Re:Where “nothing to hide” fails as logic
by lotharbot on Monday June 10, 2013 @05:53PM
(#5857477)
"a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."
"we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth."
- Slochower v. Board of Education - 350 U.S. 551 (1956) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/350/551/case.html
"we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth."
- Ohio v. Reiner - 532 U.S. 17 (2001) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/17/case.html
This is why "nothing to hide" fails as logic. Even the innocent can be misrepresented or misunderstood in ways that appear criminal.