Prosecutors aren't allowed to use your invocation of rights as evidence against you, and juries are instructed that they may not consider it as evidence. Saying you plead the 5th is totally fine, but make sure to invoke your 6th as well - that's your right to an attorney.
Saying you plead the 5th is no longer totally fine, it has hazards. I must insist that the only legitimate answer to a Fed is "I want my Lawyer" followed by "I want my lawyer present" and "I want my lawyer now".
There's no right answer or magic set of words that has been approved by the Supreme Court. The only guidance they give is that it must be unambiguous, but that there's "no ritualistic formula necessary." That's in Salinas v. Texas. I will note, of course, that the fifth amendment and the sixth amendment are different rights - you should invoke both if you're in an interrogation room, or even if you're being pulled over in many circumstances.
The professor in the video is a defense attorney trying to sell a book. He's right about some things, and wrong about others. He doesn't cite authority or give specifics about what, specifically, is or is not an invocation of rights, probably because he wants you to go buy the book. He's also skipping over the fact that juries are required to be instructed in the jury charge that they can't hold a defendant's failure to testify against him.
Beyond the case law making it pretty clear that specific reference to "taking the fifth" is an unambiguous invocation of the right, I can say that, in practicing criminal law, I have never seen any inkling that such an invocation would be defective. Of course, bad cops and dirty prosecutors will sometimes violate the law, but if they're going to do that you can't rely on them to bail you out even if you get it perfect. You'll just have to hope the trial judge, or an appellate judge down the line, will make sure the law is correctly applied.
I'd welcome you to cite any case law that found an explicit invocation of the fifth amendment ambiguous or insufficient, but I wasn't able to find any. I'll note that the answers you've provided would also be sufficient, based on the case law I'm familiar with.
I don't have case law, I am not a lawyer. You are right, I am only quoting this one source - James Duane, who is indeed selling a book. In the new video, and, in the book, he does reference case law.
There is indeed no ritualistic formula that works all the time. However, we are comparing two sets of advice here:
Original advice and what most people repeated: "Unambiguously Plead the Fifth and then remain silent "
New advice from the same source: "Unambiguously request a Lawyer, as a clear, repeated, statement."
This is my understanding of why the first option is no longer the best:
Police Officer "We asked Mr. Smith where he was last evening, and he immediately invoked his right to remain silent!"
Prosecutor / Judge / Jury - "That is very suspicious."
According to James Duane, as per the more recent video, there is case law where this scenario was supported by the Judges, and according to him this is the new norm. I will try to dig up the book and find the references.
Prosecutors aren't allowed to use your invocation of rights as evidence against you, and juries are instructed that they may not consider it as evidence. Saying you plead the 5th is totally fine, but make sure to invoke your 6th as well - that's your right to an attorney.
Your data is outdated. It's not your fault, our government is corrupt and keeps eroding our rights.
https://youtu.be/-FENubmZGj8
Saying you plead the 5th is no longer totally fine, it has hazards. I must insist that the only legitimate answer to a Fed is "I want my Lawyer" followed by "I want my lawyer present" and "I want my lawyer now".
There's no right answer or magic set of words that has been approved by the Supreme Court. The only guidance they give is that it must be unambiguous, but that there's "no ritualistic formula necessary." That's in Salinas v. Texas. I will note, of course, that the fifth amendment and the sixth amendment are different rights - you should invoke both if you're in an interrogation room, or even if you're being pulled over in many circumstances.
The professor in the video is a defense attorney trying to sell a book. He's right about some things, and wrong about others. He doesn't cite authority or give specifics about what, specifically, is or is not an invocation of rights, probably because he wants you to go buy the book. He's also skipping over the fact that juries are required to be instructed in the jury charge that they can't hold a defendant's failure to testify against him.
Beyond the case law making it pretty clear that specific reference to "taking the fifth" is an unambiguous invocation of the right, I can say that, in practicing criminal law, I have never seen any inkling that such an invocation would be defective. Of course, bad cops and dirty prosecutors will sometimes violate the law, but if they're going to do that you can't rely on them to bail you out even if you get it perfect. You'll just have to hope the trial judge, or an appellate judge down the line, will make sure the law is correctly applied.
I'd welcome you to cite any case law that found an explicit invocation of the fifth amendment ambiguous or insufficient, but I wasn't able to find any. I'll note that the answers you've provided would also be sufficient, based on the case law I'm familiar with.
I don't have case law, I am not a lawyer. You are right, I am only quoting this one source - James Duane, who is indeed selling a book. In the new video, and, in the book, he does reference case law.
There is indeed no ritualistic formula that works all the time. However, we are comparing two sets of advice here:
Original advice and what most people repeated: "Unambiguously Plead the Fifth and then remain silent "
New advice from the same source: "Unambiguously request a Lawyer, as a clear, repeated, statement."
This is my understanding of why the first option is no longer the best:
Police Officer "We asked Mr. Smith where he was last evening, and he immediately invoked his right to remain silent!"
Prosecutor / Judge / Jury - "That is very suspicious."
According to James Duane, as per the more recent video, there is case law where this scenario was supported by the Judges, and according to him this is the new norm. I will try to dig up the book and find the references.