Does invoking the 5th Amendment mean you're guilty or lying?

[Zywiec]

This goes along with the "If you have nothing to hide" threads.

Cheers

[KansDem]

1. Yes and no

"Yes" if you're not a Repub; "no" if you are...

I hope this helps...

edited to correct logic

[Raven]

2. It's not supposed to. It's our Constitutional

protection against self incrimination alot like a defendant deciding not to testify. Unfortunately, people tend to think that someone invoking his/her 5th amendment right or not testifing is a sign of guilt.

[Zywiec]

4. That's my thinking also

I'm very big into the bill of rights and would automatically use every right afforded me whether I had something to hide or not. With that being said, it always seems a lot different in the light of the media when someone is invoking the 5th. Especially when they do it repeatedly.

[WorldResident]

3. From a constitutional standpoint, it means nothing.

You're exercising your constitutional right not to testify or potentially incriminate yourself.

From a practical standpoint, it probably means 1 or more of 5 things:

1. You have something to hide.
2. You are innocent, but you are afraid the authorities will try every way to frame you as guilty or more guilty than you actually are.
3. You are innocent and you are not afraid of authorities, but it's a matter of principle for you.
4. You don't have the time and energy to be interrogated for what you perceive to be a minor matter.
5. You are using this tactic as a red herring to protect someone else.

[11 Bravo]

5. No. It also doesn't mean you're not.

[Jacobin]

6. For a politician to take the fifth, YES, as a practical matter

absolutely.

The end.

In civilian courts no

[H2O Man]

9. Key point.

Thank you.

[Jacobin]

17. I have sat in depositions where my client had to repeat:

"I respectfully decline to answer that question based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" over and over...painful.

For a politician to say he won't answer because his answer may incriminate him, its curtains

[Warpy]

7. No, it says you can't answer the question without

incriminating yourself in the process. It releases you from a perjury charge but it makes you look guilty as hell.

It's usually used very sparingly. GOPs much prefer the Reagan and Asscroft tactic, "I don't recall."

Nobody buys it, but it keeps them from testifying.

[whistle]

8. Depends, ask me if I am a communist and regardless of how I answer

...I will be subjected to a witch hunt I'll take the 5th to protect my rights to have political beliefs.

Ask Karl Rove if he advised the president to fire the eight attorneys or he outed Plame to protect his sorry ass, and the bastard takes the 5th, then we can all assume he is guilty and has been lying all along. Or whatever questions the committee have.

[Alexander]

10. If the individual is chatty about everything else...

And all of a sudden "I wish to exercise my 5th amendment rights" comes out, then yes, it does look awfully suspicious.

My question is, can you invoke the 5th amendment even if you're hiding something that isn't criminal?

[Zywiec]

11. That's a good question

Can you invoke the 5th when they ask you something as simple as your name? Any lawyers out there?

[H2O Man]

14. It is to protect

one from self-incrimination.

[endarkenment]

12. no.

It means that you have invoked your constitutional rights against self-incrimination.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Not By A Long Shot.

[treestar]

15. Legally it means that you invoked your Fifth Amendment right not

to testify, and nothing else. It does not imply guilt. I believe that was the reason behind it, in fact. It is the background against which we can see that the government does not own us (we own it).

In a criminal case, it is impermissible to even mention it in jury argument. In a civil case, it can be used to make an "adverse inference" but that has to be weighted with any other factors indicating truthfulness.

[WinkyDink]

16. No. But then, one should remain consistent and not speak out of court, either. JMO.

[happyslug]

18. Some background

At the time the Bill of Rights were adopted, the English Common law rule (Which was in affect in ALL states at that time) was that any party to an action were INCOMPETENT to testify. i.e. If you were a defendant you could NOT testify even if you wanted to. Now if had had told someone, that person could testify (if the testimony somehow was able to get around the Hearsay Rule). Thus at the time of the Adoption of the Bill of Rights, to enforce this ancient Right, no Defendant ever Testify.

About the time of the Civil War the Courts started to get away from this rule in Cases where the only witness was the Defendant AND the testimony was to show some sort of mitigation in the case (i.e. that the Defendant was provoked so when he killed someone it was Manslaughter NOT Murder). Soon afterward Prosecutors demanded the right to Cross examine Defendants (Which was granted by the Court) and then to imply that the Defendant was Guilty when the Defendant did not testify (This was DENIED to the Prosecutor, through some try to do this to this day).

please note at the time of the Adoption of the Bill of Rights what we today call "Distract Attorneys" and "Police" did NOT exist in ANY state. If you wanted to try someone for a crime you had to do it yourself (Including paying for the Attorney to bring the case). The Grand Jury was a check on this, but become less a check with the adoption of state paid District Attorneys starting about 1835 (Some state earlier and later than that date but almost all state had DAs by the time of the Civil War). The lack of DAs was another check in abuse of the Right NOT to incriminate oneself. People saw TWO equal sides, not the STATE on one side.

As to the Police, they started to be formed in the 1820s (You had night watchmen before that time, but Night-watchmen had no power of Arrest except as a average Citizen). State Police did NOT start to be formed till after 1900 (You did have Exceptions like the Texas Rangers, but the Rangers were more a Military formation than a True Police Form till after Reconstruction). Thus Police could NOT force people to talk, for Police did not Exist in the US at the time of the Adoption of the Bill oF Rights.

Thus the Fifth Amendment wa adopted in 1792 into a radically different Law Enforcement environment than what we have today. The courts have had to keep up the PURPOSE of the Fifth given the adoption of DAs and Police. This has NOT always been easy (look at how long it took for the US Supreme Court to impose the Miranda Warning onto to the Police, that was NOT till the late 1960s even through City police had been around since the 1820s and State Police since 1900.

[fishwax]

19. No.