[archontes]

In America, we have the fifth amendment, and the right not to divulge any information whatsoever unless we're granted immunity.

It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the government to prove its case.

If someone shot a person with my gun, I would invoke the fifth amendment, and ask the government to prove who did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[limagnolia]

Actually, the fifth amendment only protects your right not to incriminate yourself. So you may be called upon to testify against your will against some one else (With some limited protections for spouses and such). However, if you were in fact the one driving, you can plead the fifth, and they cannot use that fact against you to prove it was in fact you driving- they have to prove that independently.

(EDIT: I should note that you also have a right to remain silent when questioned by the police- and since they won't know who to charge, there will likely not be a court case to call you to testify at)

[Drunk_Engineer]

> they cannot use that fact against you to prove it was in fact you driving- they have to prove that independently.

5th amendment protections are much weaker for civil cases though.

[limagnolia]

Part of this judgement was that even though the law labels is as "civil" it looks and acts in fact like a criminal case, and so it doesn't matter what label they put on it, criminal standards apply.

[SoftTalker]

In reality the way it would work is the prosecutor and police would use every bit of circumstantial evidence to construct a claim of motive, means, and opportunity. Then threaten you with a lengthy prison sentence if you are convicted.

You're not going to roll on whoever really did it (assuming you know), and trust your fate to a jury understanding presumption of innocence, and being convinced of "reasonable" doubt, without you saying a word in your own defense? Most people would not unless they had an iron-clad alibi, but if they did, they wouldn't be getting charged in the first place.

[0x3f]

There's a big difference in when you break silence though. Strategically, much better to keep it until all the facts are known to your side. At the start, the police/government have the informational advantage. In other countries, even delaying (but eventually speaking) can allow a negative inference to be drawn. The right to silence is important even if you eventually speak.

[pclmulqdq]

The correct way to interact with the American legal system is never to talk at all unless you have a written immunity deal. Kids should learn to say "no questions/searches" and "slide the warrant under the door" from their parents.

[0x3f]

Pre-lawyer it's never a good idea to talk. Post-lawyer often not either. But there are some rare cases you might negotiate a disclosure through your lawyer. For example, if they're about to ransack your home or get you fired from your job and you've got a rock-solid alibi.

[KingMachiavelli]

AFAIK Fith Amendment only protects against self-incrimination, you absolutely can be subpoenaed to testify against someone else and failing to produce truthful testimony is a crime.

[archontes]

You are correct, which is why that compulsion will be accompanied by immunity.

[cromka]

OK, but then you're testifying under oath and lying, because it was you who did it, after all?

[pclmulqdq]

If you have an immunity deal and are asked to testify about a crime you committed under it, you admit to doing it and they can't prosecute you.

[cromka]

Gotcha.

[seemaze]

That's what I'd be afraid of

[crote]

> If someone shot a person with my gun, I would invoke the fifth amendment, and ask the government to prove who did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sounds nice on paper, but unless you have an absolutely airtight alibi that's a great way to end up in jail. Oh, you were alone at home all night? Well, your neighbor is pretty sure they heard you come home unusually late, and a witness saw someone who kinda-sorta looked like you run away from the crime site, and the victim was sorta-kinda involved in your social circles, and there's video of victim bumping into you a few weeks ago in a bar and you reacting in what could be interpreted as an aggressive way - and it is your gun...

Or you could tell them who you loaned the gun to. Your choice.

[archontes]

Sure, but that's a problem for my lawyer, not me.

And sounds like a great way to plead guilty to a lesser crime, but IANAL.

[pclmulqdq]

You missed the point. Your neighbor and the witness don't mean much in the absence of your testimony, but they point to the likelihood you're lying about everything you said on the stand because the detail of your location is suspect. If everything you say is uncorroborated otherwise, that statement might incriminate you on its own given those two witnesses.

[tsimionescu]

Note that in civil cases, such as a traffic ticket, the fifth ammendment doesn't apply to the same extent, and the standard of evidence is typically not "beyond reasonable doubt", it is "a preponderance of the evidence".

Now, per the judge's ruling in this case, red light tickets are actually quasi-criminal, not purely civil, so the standards of criminal law might need to be applied.

[singleshot_]

How does the Fifth Amendment work in a civil context?

Is it appropriate to compare murder and running a red light given what you know about the civil implications of 5A?

[SoftTalker]

It doesn't apply. The argument was that the red light violation was "quasi-criminal" and the judge agreed with that argument.

[joshuamorton]

> It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the government to prove its case.

Only in criminal contexts. In civil contexts your silence can absolutely be an adverse inference. Usually these red-light cameras are civil penalties, not criminal (fines with no points). The judge here seems to be saying that these are "quasi-criminal" because, uhh, I guess there are penalties.

[pixl97]

In some ways the government bringing civil charges against you is rather bullshitty and in many ways can be used against you in violation of your constitutional rights. Hence is the most likely reason the judge is calling it quasi-criminal.

[joshuamorton]

> In some ways the government bringing civil charges against you is rather bullshitty

I think there are circumstances where this is true, but I don't think it's true in the general sense. And I really don't think red light cameras, which are incredible for public safety and a really fair enforcement tool, are a good example of a civil rights violation.

[db48x]

Right, in effect the Judge ruled that while the state _calls_ it a civil matter, they treat it basically the same as any other criminal matter and therefore it is in fact a criminal matter. As we all know, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.