In CNN's ‘Very bad strategy’: Legal expert reacts to Trump’s latest attack on judge after 03:11 there's the following exchange with former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti:
CNN: And of course, when you take the Fifthin a civil trial, how is that different than a criminal trial?
MARIOTTI: Well, it's a really good question, John. In a criminal trial, the jury is told that you cannot have that used against you. They should not consider it at all.
In a civil trial, the jury, or in this case the judge, can use that against you. In fact, essentially, they are to assume or presume that the testimony would have been negative.
I generally hear that assumption or presumption of negativity is optional, at the judge or jury's discretion. Here Mariotti seems to go further and with "they are to assume or presume" suggests that there may be some guidance, instruction, or perhaps even rulings instructing to do so.
So I'd like to ask:
Question: Is a judge or jury "to assume or presume" testimony not given after invoking the fifth amendment would have been negative in a civil trial?
Related and potentially helpful, but without a clear answer to my question specifically: