Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Of course you can be forced to testify. That goes all the way back to English common law. The public has a claim to every man's evidence.

A strict privilege against self-testimony is somewhat distinctive to our US system. Even countries that share it with us, like the UK, limit it; for instance, in the UK, your refusal to testify against yourself can be held against you.

View on HN

Privilege against self-incrimination is a generally recognised international standard and, for example, lies at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Juries are not frequently comprised of people with objectivity, intelligence, or education. Refusing to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination looks incredibly guilty even though guilt is clearly not established. A good prosecutor will use that in closing arguments or to influence other witnesses.

Are prosecutors allowed to imply in closing arguments that asserting one's fifth amendment right should be considered evidence that the person is guilty? I would hope that judges would instruct juries not to consider assertion of this right as evidence one way or another, and would not allow a prosecutor to say so either.

It seems that this is the case, based on Griffin v California: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/380/609.html

> Comment to the jury by a prosecutor in a state criminal trial upon a defendant's failure to testify as to matters which he can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within his knowledge or by the court that the defendant's silence under those circumstances evidences guilt violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution

isn't the jury system an american thing?

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#History

But it is mostly an Anglosphere thing.

Juries are most certainly not a universal part of the legal system. They are mostly found in the Anglosphere. Most European countries, for example, have a civil law system that typically does not feature a jury of peers.

In what way? Can they automatically assume the worst possible thing you could have said?

No, it’s called adverse inference basically the prosecution can say that because you didn’t cooperate you are guilty.

That said you cannot convict anyone on adverse inference alone.

Nitpick: I believe that is England and Wales, not the whole of the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Scotland

I think NI is also different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com