4 ms·

A 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 amendme

A 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 ago
  They 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.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    "No, it means a hell of a lot, in this context." Sure, to this i'd agree. I just think, unlike some others here who think this is uber and levandowski fighting, that more likely, in lawsuits of this size, it's a collaborative strategy.
tajen 10y ago
How does this event of pleading the fifth compare with Bill Gates' interrogation under the monopoly investigation in 1998? I've heard Gates' insistent way of misunderstanding every single question was something that would piss of judges rather than hide your defense (so much that the judge published a best of during the trial): Do pleading the fifth and playing dumb both harm your defense in the same way?
- tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
  No, it's completely different. Sandbagging a deposition and playing stupid games with discovery is almost standard practice. Judges hate it, opposing counsel complains bitterly, but in a pretrial civil case, out of sight of a jury, just about everyone does that on both sides. Pleading the 5th is rather extraordinary in a civil business dispute and is not a normal tactic when you have a strong defense. It immediately raises a stink of crime for everyone concerned, and can certainly spook shareholders/investors.
hluska 10y ago
Your answer would be much stronger if you dropped your tone by a magnitude and edited out the insults. Your first paragraph is particularly difficult to read.
- always_good 10y ago
  Dunno, to me it's stronger because it emphasizes that the other answers are naive. I've been in positions where other people in a thread happen to answer a question I have expertise in, but they don't know what they are talking about. It happens so often on forums like HN/Reddit that I appreciate it when someone can call them out for "authoritative guessing". It was a tiny slap on the wrist.

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 ago
They 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.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "No, it means a hell of a lot, in this context." Sure, to this i'd agree. I just think, unlike some others here who think this is uber and levandowski fighting, that more likely, in lawsuits of this size, it's a collaborative strategy.

tajen 10y ago

How does this event of pleading the fifth compare with Bill Gates' interrogation under the monopoly investigation in 1998? I've heard Gates' insistent way of misunderstanding every single question was something that would piss of judges rather than hide your defense (so much that the judge published a best of during the trial): Do pleading the fifth and playing dumb both harm your defense in the same way?

tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
No, it's completely different. Sandbagging a deposition and playing stupid games with discovery is almost standard practice. Judges hate it, opposing counsel complains bitterly, but in a pretrial civil case, out of sight of a jury, just about everyone does that on both sides. Pleading the 5th is rather extraordinary in a civil business dispute and is not a normal tactic when you have a strong defense. It immediately raises a stink of crime for everyone concerned, and can certainly spook shareholders/investors.

hluska 10y ago

Your answer would be much stronger if you dropped your tone by a magnitude and edited out the insults. Your first paragraph is particularly difficult to read.

always_good 10y ago
Dunno, to me it's stronger because it emphasizes that the other answers are naive. I've been in positions where other people in a thread happen to answer a question I have expertise in, but they don't know what they are talking about. It happens so often on forums like HN/Reddit that I appreciate it when someone can call them out for "authoritative guessing". It was a tiny slap on the wrist.