undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdragonwriter2y ago0 comments

> He doesn't have the right to plead the 5th to avoid testifying against anyone but himself or his spouse, so his attempts to plead the 5th were just nonsense

That’s not true, you can invoke the Fifth anytime testimony might incriminate you, regardless of who it is directly against. If this is founded (which may itself be contested if it isn’t directly against yourself), you can’t be compelled to testify unless the potential for self-incrimination is neutralized by immunity.

However, in this case there was no real self-incrimination concern.

0 comments

fatfingerd2y ago

Yes, I meant the 5th is only to avoid testimony incriminating himself, which he couldn't do.

NoZebra120vClip2y ago

No, the "right to remain silent" is absolute. It's a refusal to testify to anything at all. The grounds of self-incrimination are there, but if nobody knows what you'll be asked or how you'll answer, those grounds are sort of immaterial.

dragonwriterOP2y ago

> No, the "right to remain silent" is absolute.

Constitutionally, no, the right referenced by that phrase in, e.g., the Miranda warnings is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination (“No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”).

The belief that a more general “right to remain silent” exists may be a moral belief of some people, but, it is not a legal right, and judges can and will conduct questioning to assess if the legal right applies.

thfuran2y ago

What do you mean if nobody knows what you'll be asked? You have to actually have been asked something to decline to answer.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse