people admit that they read headlines first, then comments, and then maybe (but probably not) the story. I wonder how horribly skewed my worldview is because of how I digest information.
jackmodern 10y ago
You're completely wrong, lawyers and interrogators will twist your words against you to make themselves more successful regardless of guilt. The YouTube video posted above is a good example of the how, but there are many more beyond that.

akerl_ 10y ago

That'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 ago
Yet 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 ago
  Without 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 ago

Certain 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.

cle 10y ago

You'd also invoke the fifth if your testimony could appear to be self-incriminating. The legal system is still run by humans, the normal (very large) margin of error exists.

ori_b 10y ago
> You'd also invoke the fifth if your testimony could appear to be self-incriminating. That's true in theory. In practice, there are few cases where invoking the fifth appears less incriminating than speaking. As you said, the legal is run by humans, and humans tend to view invoking the fifth as suspicious.
- will_brown 10y ago
  actually it is exceedingly rare for a criminal defendant to ever take the stand and offer testimony...in fact, most legal professionals would say a defendant taking the stand is more often a Hail Mary and such a move indicates guilt.
  - tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
    And this is not a criminal trial. It is exceedingly rare for a head of a division and the former CEO of an acquired company to plead the 5th in response to litigation demands. Therefore, it looks damning and is damning to Uber's case, which is why their lawyers are in full damage-control mode. Having bought Otto, Uber has assumed its liabilities, including liability for Levandowski's past actions as founder of Otto.
    - will_brown 10y ago
      In any case (criminal or civil) the gut reaction/bias the public or a layman may feel when one opts for the 5th (silence = culpability/liability) is ignored in favor of the law (5th != guilt) applied by both judges and informed juries. Take a real-life case: -OJ criminal case for murder, doesn't take the stand (found not guilty) -OJ civil case for wrongful death, takes the stand gives inconsistent statements/impeached - not regarding anything to do with the case itself but his prior record (found liable) Yes, the standards are different in civil and criminal but the legal strategy is the same...the defendant doesn't have to do anything, the burden is on the other party to prove their case, and opening yourself up to cross when there are criminal allegations (whether in a actual criminal case or civil case) would be a questionable legal decision. All this is compounded in this Uber case where allegations of (potentially) criminal acts are being made in the civil case because potentially a criminal case may follow, but it does beg the question if this theft of intellectual property is so obvious why hasn't law enforcement brought the charges yet (they in fact may, but see how silence doesn't really indicate anything). FYI, yes in a acquisition Uber likely assumed all liabilities, but that would also generally exclude liabilities as a result of criminal acts.

aanm1988 10y ago

Say you get asked about your wherabouts, but you were cheating on your spouse at the time. Admitting that in court is a big problem for you, but doesn't really show you are guilty of anything but being a shitty husband/wife. Wouldn't that be a reasonable time to do this?

RobAtticus 10y ago
As far as I'm aware, you cannot falsely take the Fifth. As adultery is not a crime, you could not take the Fifth. Disclaimer: IANAL. EDIT: I'm getting some downvotes, so I will link to this that seems to support what I'm saying: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar_crimes/perjury_fifth_amendment.htm http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar... Perhaps my use of 'falsely' is confusing, but what I mean is if what you are refusing to say is not actually a crime, and it is discovered, you could be charged with a crime (i.e. perjury, giving false statements under oath).
- poikniok 10y ago
  Can you elaborate? As stands your logic makes absolutely no sense.
  - RobAtticus 10y ago
    I added a link above that hopefully clears up what I was saying.
- akerl_ 10y ago
  It doesn't matter that adultery isn't a crime: you're being questioned by the police, and any answer has the possibility of including details which might seem incriminating for whatever they're actually investigating, regardless of your innocence. It seems like you're approaching the 5th amendment as a direct point/counterpoint arrangement: the police accuse you of robbing a bank, you know you didn't because you were cheating on your spouse, you can't take the 5th because cheating on your spouse isn't a crime, so you must answer "I couldn't have robbed the bank because I was cheating on my spouse at another location". But the amendment is much broader than that. Since you don't know what other information the police are attempting to validate or even what crimes they're aware of, you have no way to know if "I was at $hotel with $other_person at $time" may incriminate you in this case or some other case.

benchaney 10y ago

This is of course, complete nonsense. There are a huge number of reasons that an factually accurate statement made by a factually innocent person could harm their case.

desdiv 10y ago
Exactly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

MegaButts 10y ago

It's funny. I regularly watch crime documentaries and am a big supporter of my rights (I am a US citizen) and detest that people are assumed to be guilty and that is largely how our legal system works. I like to believe I am decent at filtering out useful knowledge from the media. But my first thought when I saw this headline was "oh fuck - that's bad" Emotions are so good at getting in the way of critical thinking. And nowadays I think most people admit that they read headlines first, then comments, and then maybe (but probably not) the story. I wonder how horribly skewed my worldview is because of how I digest information.

jackmodern 10y ago

You're completely wrong, lawyers and interrogators will twist your words against you to make themselves more successful regardless of guilt. The YouTube video posted above is a good example of the how, but there are many more beyond that.