This bit is different: Levandowski has not been charged with a crime. There is no plea, guilty or not guilty, for him to enter. He is not even the defendant in the civil suit.
He (or his lawyer) believes that talking about these documents could open him to criminal liability (whether he's guilty of anything or not), so he is choosing to remain silent.
Now, if other evidence is unearthed and Levandowski is indeed charged with a crime, and it made it to trial, that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.
Right, things are a bit confused at the moment because the parent's hypothetical is so close to the case at hand.
I'm addressing parent's concrete hypothetical -- where the person accused of theft is the ceo of the company.
> that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.
I think I'm wrong here, actually :)
dragonwriter provides a compelling explanation, elsewhere in this thread, for why entering a "not guilty" plea is very different from stating "I'm not guilty" outside the context of entering a plea.
He (or his lawyer) believes that talking about these documents could open him to criminal liability (whether he's guilty of anything or not), so he is choosing to remain silent.
Now, if other evidence is unearthed and Levandowski is indeed charged with a crime, and it made it to trial, that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.