I am not an American so I am not as familiar with American law, but when I watch movies set in the U.S. there are a lot of them where the authorities will cut a deal with a suspect who has been charged.

They will give him less jail time, if he rats out his co-conspirators. However, I thought that the 5th amendment was the right not to divulge one's involvement in a crime. But if that person is has co-conspirators, they authorities want, couldn't they charge the suspect with obstruction of justice on top of the other charges, if they have proof that he knows the co-conspirators?

In a lot of movies, they can prove that he knows them, but they cannot prove who the they are. But couldn't they charge him with some sort of obstruction of justice type crime for not divulging them? Or does the 5th amendment mean you have the right to remain silent about everything, including anyone involved, even if those people commit future felonies as a result of not being divulged?

I think it's just another way of saying "no comment" which it is the norm in the UK.

You are watching movies. Actual court proceedings are different.

Do you really think they can get a DNA match in less than 24 hours?

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This term refers to the first ten amendments to the written constitution, which were enacted at the same time as the constitution.

The Constitution outlines the duties of the U.S. government; the Bill of Rights outlines fundamental rights belonging to all individual citizens, which the government in the performance of its duties cannot take away or abridge.

The Fifth Amendment has to do with testimony in a court of law: no citizen can be compelled to testify against himself.

The example you give is a different kind of thing: you're asking about someone with criminal knowledge being questioned by police or prosecutors, who might bargain with him to get information about others involved in the crime. This isn't a courtroom; he isn't under oath; the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to the situation.

In general, in a scenario like the one you describe, the authorities already know about the individual's complicity in the crime being investigated; they aren't asking him to testify against himself, because they have no need of his testimony; they could convict him easily enough on other evidence - and, in such scenarios, the suspect knows all this too. The deal the prosecutors offer is of leniency in exchange for information about any aspects of the crime that are still unknown to them; or evidence (testimony in court) that will help them convict the culprits.

You ask if they could prosecute him for obstruction of justice by his silence; but the logic of this kind of scenario is that, if he doesn't cooperate, they can, and probably will, prosecute him for his part in the crime itself - and that's almost certainly a higher crime than obstruction of justice, and carries a harsher penalty.

Okay thanks. What if the suspect got off on a technicality though, and they still wanted to charge his co-conspirators? Can they go after him then with another charge for not ratting them out, since they could not get him on the charges of the original crime?

No. It would be a waste of time and resources. Simply maintaining silence isn't the same as obstruction of justice. Unless they can prove he lied under oath, they wouldn't go after him.

I hate the phrase "got off on a technicality." There's no such thing as "a technicality"; such people are acquitted because the law says they should be.

is that litter as in trash or litter as in excrement?