[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[fatfingerd]

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

[NoZebra120vClip]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[thfuran]

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

[sseagull]

This is correct.

You can’t just say you are invoking the 5th and refuse to testify. If pressed, you actually have to get up there and invoke it — possibly to every question if needed.

The fear of perjury is an interesting twist, though. And the removal of immunity may affect things too.

(Although in your own trial you have the right to not testify, that doesn’t apply here).

[dragonwriter]

> The fear of perjury is an interesting twist, though.

Its a nice try, but the right not to testify against yourself is not a right not to testify in a situation in which you might be tempted to choose (perjury not being a crime you can connit accidentally) to commit a crime.

[thfuran]

What if you're a pathological liar?

[NoZebra120vClip]

What about the belief that you can't selectively invoke it? That if you break that silence then they can compel you to answer everything else from that point on? How's that work?

They might as well abolish this right anyway. As if every device we ever touch won't testify against us in the first place.