# What is the point of pleading the 5th? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 26, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271 "2016-01-26T15:31:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/41 "2016-01-30T08:08:02Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Here’s a lawyer who strongly disagrees with you: > > > And a cop who also thinks that trivial mistakes can be extremely bad for you: > > > Inaccurate testimony is routinely used to make a defendant look like he’s lying, it’s not something that is rare to the point of ‘somewhere, sometime’. I was responding to the statement that you could be convicted of “perjury” for saying 9:00 pm instead of 9:02 pm to a police officer. I was willing to overlook the point that police questioning is not usually performed under oath. You could tell I was responding to that statement because I quoted it. Can you please point me to the exact location in any of those videos where it says that someone can be convicted of “perjury” or even of lying to a police officer for making such a trivial mistake? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![mattm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@mattm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mattm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/42 "2016-01-30T08:12:26Z")
Way back in my early years; Summer time. 23 years old; Friends age 18 to 25; Just because it’s handy, I collect the money, buy the beer, head for the local swimming hole; 3 or 4 other guys could have been the culprit that day. Much fun and beers consumed. Little brother Dan takes a nap in the afternoon sun. (May have had female companionship pre-nap). Cut to 9 PM. Dan drives us 4 drunks home. Predates term “designated driver”. State cop with rookie trainee pulls us over for dead tail lite. Long story short, Dan tells cop to go to hell and goes to jail for DUI. Months later trial happens. I’m called as witness. Me and two others testify to Dan taking 3-4 hour nap before driving. Dan’s Lawyer knows I bought the beer. Tells me to testify to everything I saw and know. Tells me to plead 5th about where the beer came from. I wondered to the lawyer if I could take the 5th on one subject and testify about another. Too much Perry Mason on my part. He says one subject is separate from another. Just my experience. Oregon 1978. Many things may have changed by now. Brother found Not Guilty; ---
**Author:** ![mattm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@mattm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mattm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/43 "2016-01-30T08:22:58Z")
NM ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/44 "2016-01-30T12:34:47Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > You can choose not to testify at all, but if you do choose to testify, you don’t get to pick and choose which questions you answer on cross-examination. Really? That doesn’t seem right to me but IANAL. Can anyone corroborate this - if you answer some questions you have to answer all questions? ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/45 "2016-01-30T13:07:44Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > On the contrary, you probably _should_ answer such a question, given that the penalty for murder is a lot higher than the penalty for robbery. If you choose to plead the fifth here, your defence had better be pretty solid in the absence of an alibi. If you are the one on trial. If you are a witness, maybe not so much. If you witness a murder, and the reason you were there to witness it is that you saw it through the window of the liquor store you were robbing, you might not want to admit that. In a rare circumstance like this, where someone committing a serious but non-homicidal crime happens in the course of the crime to witness murder (unconnected to his crime), chances are he will get immunity, unless there are plenty of other witnesses). > [@Rigamarole](#): > > Really? That doesn’t seem right to me but IANAL. Can anyone corroborate this - if you answer some questions you have to answer all questions? Nope. This is correct. There’s a host of reasons you might want to take the fifth and not be guilty of a crime. If you are living under as assumed name for any reason-- you are on the run from an abusive spouse; you are an undercover FBI agent; you are in witness protection, and you are asked your name, you can’t answer, or, can’t if the attorney asks if that has been your name all your life, which he could do if he has discovered your past, and he just wants to eliminate your testimony. OK, that’s probably rare, they could ask you something that might jeopardize your job, for example. There are a lot of things you could be asked. And it could be strategy on the part of one side or the other, which it was in the Simpson trial. That whole mess what about eliminating Fuhrman’s testimony because it was so damaging. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/46 "2016-01-30T13:14:00Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but if OJ had testified, he wouldn’t have been legally permitted to invoke the fifth amendment to conceal his involvement in the two murders. You can choose not to testify at all, but if you do choose to testify, you don’t get to pick and choose which questions you answer on cross-examination. > [@Rigamarole](#): > > Really? That doesn’t seem right to me but IANAL. Can anyone corroborate this - if you answer some questions you have to answer all questions? You didn’t quote **psychonaut** in full: he was speaking about the specific case of the accused deciding to testify. In that situation, by entering the witness box, the accused has waived his 5th Amendment rights, as summariesed by [FindLaw: Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html) > [@](#): > > **Testifying in a Legal Proceeding** > > At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against his or her will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/47 "2016-01-30T15:09:01Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Really? That doesn’t seem right to me but IANAL. Can anyone corroborate this - if you answer some questions you have to answer all questions? It’s true. This applies to testimony by the accused. If a criminal defendant testifies, he waives his right to Fifth Amendment protection. The Fifth Amendment can’t be both a sword and a shield. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/48 "2016-01-30T21:09:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s true. This applies to testimony by the accused. If a criminal defendant testifies, he waives his right to Fifth Amendment protection. The Fifth Amendment can’t be both a sword and a shield. Exactly and it makes sense - a defendant cannot get up on the stand, say under oath “I was watching TV with grandma at the time, may she rest in peace” and then refuse to answer details that may poke holes in his story - “what show, describe the show, why did grandma get the door and pay for the pizza, why was it a small, how did you get to grandma’s, where did the taxi pick you up, etc.” Once he’s “opened that door” he has to allow any questions. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/49 "2016-01-31T00:54:03Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > I was responding to the statement that you could be convicted of “perjury” for saying 9:00 pm instead of 9:02 pm to a police officer. No one made such a statement. Someone said that you ‘prejure’ yourself, but that doesn’t mean thee same thing as saying ‘could be convicted of the crime of prejury in a court of law’. > [@](#): > > Can you please point me to the exact location in any of those videos where it says that someone can be convicted of “perjury” or even of lying to a police officer for making such a trivial mistake? Can you please point me to the exact location in this thread where anyone said that someone can be convicted of “prejury” or even of lying to a police officer for making such a trivial mistake? ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2016, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/50 "2016-01-31T01:26:36Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > No one made such a statement. Someone said that you ‘prejure’ yourself, but that doesn’t mean thee same thing as saying ‘could be convicted of the crime of prejury in a court of law’. > > Can you please point me to the exact location in this thread where anyone said that someone can be convicted of “prejury” or even of lying to a police officer for making such a trivial mistake? Here ya go. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Also it is a variation on never talk to cops where anything you say that is mistaken or ambiguous is basically lying. > > “Were you at the Circle K at 9pm on the night in question?” > “Yes I was.” > “Interesting because the cameras show you arrived at 9:02 pm.” > You just perjured yourself. But I see what you mean. He said “You just perjured yourself.” That implies, of course, that you can’t be convicted of perjury. And since you can perjure yourself without committing perjury and therefore there is no risk of being convicted of perjury… Yeah, sure I see exactly what you’re getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/51 "2016-02-01T15:57:55Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > But I see what you mean. He said “You just perjured yourself.” That implies, of course, that you can’t be convicted of perjury. And since you can perjure yourself without committing perjury and therefore there is no risk of being convicted of perjury… Yeah, sure I see exactly what you’re getting at. “You just perjured yourself” means that you made a provably untrue statement. The fact that you’ve made an untrue statement can be used to cast doubt on other testimony, make it look like you’re hiding something, or just to cast you as a bad person in general. The statement does not mean that you have definitely met the legal definition of perjury in a particular jurisidiction, or that a prosecutor will attempt to prosecute you for that level of perjury, or that it would make it through a jury trial. You most definitely can perjure yourself with no risk of being convicted of it, so I’m not even sure how much of what you posted is sarcasm and how much is just a lack of understanding of English on your part. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/52 "2016-02-01T18:59:28Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > I was responding to the statement that you could be convicted of “perjury” for saying 9:00 pm instead of 9:02 pm to a police officer. I was willing to overlook the point that police questioning is not usually performed under oath. You could tell I was responding to that statement because I quoted it. > > Can you please point me to the exact location in any of those videos where it says that someone can be convicted of “perjury” or even of lying to a police officer for making such a trivial mistake? > > Thanks. Just to clarify, IANAL but to the layperson (i.e. juror) “perjury” means to lie on the stand regardless of what the legal definition is. Being off by two minutes may not be legal perjury but it could be perceived as such by the jury and I’m sure the DA would play that up. > [@mmmiiikkkeee](#): > > To the contrary, that’s pretty much just what they say or imply. The videos are long but they are full of examples of how you can screw yourself over by talking to investigaters when you: > > A) don’t understand the rules > B) don’t know what they’re trying to get out of you > C) don’t have the experience to know all the tricks used to use your words against you Ex-fuckin-zactly. Whenever we get into these “never talk to cops” threads pkbites and Loach come on and try to explain how we’re wrong but they always neglect the asymmetry of knowledge. THEY may know if you are a suspect but you certainly don’t when they want to chat with you. And they always say, “If you are a suspect I need to …” but I don’t know those rules. To wit, I just found out that you have certain protection against arrest/seizure while in you house. As soon as you step on your porch because they ask you nicely the rules change. And let’s not even start the fact that if cops want to play by the rules fairly, why do they refuse to answer directly when you ask, “Am I being detained?” or “Am I free to go?” I’m really thinking the best strategy is to ask once each: “Am I free to go?” \ “Am I being detained?” \ “I refuse to answer your questions as per my 5th Amendment rights. Furthermore I request an attorney as per my Constitutional rights.” (repeat to everything a cop says.) I know the cops and lawyers will tell me I’m not entitled to a lawyer at that point unless blah blah blah but at that point after I’ve asked twice if i can go and you refuse to say yes/no - either arrest me or let me leave. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/53 "2016-02-01T19:15:35Z")
Even a layperson knows what lying is. Anyway, the prosecutor is not a lay person, and accusing a witness of perjuring himself without having the evidence to support that claim is a good way to get a mistrial. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/54 "2016-02-01T19:21:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Even a layperson knows what lying is. Anyway, the prosecutor is not a lay person, and accusing a witness of perjuring himself without having the evidence to support that claim is a good way to get a mistrial. And showing that a witness is perjuring himself with the evidence to support that claim like a film showing that he’s incorrect, even if it’s a technicality, is a good way to show the jury that the witness is unreliable. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/55 "2016-02-01T19:28:45Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > And showing that a witness is perjuring himself with the evidence to support that claim like a film showing that he’s incorrect, even if it’s a technicality, is a good way to show the jury that the witness is unreliable. No, since a minor error like that isn’t perjury, and a “Ahaa!” from a DA like that would be a dick move. The opposing counsel would object and the Judge would be unhappy with the DA. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/56 "2016-02-01T21:29:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, since a minor error like that isn’t perjury, and a “Ahaa!” from a DA like that would be a dick move. The opposing counsel would object and the Judge would be unhappy with the DA. But the DA would not directly accuse the witness of perjury. So maybe “perjury” is the wrong word but at best you’ve shown yourself to be an unreliable witness with inaccurate information. At worst some juror(s) may feel you deliberately lied thinking you wouldn’t get caught. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/57 "2016-02-01T21:44:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, since a minor error like that isn’t perjury, and a “Ahaa!” from a DA like that would be a dick move. The opposing counsel would object and the Judge would be unhappy with the DA. “Showing that a witness is prejuring himself” does not mean “declaring that the witness has committed the criminal offense of prejury”. DAs and police make dick moves like that ALL THE TIME, and judges don’t actually get mad at them. “That is a dick move” is not actually a valid objection in any court in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/58 "2016-02-01T22:40:12Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > “Showing that a witness is prejuring himself” does not mean “declaring that the witness has committed the criminal offense of prejury”. DAs and police make dick moves like that ALL THE TIME, and judges don’t actually get mad at them. “That is a dick move” is not actually a valid objection in any court in the US. “Objection, your honor! Prosecution sucks!” “Sustained.” ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271/59 "2016-02-03T05:59:01Z")
Don’t you guys watch Law and Order? Or even Matlock? The prosecutor (or defense) does not tell the jury or court the witness is committing perjury. Instead, he asks - “are you aware of the penalties for perjuring yourself under oath? Do you want to change your answer?” I fail to see how that is not a prejudicial question saying exactly the same as “You’re lying, aren’t you?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-point-of-pleading-the-5th/744271.md?page=2)