[evilsnoopi3]

> Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth.

Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer. Then listen to them. Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt however it is portrayed in the media - often times it is necessary even for innocent parties to invoke. I am not a lawyer and this shouldn't be construed as legal advice.

[throwaway729]

> Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer

Which is exactly what Levandowski did. And then, under advice from his lawyer, he plead the fifth.

> Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt

In criminal cases.

In civil cases, you can still plead the fifth without facing contempt. But the jury is free to draw its own conclusions. As is the judge. If you don't believe me, see the transcription of Alsup's tounge lashing.

[dragonwriter]

> In civil cases, the jury is free to draw its own conclusions

Actually, in the US, whether or not the jury is free to draw negative inferences from invoking the fifth varies by which jurisdictions law controls (the feds have one set of rules, states each have their own, and their are rules for when state and federal issues are in play in the same case.)

And, in any case, there is a difference from a negative inferences drawn from your failure as a result of your agent's invocation of the Fifth (e.g., Uber based on Levandowski's actions) and a negative inference against you for your invocation of the Fifth.

[throwaway729]

Thanks for the clarification. I.e., the fifth itself doesn't protect you from negative inference in civil cases, but some jurisdictions provide that protection?

In any case, I stand by my lesson: avoid actions that lead to situations where these distinctions matter.