is surely an exception. From television shows like “Law & Order” to movies such as “Guys and Dolls,” we are steeped in the culture that knows a person in custody has “the right to remain silent,” Miranda is practically a household word. And surely, when a criminal defendant says, “I plead the Fifth,” it doesn’t take a trained linguist, a Ph.D, or a lawyer to know what he means. Indeed, as early as 1955, the Supreme Court recognized that “in popular parlance and even in legal literature, the term ‘Fifth Amendment’ in the context of our time is commonly regarded as being synonymous with the privilege against self-incrimination.” Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 163, 75 S.Ct. 668, 99 L.Ed. 964 (1955); accord In re Johnny V., 85 Cal.App.3d 120, 149 Cal.Rptr. 180, 184, 188 (1978) (<HOLDING>). More recently, the Court highlighted that
holding that denial of reduction for acceptance of responsibility was a penalty which could not be imposed for defendants assertion of fifth amendment privilege holding that a valid assertion of the fifth amendment privilege in a civil case may not be treated as an admission that allegations are true holding that juveniles request to call parent is assertion of fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege recognizing that policy reasons undergirding assertion of fifth amendment privilege outside jurys presence apply even if privilege is invalid