I have a separate but (I think) closely related comment/question on all this.
As I understand it, once you answer a question (beyond the basic name/rank/serial number), you LOSE the opportunity to take the 5th thereafter. The idea is, you must take the 5th on ALL questions you are asked, or else answer ALL questions. (Is this correct?) The idea is that you can’t just selectively answer those questions that you chose to, and not others.
Now this raises some questions.
Without knowing in advance ALL the questions you will be asked, you might want to take the 5th right from question #1.
– Lawyer: What day is today?
– Witness: Monday.
– Lawyer: Did you murder the victim?
– Witness: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.
– Lawyer: You have waived your 5th Amendment rights by answering the prior question.
– Judge: Witness is directed to answer the question.
This also implies that the witness should refuse to answer even the most innocuous sounding questions, because of what he may be asked later. If the witness has anything to hide, then the above dialogue should have been:
– Lawyer: What day is today?
– Witness: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.
BUT this raises a second question: Again, as I understand it, a court will accept AS FACT anything that anyone says that is not disputed by somebody else. (Again: Is this right?)
– Lawyer: What was visibility like at the time of the accident?
– Witness: Bright and sunny.
– Lawyer: And what time was this?
– Witness: Three in the morning.
If nobody argues otherwise, then the court WILL accept as fact that the sun was shining brightly at three in the morning. Thus, there can be danger in taking the 5th, and danger in NOT taking the 5th. See where this is leading?
Lawyer: Did John Smith murder the victim?
Witness: Yes, I saw him do it with my very own eyes.
Now, if John Smith chooses to testify in his own defense, and then answers any questions at all, he loses his right to invoke the 5th Amendment, and he might be asked a lot of question he would really not want to answer for whatever reason. But if he takes the 5th from the start, he loses the option to dispute the witness’s testimony, and the court will take as fact the statement of the witness that John Smith did it – unless John Smith’s lawyer can present OTHER witnesses or evidence to get his client acquitted. (Is all this right?)
These are some things that I think I know about court procedures. Somebody: Is ANYTHING I think I know right?