Choosing only certain questions to avoid by taking the 5th would lead to assuming guilt on those questions, something the invocation is trying to avoid.
Can’t imagine a lawyer telling a client to pick and choose.
excellent point, thanks.
Yes, but I can’t imagine a lawyer advising her to first proclaim her innocence of any criminal act and then assert the right to not incriminate oneself.
That’s having it both ways. First you get to testify to your complete innocence. Then you get to avoid all questions that might incriminate you, thereby proving either a) that your first statement to be a lie, or b) that you have no grounds for invoking the fifth. Whichever it is needs to be sorted out.
Either she should be required to recant her first statement, her proclamation of innocence, or she should be required to answer questions bearing upon her innocence, since she’s asserted it.
You can’t have it both ways. The fifth amendment only allows you to avoid testifying against yourself. It’s not a “free pass” on all further questioning after you’ve asserted your innocence. In fact, invoking the fifth is usually construed as an admission that you do have information that could be self-incriminating. You just can’t be forced to put the incriminating information on the table.
Maybe instead of requiring her to recant her original statement of innocence, it would be sufficient to point out that by invoking the fifth, she’s nullifying her original statement, but I’d prefer she be asked to withdraw it on her own. That would bring her invocation of the fifth in line with what we normally consider it to be...reasonably clear evidence that the invoker feels he or she might have committed a criminal act. That would also set in motion an effort to determine the extent of her criminality via other investigative paths.