3 ms·
". 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
by 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.
- 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.