Michael Cohen to Plead Fifth Amendment in Stormy Daniels Suit - Polidicks

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/nyregion/michael-cohen-stormy-daniels.html Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, will invoke his Fifth Amendment right in a lawsuit filed against the president by Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic film star better known as Stormy Daniels. Mr. Cohen’s decision, disclosed Wednesday in a court filing in California, where the suit was filed, came a day before a federal judge in Manhattan was set to hold a hearing regarding materials seized from Mr. Cohen during an F.B.I. raid earlier this month. Mr. Cohen cited the Manhattan investigation in his filing on Wednesday, saying that, if called as a witness in Ms. Clifford’s lawsuit, “I will assert my 5th Amendment rights in connection with all proceedings in this case due to the ongoing criminal investigation by the F.B.I. and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.” Citing the Fifth Amendment in the Clifford case allows Mr. Cohen to avoid being deposed and revealing sensitive information in the more important criminal investigation.

Important footnote: In criminal cases pleading the fifth can't be seen as an indicator of guilt; jurors would be instructed as such. In civil cases pleading the fifth can be seen as an indicator of guilt.

Ah yes. "Ahpleedefith". The magical incantation that always gets you out of trouble 100% guaranteed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMyh7ko9L2g

Where did this backwards amendment come from and why is it even allowed in modern times?

In theory it's actually a very critical and important protection against being manipulated or coerced into self-incrimination. In practice it's used often for its intended purpose but it's only when a deeply scandal-ridden person uses it to escape what is assumed to be an obvious case of uncomfortable questioning that it gains major prominence in the media. It's no more backwards than the amendments regarding freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, or the protection against unlawful search and seizure; like other amendments, it is not absolutely perfect and can be abused, but on the balance the protection it gives far outweighs the impact for abuse. Ideally in a criminal or civil case, the evidence against the accused in a guilty verdict should be so strong that the accused's lack of testimony shouldn't be an obstacle for the jury or judge. If the evidence isn't strong enough to stand on its own, maybe a guilty verdict isn't appropriate. I said ideally, because so many court cases will not begin or proceed under ideal circumstances and many civil cases will have no clear villain/victim dichotomy.

FIF

@elix already made this point well, but adding on to it: if you can't successfully prosecute someone without them directly incriminating themselves and basically doing the work for you, you probably don't have a very strong case to begin with.

It also helps to have the person you're prosecuting have a recourse other than to lie. Not sure about not being able to infer guilt, though; seems like you should be able to infer guilt based on the conclusion the defendant remained silent because he couldn't adequately answer the charge. But that's just me.

Aye, fair one. Thanks for the explanation. Just kinda seems like an automatic admission of guilt or sort of an obstruction from this end.

Well, it sort of is. He's going for the "I'll lose the battle (the civil suit over Stormy's NDA) if it helps me win the war (criminal investigation by the FBI)" approach.