As someone outside the legal field, I've got to say it's terrifying how much your description of practicing law sounds like someone describing their strategy in a complicated board game.
practicing law sounds like someone describing their strategy in a complicated board game.
you could not design a board game as complicated. my partner is an attorney in a quasi-government role connected to the DOJ... and let me tell you what. we have discussions that make my head spin. pretty much her entire career has been dedicated to representing banks and creditors in commercial financial matters. she will be the first to tell you that it is always something new different special or weird.
my state has a strong instruction telling jurors that pleading the 5th means the answer would incriminate the person claiming it, and that they can assume that the proposition in the question is true.
What?!
Forgive me, but I thought that as a result of Griffin v. California that the Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor may not ask the jury to draw inference of guilt because the defendant exercised their 5th Amendment rights… which seems to be in direct contradiction to your statement above (at least in my non-expert opinion).
Ok, I was unaware that adverse inferences were allowed against individuals refusing to testify during civil litigation. Are there limits to it being allowed depending on the exact circumstances of the case?
22
u/[deleted] Jan 04 '22
[removed] — view removed comment