Then you would lose the civil case. There would be a consequence of failing to testify at all in that case.
If you refused to answer questions at all, and the plaintiff testified that you wrongfully took the couch, the trier of fact would be able to find the evidence was in her favor and find for the plaintiff. You would lose; although you would preserve the right to not testify, you might have to pay the civil judgment for the value of the couch.
If he hired you to be his lawyer in the civil case, you wouldnt be doing a very good job representing him.
“Then you would lose the civil case”
Huh??
If you walked into court with a receipt showing that you had been the one that made the down payment on the couch, and that you had been the one making the time payments on the couch, you very well might win.
What I am saying is that THE ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION CANNOT BE A DETERMINING FACTOR IF HE JUDGMENT GOES AGAINST YOU.
The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a privilege.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491