[throwaway13234]

Statement from Levandowski's lawyers:

https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pd...

"The bite of the Court’s May 11, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Order, as it relates to nonparty Anthony Levandowski, can be summarized quite simply: 'Waive your Fifth Amendment rights... or I will have you fired. The choice is yours, Mr. Levandowski.' But, even when framed as a “choice,” this command runs counter to nearly a half century of United States Supreme Court precedent, beginning with Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment forbids a government entity from threatening an individual with the choice “between self-incrimination and job forfeiture.” Id. at 497, 500. As the Supreme Court observed in Garrity, the “option to lose [one’s] means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent.” Id. at 497. As the Supreme Court made clear, whenever a state actor imposes this choice between “the rock and the whirlpool,” it engages in unlawful constitutional compulsion, which, among other things, operates to immunize any resulting testimonial statements."

Isn't anyone else here bothered by the due process implications of Judge Alsup's demand to force Levandowski to give up a Constitutional right or be fired? I'm generally a fan of Alsup, but this sets terrible precedence.

[austenallred]

As easy as it is to hate on Uber, this is indeed troubling. Odd that you can tie such things to Constitutional rights.

[joshuamorton]

The thing to note here, is that as far as Alsup is concerned, Levandowski isn't a party to the case. There's Uber and Waymo. Uber has been instructed to get information for Waymo as part of a civil proceeding in which Levandowski is not a party. To do anything less than their fullest to compel Levandowski to give that information to Waymo would make Uber liable.

Its worth remembering that, at this point, this is only a civil suit, so among other things, silence can actually be used against you (adverse interference).

[throwaway13234]

That's completely reasonable when it is an employee that isn't in a position where there is the possibility of criminal charges, but when there is, it's important that we give full gravity to the position we are putting the employee in. The lawyers really put it well by describing it as being between “the rock and the whirlpool".

Personally, one of criteria I would use to determine whether or not to take the 5th would depend on the general position of the public towards me. If the public generally thinks I am guilty before I've testified and they are generally taking in evidence and arriving at the conclusion that I'm guilty without truly considering the existing evidence, it'd would be stupid for me to testify.

I don't think there is a soul here that hasn't at least once had experiences where every one of their actions were viewed as having malicious intent by the peanut gallery. Once you experience such injustices firsthand as the accused, you learn empathy for others in similar circumstances quite quickly.

[gnicholas]

legalese note: I think you mean "adverse inference", not "adverse interference". I only note this because "interference" is a word used in some legal jargon (e.g., "tortious interference"), so this typo could be confusing to others.

[joshuamorton]

You're correct. That was a typo on my part.