This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
If she had started off by saying she had done nothing wrong, would that be considered waiving her fifth amendment rights and open the door to follow-up questions? Would it change anything if she were, say, an employee of the federal government and testifying about her official duties (hypothetically speaking, of course)?
We’ll be getting to this stuff very soon.
As I understand it you can invoke your fifth amendment rights at any point, even if you’ve previously chosen not to exercise them.
Incorrect. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Wait a few pages.
Welp. This will end well.
Being the artist for a web comic which claims, among other things, that the government is not lays right, I’m VERY curious what the best answers to these questions would be.
I’d probably say it’s “[Insert What Your Lawyer Will Tell You Here].”
If the fifth amendment really does guarantee the right to refuse to answer any and all questions asked in Congressional hearings, then why doesn’t it just guarantee the right to not appear for questioning in the first place? It seems like it would save a lot of time. Did the Supreme Court just bank on those who have actually done something wrong eventually breaking down and answering the questions and those who have done nothing wrong refraining from answering any questions throughout the entire hearing? Or is the fifth amendment just completely irrelevant to the validity of subpoenas, even when their only purpose is to make someone submit to questioning and thus incriminate themselves? The sole purpose of this hearing is to make Janie incriminate herself, isn’t it?
It doesn’t guarantee the right to refuse to answer any and all questions, however. Give me a few more pages, and all should be clear.
IIRC, it prevents you from self-incriminating. Therefore, it will put a large suspicion on you, though from what I understand, it is important to consider that self-incrimination might not be in relation to the act for which you are interrogated. You can plead the Fifth if you are interrogated in a burglary affair because at the time of the burglary, you were killing someone on the other side of the town.
Am I right here?
There are also the issues of misinterpretation, taking out of context, false assumptions, hearing what you want to hear, none of your f***ing business, “that’s classified, but I can’t even tell you that”, and so forth. The 5th amendment lets you replac all of that with a “mere” suspicion.
Hee hee, affine planes. <3
I think Mr. Rogers was the only one to actually appease these giants.
Because she can tell which way the wind is blowing?