HopeForTheBest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2019
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 21,473
He wanted to hide behind his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, which is his right. That right only applies in criminal cases, though, so what should happen when he invoked it in the custody case? The courts have developed the common law doctrine of "adverse inferences", which allowed Judge Heller to conclude FD isn't talking because what he has to say would be very, bad for him. In other words, since FD is refusing to testify, that refusal can be considered against him in the custody case.
Thank you so much, Oceancalling! (And what a nice user name!) I appreciate you taking your time to reply to help me understand the implications! I’m now a very big fan of that common-law doctrine of adverse influences! Thanks again!