Can innocent people plead the 5th?

Can innocent people plead the 5th

  • Total voters
    12
Yaya said:
This issue seems unresolved, so I thought I would see what the illustrious members of JPP think.
Click to expand...

Can they? Yes. Whether it will help their case or not is something else. There are consequences for speaking out...and for remaining silent.
 
Threedee said:
LOL You're LOL command of the English language is pretty weak, so, I will just remind you that Trump has previously stated that people don't plead the fifth if they are really innocent. That is not to be grammatically confused with someone stating that hypothetical persons cannot plead the fifth for reasons owing to their level of culpability in a crime.

As this has been explained to you already today, I sincerely hope that twelfth times the charm.
Click to expand...

Yet that isn't what you previously said.

Mirror, get one
 
Damocles said:
Which the police often create. Now imagine a huge investigation with hundreds of people questioned where an ambiguous answer can, and often will, cause you to face charges of "lying" to the questioning authority...

Pretty much any good attorney would tell you to either plead the fifth or simply say, "I do not recall."
Click to expand...
But that’s lawyers talking. Let’s talk reality. I’ve spoken to Jurors on this question and regardless of what lawyers and judges say they, pretty much to a person, believe a person who uses their fifth amendment right to be guilty. In fact the ones I talked to said it was determinative. That they decided that person was guilty the moment they exercised their fifth right and not on the facts presented.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
But that’s lawyers talking. Let’s talk reality. I’ve spoken to Jurors on this question and regardless of what lawyers and judges say they, pretty much to a person, believe a person who uses their fifth amendment right to be guilty. In fact the ones I talked to said it was determinative. That they decided that person was guilty the moment they exercised their fifth right and not on the facts presented.
Click to expand...

Yup...it has got to make you think the person is hiding something.

But Yaya wants to take that and make it into, "Innocent people cannot invoke the 5th."

So you respond with, "I am not saying that innocent people cannot invoke the 5th. Of course they can."

And he replies, "But why are you saying that innocent people cannot invoke the 5th?"

And you respond, "I am NOT saying that. I am saying the exact opposite. I am saying that innocent people CAN INVOKE THE 5th."

And he responds, "But why are you saying that innocent people CANNOT invoke the 5th?"

(Repeat for as many times as you want. He will never change.)
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yup...it has got to make you think the person is hiding something.

But Yaya wants to take that and make it into, "Innocent people cannot invoke the 5th."

So you respond with, "I am not saying that innocent people cannot invoke the 5th. Of course they can."

And he replies, "But why are you saying that innocent people cannot invoke the 5th?"

And you respond, "I am NOT saying that. I am saying the exact opposite. I am saying that innocent people CAN INVOKE THE 5th."

And he responds, "But why are you saying that innocent people CANNOT invoke the 5th?"

(Repeat for as many times as you want. He will never change.)
Click to expand...
Most strawmen arguments begin with “So what you’re saying is...”.

Also it should be understood that jury selection is designed to exclude the best and brightest and complete idiots. A fairly intelligent person understands invoking your fifth amendment right is an admission of nothing but that’s not how it’s perceived by most jurors..

It is a frightening aspect of jurors is that they have no legal constraints on how the make a decision other than they make a decision.

That most jurors view using your fifth amendment as an admission of guilt is disconcerting. That most jurors completely disregard the admonition that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty by reasonable doubt. Most jurors believe you are guilty or you wouldn’t be on trial and thus must prove your innocence. Which is terrifying if you face trial as it’s utterly contradictory to the law.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
But that’s lawyers talking. Let’s talk reality. I’ve spoken to Jurors on this question and regardless of what lawyers and judges say they, pretty much to a person, believe a person who uses their fifth amendment right to be guilty. In fact the ones I talked to said it was determinative. That they decided that person was guilty the moment they exercised their fifth right and not on the facts presented.
Click to expand...

dumbing down of america in action. the belief that the government knows what it's doing and it's never wrong.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Oh, sweet Jesus!

Just "because."

Hey...are you actually smarter than anyone here?
Click to expand...

that's completely fucking idiotic. do any of you fuckwits understand the Bill of Rights and what it means?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

if exercising a RIGHT to protect yourself from the tyranny of government is enough to make you believe someone is guilty, you're too fucking stupid to be in public. stay in your mommas basement
 
Mott the Hoople said:
But that’s lawyers talking. Let’s talk reality. I’ve spoken to Jurors on this question and regardless of what lawyers and judges say they, pretty much to a person, believe a person who uses their fifth amendment right to be guilty. In fact the ones I talked to said it was determinative. That they decided that person was guilty the moment they exercised their fifth right and not on the facts presented.
Click to expand...

A couple of concepts. Not my racket but I think there is a privilege not to testify at one's own trial in addition to not speaking to prosecutors outside of the court either.
Not many defendants do testify at all, so those you interview must think everyone is guilty. And that is pretty much the case from a couple public defenders I know.
They basically told me all their clients are guilty, they just try to get deals to lesser charges.

Nobody is going to talk to the cops and nobody should help cops convict them. If you are guilty, I figure the evidence should come from somewhere besides one's own mouth.
Otherwise it's too waterboardy/naziesque/Trumpish. After all, the guys who'd like you to talk waiving Miranda just happen to be holding guns and your nuts in their hands.
They ain't your friends.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that's completely fucking idiotic.
Click to expand...

Okay...I take it back. Of course you are not smarter than anyone else.


do any of you fuckwits understand the Bill of Rights and what it means?
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for the "fuckwits"...but I can speak for myself.

I do understand the Bill of Rights and what it means...at least from a non-professional perspective.

Do you?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

if exercising a RIGHT to protect yourself from the tyranny of government is enough to make you believe someone is guilty, you're too fucking stupid to be in public. stay in your mommas basement
Click to expand...

Wow...you seem all wired up today. Get laid...or stay away from the coffee.

Anyway...as nearly as I can tell...most people invoking the 5th are looked upon by lots of people (fairly or unfairly) as suspect. They do seem (fairly or unfairly) to be hiding something.

In fact, when they invoke it, they essentially say, "I refuse to answer that question because it might tend to incriminate me."

So get the hell off your high horse...and stop lecturing. You sound like a clown.

None of us ought to take the invocation of the 5th as evidence of guilt...but being humans, some of us (perhaps many) will. Most likely...whether we do or do not will depend on the ox being gored. Some of the people who think it would not mean anything if invoked by Donald Trump would be shouting to the heavens the "apparent guilt" if invoked by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

YOU sound like one of those people, Smarter(!)thanYou...so as I said, get the hell off your high horse.
 
Yaya said:
He said that? Cite.
Click to expand...


Pleading the Fifth may be a wise legal move for Cohen, but in the past Trump has been highly critical of the tactic (though he used it himself to avoid answered questions about “other women” during his divorce from first wife Ivana Trump). Nevertheless, during the presidential campaign he hammered former Hillary Clinton staffers who took the Fifth during the investigation of her private email server.

“The mob takes the Fifth,” he said at an Iowa campaign rally in September 2016. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?
 
floridafan said:
Pleading the Fifth may be a wise legal move for Cohen, but in the past Trump has been highly critical of the tactic (though he used it himself to avoid answered questions about “other women” during his divorce from first wife Ivana Trump). Nevertheless, during the presidential campaign he hammered former Hillary Clinton staffers who took the Fifth during the investigation of her private email server.

“The mob takes the Fifth,” he said at an Iowa campaign rally in September 2016. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?
Click to expand...

The power of pointing out Trump's hypocrisies and moral and intellectual failings has no power over him. He has cult disciples. They consider his every outrageous deed or word
just another opportunity to give thinking people the middle finger. That's why they are all beneath contempt. There is no shared frame of reference because we believe in
accountability of leaders in a democracy. Go figure. And they decidedly do not.
 
Micawber said:
A couple of concepts. Not my racket but I think there is a privilege not to testify at one's own trial in addition to not speaking to prosecutors outside of the court either.
Not many defendants do testify at all, so those you interview must think everyone is guilty. And that is pretty much the case from a couple public defenders I know.
They basically told me all their clients are guilty, they just try to get deals to lesser charges.

Nobody is going to talk to the cops and nobody should help cops convict them. If you are guilty, I figure the evidence should come from somewhere besides one's own mouth.
Otherwise it's too waterboardy/naziesque/Trumpish. After all, the guys who'd like you to talk waiving Miranda just happen to be holding guns and your nuts in their hands.
They ain't your friends.
Click to expand...

I heard that. If a police officer asks me questions I only ask them questions in return to find out why they are questioning me and then I tell them that unless I'm being charged with something or arrested I won't be answering any questions with out my attorney present.

Fortunately the last time that happened was on a DUI charge almost 30 years ago. LOL
 
Mott the Hoople said:
But that’s lawyers talking. Let’s talk reality. I’ve spoken to Jurors on this question and regardless of what lawyers and judges say they, pretty much to a person, believe a person who uses their fifth amendment right to be guilty. In fact the ones I talked to said it was determinative. That they decided that person was guilty the moment they exercised their fifth right and not on the facts presented.
Click to expand...

Then they abrogated their Constitutional duty as jurors and all such cases should be retried.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I heard that. If a police officer asks me questions I only ask them questions in return to find out why they are questioning me and then I tell them that unless I'm being charged with something or arrested I won't be answering any questions with out my attorney present.

Fortunately the last time that happened was on a DUI charge almost 30 years ago. LOL
Click to expand...

So if you're arrested or charged you will answer their questions.... :palm:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I heard that. If a police officer asks me questions I only ask them questions in return to find out why they are questioning me and then I tell them that unless I'm being charged with something or arrested I won't be answering any questions with out my attorney present.

Fortunately the last time that happened was on a DUI charge almost 30 years ago. LOL
Click to expand...

As long as you are questioning them, a good one to frequently work in is "Am I free to leave?" If they say yes, walk away, if they say" no" what you have is a good
argument that this is a custodial interrogation and your Miranda rights were infringed, implicating the 5th, fruit of poisonous tree etc....

I mean, in case you want to go on a bender like 30 years ago. Lol
 
Anyone has a right to use the 5th and they should. In criminal court, the judge will tell the jury that they cannot take the 5th as an admission of guilt. In a civil case, the judge does not tell them that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top