In regards to the myriad of comments below on the 5th Amendment:
"In the whole fifth amendment one sentence deals with self incrimination it reads:
--- "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" ---
The fact of the matter is that much of what is being talked about in the above posts regarding the fifth amendment is opinion. As I read it, adding nothing through implication it simply states you can never be forced to testify in a criminal case [be it yours or another individual(s)] when your testimony could incriminate you or implicate you.
All this talk of what that implies is merely opinion and conjecture. The founders included this in the fifth amendment so the government could not justify torture or imprisonment to force testimony or get a confession. This falls perfectly in line with eighth amendment's wording disallowing "cruel and unusual punishment". They also wanted to protect us from "Bill of attainder" style laws (also known as ex-post facto law) where you are guilty without doing anything, or you are guilty simply by not having something arbitrarily required. An example of this is current licensing laws on car where without any action that could be consider a crime ("corpus delecti”: the body of the crime or/i.e. the harm done to a person[s] or property) you are guilty simply by not having it. Yet a officers force us to produce a license and if refused will break out your window then taser you, rip you from your vehicle, cuff you, illegally search you to obtain your wallet, and after that charge you for driving without a license as well as failing to I.D. plus resisting arrest (whether you did or not and they will more then likely also steal your car and charge you to get it back). As far as what is implied by "pleading the fifth" and when you choose to take it those issues are not addressed. The founders where very clear in how they worded the constitution and purposely articulated in precise terms some parts and just as purposely left things simple in others. In that light what someone pleading the fifth implies by doing so is a matter that should be left to individual jurors to determine and the defense attorney or pro-se litigant to through other witnesses or opening and closing statements elaborate on the circumstance under which "pleading the fifth" is done and how doing so would not necessarily mean criminal action was present. This is a more realistic reading of this part of the fifth amendment that implies nothing that isn't there and is supported by other parts of the document and reinforced by the personal writings of our founders regarding what they meant and where aiming for.
Furthermore, jurors can be told by a judge that pleading the fifth can't be considered in their deliberation or used to imply guilt but saying that doesn't magically make the memory of it happening disappear. Our founders in all their wisdom knew this and left it simple knowing that humans will imply what they logically can and left it at that.
So plead the fifth but be aware of how it is viewed and if there is evidence or reasoning that could suggest your invoking of the fifth (like in the licensing example should you choose to stand up for your right to travel unmolested on the roadways) does not imply criminal action there are ways that should be used to introduce it to the record."
-Chuck Burns
"Principles are the bones of who you are, Actions are the meat on them." -Chuck Burns (2013)
