Replies

"I would imagine that she still could plead the 5th because of its precedence in US law but there are some instances where people are not allowed to use it. Could this be one of them?"

No, I don't think so. I really think she could take the Fifth if they subpoena her back to the grand jury, and then ask her questions whose answers would tend to incriminate her.

Your (excellent) point seems to be that if she used one privilege to remain silent on a question, and didn't say anything about the other privilege (5th Amend.) then wouldn't that be like acquiescing to being questioned on the matter (if, for example, she'd never had a husband in the first place.) But I think her waiver of her 5th Amendment privilege would have to be very explicit, not just implied by her failure to mention it b/c she already had the marital privilege to hide behind. Her waiver of such a big right would have to be crystal clear, and knowing, intelligent, voluntary, etc.

I think that such a waiver (of 5th Amend. privilege) is "proceeding-specific" so certainly she could take up and use the privilege in any subsequent proceeding in this case, even if she HAD explicitly waived it before.

About people not being allowed to use the 5th Amendment privilege, sometimes a parent doesn't want to testify against their child, but there's no privilege existing, so if the parent refuses to testify after being properly subpoenaed, the parent can get jailed for contempt. I am assuming a case in which the parent didn't do any criminal act. If their answering the question wouldn't tend to incriminate them, they must answer. Monica Lewinsky's mother was faced with a situation sort of like this. She was in a real quandary, which is why she suddenly decided to become "sick" and put on all those theatrics. (Her "sick" act worked, didn't it?) Monica's mom did, however, have a 5th Amendment privilege as to answering whether or not she really told Monica to pretend she broke her leg to avoid testifying.

Then there was Susan McDougal. I think she was given immunity for any criminal acts of her own as to Whitewater. This eliminated any chance of her incriminating herself so--no 5th Amendment privilege remained for her. Which is why, when she still refused to answer (to protect You-Know-Who), she was jailed for contempt.

If Angela took the 5th, in grand jury or trial or both, the prosecution wouldn't be able to say one word about it--not even a sly comment such as, "well, we don't know what they did b/c Mrs. Ricci hasn't explained that." If they made any reference at all to her claiming the 5th, they'd blow the whole trial. (Who knows, there may never be a trial on this case anyway, they certainly can't indict or try Richard Ricci now.)