[quote= If they're called before a Congressional committee, their lawyers will advise, "Look, our purpose here is to keep you from being jailed, not to convince your fellow citizens that you're an honest businessman. Just plead the Fifth after every question." If the Don were to say, "But if I did that, everyone will know I'm a gangster," the lawyer would reply, "They already know you're a gangster--better to be a known gangster at liberty than a known gangster in jail."
Of course, Michael was pretending to be a genuinely "legitimate businessman," so pleading the Fifth would have destroyed his credibility. [/quote]

Correct and I would simply add here that one of the ways to use effectively serial Fifth Amendment refusals to answer is that once someone starts talking too much he or she can waive his or her fifth amendment rights. So really, once someone has taken the fifth on a couple of innocuous questions, it is clear that he or she will take the fifth on all the questions. In politically charged hearings, when a witness is made to take the fifth 55 times, or whatever, it is the result of grndstanding by the congress people, and nothing more.

Interrstingly there is s division of authority on letting juries know whether someone took the fifth or not. In California (and you may recall this from the Simpson trial) the fact that someone took the Fifth cannot come into evidence because the courts there have ruled the jury will infer criminal conduct by someone who has merely excercised a constitutional right. In FLorida, however if someone takes the fifth in a civil case, the jury does her it and the lawyer can argue "If they took the fifth, why do you think they did so?" This disparity has never been resolved by the Federal Courts, but it is probably ripe for review someplace.