# data[].attributes.headline
How much money is spend on my amendment 

# data[].attributes.subject
How much money is spend on my amendment 

# data[].attributes.body
None

# data[].attributes.headline
there is a law talk about fifth amendment in california

# data[].attributes.subject
there is a law talk about fifth amendment in california

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Friday, I blogged about what happens if you take the Fifth in a civil case. That question is in the news because the Center for Medical Progress people are apparently planning to refuse to testify, citing their privilege against self-incrimination, in the lawsuit brought against the Center by the National Abortion Federation. I wrote that (1) you could take the Fifth in a civil case, but (2) the claim of the privilege could be used in a civil case (though generally not in a criminal case) against you and the side you're supporting, and (3) in any event, because you can't take the Fifth as to some questions and still testify about other, related questions, taking the Fifth might mean lack of evidence supporting your side (and lack of rebuttal to evidence supporting the other side).

But, thanks to commenter CCostin, I learned that California law takes a different approach as to point 2 above (though it's the same as to points 1 and 3). California Evidence Code § 913 expressly states,

(a) If in the instant proceeding or on a prior occasion a privilege is or was exercised not to testify with respect to any
matter, or to refuse to disclose or to prevent another from disclosing any matter, neither the presiding officer nor counsel may comment thereon, no presumption shall arise because of the exercise of the privilege, and the trier of fact may not draw any inference therefrom as to the credibility of the witness or as to any matter at issue in the proceeding.

(b) The court, at the request of a party who may be adversely affected because an unfavorable inference may be drawn by the jury because a privilege has been exercised, shall instruct the jury that no presumption arises because of the exercise of the privilege and that the jury may not draw any inference therefrom as to the credibility of the witness or as to any matter at issue in the proceeding.

This by its terms applies equally to civil and criminal cases (see People v. Holloway (2004)). And, because the National Abortion Federation's claims are mostly California law claims, California privilege law wold apply (see Federal Rule of Evidence 501). And that includes rules barring drawing adverse inferences from privilege claims, as the Ninth Circuit specifically held as to a similar Alaska rule in Home Indem. Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller (9th Cir. 1995):

Lane Powell argues that Alaska Rule of Evidence 512, which prohibits negative inferences from a witness's claim of privilege and which allows the court to instruct the jury not to draw such inferences from claims of privilege, is not a law of privilege because it "has nothing to do with how the privilege is 'determined.'" Therefore, according to Lane Powell, state rules which do not govern specifically how privileges are determined are outside the scope of Fed.R.Evid. 501 and inapplicable in diversity cases.

We believe, however, that Alaska's law of privilege does include Rule 512 even though Rule 512 does not explicitly address how privileges are determined. Rule 512 is contained in the chapter of the Alaska Rules of Evidence which is specifically entitled "Privileges." It is part and parcel of Alaska's entire body of privilege law. Merely because the rule pertains to the drawing of inferences from privileges does not mean Fed.R.Evid. 501's mandate to apply state privilege law is inapplicable. Fed.R.Evid. 501 "dictates that we look to state law to determine whether a court must allow a jury to draw a negative inference from a party's invocation of a privilege."

Therefore, we find that the district court properly applied Alaska Rule of Evidence 512 in barring Lane Powell from raising negative inferences before the jury based on Home's assertion of the attorney-client privilege and in instructing the jury not to draw such inferences.

But here's a complication (on top of a complication on top of a complication): This only applies to those parts of the lawsuit that are based on California law. Part is based on Maryland law, because some of the surreptitious videorecording took place in Maryland, and Maryland evidence law does allow adverse inferences in civil cases based on a witness's taking the Fifth (see Windesheim v. Larocca (Md. 2015)). And part is based on federal law; federal law likewise allows such adverse inferences in civil cases, as I noted in my original post.

In such situations, (1) where the evidence relates only to the California claims, the California rule would apply, but (2) where the evidence relates to both the federal and the California law claims, "federal privilege law governs," see Wilcox v. Arpaio (9th Cir. 2014). (I can't speak with confidence about what will happen if the evidence relates both to the California claims and Maryland claims.) This means it might be especially important whether the Center can get the federal claims (under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act) and perhaps the Maryland claims thrown out before trial. If the federal claims (and possibly the Maryland claims) stay in, then the Federation would likely be able to argue that the Center people's refusal to testify should be counted against the Center (so long as the facts about which the Center people refuse to testify are relevant to the federal or Maryland claims). If the federal and Maryland claims are thrown out, then California evidence law would apply, and no such argument would be allowed.

So the matter is more complex than I first thought, and part of my answer was incorrect, since it relied solely on what the federal Constitution allows, and didn't take into account California law. Many thanks again to commenter CCostin for opening my eyes to this.

Finally, note that point 3 from my original post remains: A witness who takes the Fifth as to some matters can't then try to provide testimony on the same subject that's helpful to the side that the witness might want to support. So if the Center for Medical Progress people take the Fifth as to what they did, they thus likely wouldn't be able to testify about facts (if there are such facts) that might help them show that certain conversations weren't private, that the confidentiality agreements they signed might be invalid, or whatever else they want to prove. And if they do testify about certain matters, their testifying would waive their Fifth Amendment privilege, at least as to those matters. So even if the Federation can't argue that the refusal to testify is itself evidence against the Center, it can argue that the Center just hasn't introduced enough evidence to rebut the Federation's evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | What happens if you take the Fifth in a civil case? An important California law correction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Friday, I blogged about what happens if you take the Fifth in a civil case. That question is in the news because the Center for Medical Progress people are apparently planning to refuse to testify, citing their privilege against self-incrimination, in the lawsuit brought against the Center by the National Abortion Federation.

# data[].attributes.headline
they were talking about the 5th amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
they were talking about the 5th amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Martin Shkreli, former pharmaceutical executive, invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination on Thursday and refused to answer questions before a House of Representatives committee about why he raised the price of lifesaving drugs by 5,000%.

The fifth amendment allows Americans to decline to answer questions that could incriminate them, without repercussions.

Shkreli, who some have named "the most hated man in America", is not the first to make use of this allowance, nor will he be the last. Here are five notorious cases of people pleading the fifth:

1. Michaele and Tareq Salahi

The Salahis made headlines in 2009 when they snuck into a party they weren't invited to ... at the White House. The White House party crashers slipped past two security checkpoints, entered the president's home and even met him. The incident led to numerous investigations.

The couple invoked their fifth amendment rights when asked questions before a House committee about how they managed to sneak into the 24 November White House state dinner. Tareq pled the fifth more than 25 times, while Michaele invoked it at least five times.

2. Mark McGwire

The former St Louis Cardinals slugger pled the fifth in 2005 when a House committee subpoenaed him and 11 other players during a investigation on steroid use in baseball. McGwire, who held the single season home run record at 70 hits in 1998, invoked his fifth amendment rights repeatedly.

"Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem," he said. "I'm not going to go into the past or talk about my past. I'm here to make a positive influence on this."

Years later, McGwire confessed to using steroids but claimed he still would have hit a record amount of home runs without the performance-enhancing drugs.

"I was given a gift to hit home runs," he said. "The only reason I took steroids was for health purposes."

3. Monica Goodling

Goodling, the senior counsel to then-attorney general Alberto Gonzales, was called before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2007 to be questioned about her role in the firing of eight US attorneys. Emails released by the justice department suggested the attorneys may have been fired for political reasons.

But Goodling refused to answer questions, invoking her fifth amendment rights. She resigned shortly after.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said Goodling's lawyer, John Dowd.

Goodling testified and was granted immunity so she was not charged when an investigation by the Department of Justice found that she had broken the law. She was publicly reprimanded by the the Virginia State Bar in May 2011 for when she "improperly utilized political affiliation and other political considerations when making hiring decisions for career positions".

4. Jack Abramoff

In September 2004, lobbyist Abramoff invoked his fifth amendment rights when called before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and asked about his lobbying work on behalf of American Indian tribes and casinos.

Senators' accusations led to investigations that revealed Abramoff was over-billing clients and pocketing profits. The justice department pursued felony charges, which resulted in the conviction of 20 people and the reform of federal lobbying laws.

Abramoff was sentenced to six years in federal prison after pleading guilty, and released in December 2010 after serving 43 months. Following his release, he wrote an autobiography and was the subject of the documentary film Casino Jack and the United States of Money. A feature film was also released in December 2010, with Kevin Spacey starring as Abramoff.

5. Kenneth Lay

Lay, former CEO and chairman of Enron Corporation, an American energy, commodities and services company, told Congress in 2002 that he wanted to " tell his story" after the company's sudden financial collapse. But he quickly changed his mind and pled the fifth when he was called before the Senate Commerce Committee.

"It's not possible to determine why the Enron ship is at the bottom of the ocean unless we hear from the captain," said Ron Wyden of Oregon.

In 2006, the blame for the downfall of the nation's once seventh-largest company was placed on its top two executives, Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Lay was convicted of fraud and conspiracy charges but he died before his sentencing. Numerous books have been written about Lay and Enron and one was adapted into a documentary film in 2005 titled Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. He and Skilling made Time's list of the Top 10 Crooked CEOs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pleading the fifth: five notorious times people refused to give answers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Martin Shkreli invoked the amendment Thursday, refusing to answer questions on why he raised the price of lifesaving drugs 5,000% - and he's not alone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump Criticizes Hillary Clinton Email Aide For Pleading The 5th Amendment | NBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At a rally in Iowa, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump weighed in on today's Congressional hearing and referred to the Hillary Clinton email debacle as "a far bigger scandal than Watergate ever was." " Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC " Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews NBC News is a leading source of global news and information.

# data[].attributes.headline
People who are against the fifth amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
People who are against the fifth amendment

# data[].attributes.body
The grand jury is against the 5th amendment because they cant solve some cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Fifth Amendment is arguably the most complex part of the original Bill of Rights. It has generated, and, most legal scholars would argue, necessitated, considerable interpretation on the part of the Supreme Court. Here's a look at Fifth Amendment Supreme Court cases over the years.

Blockburger v. United States (1932)

In Blockburger v. United States, the Court held that double jeopardy is not absolute. Someone who commits a single act, but breaks two separate laws in the process, may be tried separately under each charge.

Chambers v. Florida (1940)

After four Black men were held under dangerous circumstances and forced to confess to murder charges under duress, they were convicted and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court, to its credit, took issue with that. Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority:

"We are not impressed by the argument that law enforcement methods such as those under review are necessary to uphold our laws. The Constitution proscribes such lawless means irrespective of the end. And this argument flouts the basic principle that all people must stand on an equality before the bar of justice in every American court. Today, as in ages past, we are not without tragic proof that the exalted power of some governments to punish manufactured crime dictatorially is the handmaid of tyranny. Under our constitutional system, courts stand against any winds that blow as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered, or because they are nonconforming victims of prejudice and public excitement. Due process of law, preserved for all by our Constitution, commands that no such practice as that disclosed by this record shall send any accused to his death. No higher duty, no more solemn responsibility, rests upon this Court than that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield deliberately planned and inscribed for the benefit of every human being subject to our Constitution -- of whatever race, creed or persuasion."

While this ruling did not end the use of police torture against Black people in the South, it did, at least, clarify that local law enforcement officials did so without the blessing of the U.S. Constitution.

Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944)

Tennessee law enforcement officials broke down a suspect during a 38-hour forced interrogation, then convinced him to sign a confession. The Supreme Court again represented here by Justice Black, took exception and overturned the subsequent conviction:

"The Constitution of the United States stands as a bar against the conviction of any individual in an American court by means of a coerced confession. There have been, and are now, certain foreign nations with governments dedicated to an opposite policy: governments which convict individuals with testimony obtained by police organizations possessed of an unrestrained power to seize persons suspected of crimes against the state, hold them in secret custody, and wring from them confessions by physical or mental torture. So long as the Constitution remains the basic law of our Republic, America will not have that kind of government."

Confessions obtained by torture are not as alien to U.S. history as this ruling suggests, but the Court's ruling at least made these confessions less useful for prosecutorial purposes.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

It isn't enough that confessions obtained by law enforcement officials are not coerced; they also must be obtained from suspects who know their rights. Otherwise, unscrupulous prosecutors have too much power to railroad innocent suspects. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Miranda majority:

"Assessments of the knowledge the defendant possessed, based on information as to his age, education, intelligence, or prior contact with authorities, can never be more than speculation; a warning is a clear-cut fact. More important, whatever the background of the person interrogated, a warning at the time of the interrogation is indispensable to overcome its pressures and to insure that the individual knows he is free to exercise the privilege at that point in time."

The ruling, though controversial, has stood for nearly a half-century-and the Miranda rule has become a near-universal law enforcement practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fifth Amendment is arguably the most complex part of the original Bill of Rights. It has generated, and, most legal scholars would argue, necessitated, considerable interpretation on the part of the Supreme Court. Here's a look at Fifth Amendment Supreme Court cases over the years. In Blockburger v.

# data[].attributes.headline
Here is an article about explaining my 5th amendment 

# data[].attributes.subject
Here is an article about explaining my 5th amendment 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Guide to the Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment, or Amendment V of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that protects you from being held for committing a crime unless you have been indicted correctly by the police. The Fifth Amendment is also where the guarantee of due process comes from, meaning that the state and the country have to respect your legal rights. The Fifth Amendment was introduced as a part of the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution on September 5, 1789 and was voted for by ¾ of the states on December 15, 1791.
History of the Fifth Amendment
Once the United States won their independence from the British Parliament and monarchy that had acted like tyrants, the Framers of the United States Constitution did not trust large, centralized governments. Because of this, the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights, which were the first 10 amendments, to help protect individual freedoms from being hurt by the governmental. They included the Fifth Amendment, which gave five specific freedoms to American citizens.
Understanding the Fifth Amendment Line by Line
If you are confused by what each line means, here are some explanations to make the Fifth Amendment easier to understand:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury": No one can be put on trial for a serious crime, unless a grand jury decide first that there is enough proof or evidence so that the trial is needed. If there is enough evidence, an indictment is then issued, which means that the person who is charged with the crime will can put on trial for the crime.

"Except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger": People in the military can go to trial without a grand jury first deciding that it is necessary. This is the case if the military person commits a crime during a national emergency or a war.

"Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb": If someone is put on trial for a certain crime and the trial ends, the person cannot be tried once more for the same crime. If a person is convicted of a crime and then serves his or her time in jail, or if the person is acquitted, he or she cannot be put on trial a second time.

"Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself": The government does not have the power to make someone testify against himself. That is why a trial uses evidence and witnesses instead of the testimony of the accused person.

"Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law": The government cannot take away a person's life, property, or freedom without following certain steps that give the person a fair chance. This is what is known as due process. Due Process helps protect a person's rights.

"Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation": The government cannot take away a person's property for public use without somehow paying them back for it.
Facts About the Fifth Amendment
*The Fifth Amendment was introduced into the Constitution by James Madison.

*The ideas in the Fifth Amendment can be traced back to the Magna Carta, which was issued in 1215.

*A defendant cannot be punished for using his right to silence during a criminal trial, but there are some consequences to using it in a civil trial.

comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Guide to the Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment, or Amendment V of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that protects you from being held for committing a crime unless you have been indicted correctly by the police.

# data[].attributes.body
is explaining about the 5th amendment about people rights and to remain silent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Know the law, 5th amendment constitutional rights. When to keep silent and when not too

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Know the law, The 5th amendment means not to incriminate yourself, this does not mean being silent. Handle the bully police without having to go to jail and win in court. This will teach you how to deal with the law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A case in which the Court held that law enforcement cannot use testimony given by anyone under interrogation while in custody without that person being informed of their legal rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fifth Amendment protects passcode on smartphone 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fifth Amendment protects passcode on smartphone 

# data[].attributes.body
Is the right that no one can open the pass code

# data[].attributes.headline
A political that support the amendment just like I do

# data[].attributes.subject
A political that support the amendment just like I do

# data[].attributes.body
This is right that police should not force you to unlock your phone in any situation

# data[].attributes.body
they are both arguing about a right that everyone should own a weapon and not to own a gun

# data[].attributes.body
the picture represents my amendment

# data[].attributes.body
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation