Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
by throwaway13234 on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @01:51AM
(#14450648)
That's completely reasonable when it is an employee that isn't in a position where there is the possibility of criminal charges, but when there is, it's important that we give full gravity to the position we are putting the employee in. The lawyers really put it well by describing it as being between “the rock and the whirlpool".
Personally, one of criteria I would use to determine whether or not to take the 5th would depend on the general position of the public towards me. If the public generally thinks I am guilty before I've testified and they are generally taking in evidence and arriving at the conclusion that I'm guilty without truly considering the existing evidence, it'd would be stupid for me to testify.
I don't think there is a soul here that hasn't at least once had experiences where every one of their actions were viewed as having malicious intent by the peanut gallery. Once you experience such injustices firsthand as the accused, you learn empathy for others in similar circumstances quite quickly.
legalese note: I think you mean "adverse inference", not "adverse interference". I only note this because "interference" is a word used in some legal jargon (e.g., "tortious interference"), so this typo could be confusing to others.
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
by joshuamorton on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @11:38AM
(#14453330)
You're correct. That was a typo on my part.
Its worth remembering that, at this point, this is only a civil suit, so among other things, silence can actually be used against you (adverse interference).