• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Fifth Amendment

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

chgo54x

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Illinois

I am the plaintiff pro se in an employment discrimination case. The defendant's attorney wants to take my deposition. Is there any law that states that I can use the Fifth Amendment to refuse and not have my case dismissed?
 


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
chgo54x said:
What is the name of your state? Illinois

I am the plaintiff pro se in an employment discrimination case. The defendant's attorney wants to take my deposition. Is there any law that states that I can use the Fifth Amendment to refuse and not have my case dismissed?


My response:

Yes, but only if you're asked a question where the answer would have criminal aspects. You have the right not to incriminate yourself in a crime. So, if there's no crime involved, and even if the question is embarrassing, you must answer to the best of your knowledge.

IAAL
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
chgo54x said:
What is the name of your state? Illinois

I am the plaintiff pro se in an employment discrimination case. The defendant's attorney wants to take my deposition. Is there any law that states that I can use the Fifth Amendment to refuse and not have my case dismissed?
Nope, you have to testify, only thing is that going pro se, you are at a disadvantage in that you don't know what or how you should respond. I suggest you try to obtain competent counsel. If you are going pro se because no attorney would take your case or wanted an big retianer that should be a clue as to the potential for your success.
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
rmet4nzkx said:
Nope, you have to testify, only thing is that going pro se, you are at a disadvantage in that you don't know what or how you should respond. I suggest you try to obtain competent counsel. If you are going pro se because no attorney would take your case or wanted an big retianer that should be a clue as to the potential for your success.

My response:

Excuse me, but are you saying that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to Civil Depositions when you say, "Nope, you have to testify"?

I just want to make sure I'm clear on your position - - before I roast you, draw and quarter you, and leave your carcass out in the desert sun to be picked at by the vultures.

IAAL
 
Last edited:

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
My further response:

Since you haven't responded, I'm sure you're scouring the Internet for some authority for your position. Well, you can stop. There isn't any.

Ca Evid Code section 940; see Fuller v. Super.Ct. (IPC Int'l Corp.) (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 308, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 532--defendant cannot refuse to be deposed by invoking blanket privilege against self-incrimination but must submit to deposition and invoke privilege as to specific questions; Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 174, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 562, 566--filing suit may waive plaintiff's privilege on material crucial to claim; Blackburn v. Super.Ct. (Kelso) (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 414, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 204--civil defendant cannot invoke privilege without showing actual possibility of criminal prosecution]

So, the 5th can be successfully invoked.

IAAL
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:
My further response:

Since you haven't responded, I'm sure you're scouring the Internet for some authority for your position. Well, you can stop. There isn't any.

Ca Evid Code section 940; see Fuller v. Super.Ct. (IPC Int'l Corp.) (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 308, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 532--defendant cannot refuse to be deposed by invoking blanket privilege against self-incrimination but must submit to deposition and invoke privilege as to specific questions; Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 174, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 562, 566--filing suit may waive plaintiff's privilege on material crucial to claim; Blackburn v. Super.Ct. (Kelso) (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 414, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 204--civil defendant cannot invoke privilege without showing actual possibility of criminal prosecution]

So, the 5th can be successfully invoked.

IAAL
:eek: Now I wasn't on the internet searching, I was in the shower washing my long red hair.
You misunderstood or I assumed, sorry. We responded at the same time and since you covered the obvious criminal aspect of it so well I didn't think I needed to repeat it, that is so annoying.

Since it is a civil employment/harassment case, It is not likely obvious criminal elements, hawever, there are many implications and stratigies that the defense will likely use. I had the impression OP needs to understand they may be required to testify to things they don't wan't but aren't criminal, like you said. If OP is representing themself and don't know what they have or do not have to testify to, they are not prepared for this venture and really need to get competent counsel who knows when and if they need to testify.

Please accept my humble and sincere appology :eek:
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
rmet4nzkx said:
:eek: Now I wasn't on the internet searching, I was in the shower washing my long red hair.
You misunderstood or I assumed, sorry. We responded at the same time and since you covered the obvious criminal aspect of it so well I didn't think I needed to repeat it, that is so annoying.

Since it is a civil employment/harassment case, It is not likely obvious criminal elements, hawever, there are many implications and stratigies that the defense will likely use. I had the impression OP needs to understand they may be required to testify to things they don't wan't but aren't criminal, like you said. If OP is representing themself and don't know what they have or do not have to testify to, they are not prepared for this venture and really need to get competent counsel who knows when and if they need to testify.

Please accept my humble and sincere appology :eek:

My response:

You are forgiven. Now, would you please download a spell-checking program? Your misspellings are annoying.

IAAL
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top