When someone "takes the fifth" in the middle of testifying it is often an electrifying event and everyone, and especially the jury, are watching intently. Once the Judge decides whether the privilege should be granted, the issue the immediately arises as to whether any adverse inference should be taken against the person who asserted their privilege. That means that whenever anyone does something we regularly judge them for whatever they do. For example, if someone cuts you off while driving down the road, most drivers will usually get angry because of the inconsideration to them or the danger the other driver put them in. However, sometimes you may realize they had a child in the car who had fallen or something else happened and then you realize it was understandable that the other driver inadvertently cut you off and since you understand what happened, you immediately forgive them. Its often similar during a trial. When a person "takes the fifth" the usual knee-jerk reaction is the witness is hiding something and so most of us will automatically hold it against them and disregard whatever it was they said while on the witness stand. However, the law is that when someone legitimately asserts a privilege, no adverse inference should be drawn or taken against them or whatever it was they said. Under normal circumstances, the Judge will explain this to the jurors at the time the privilege is asserted and then again during the charge to the jury at the end of the case so they are certain to understand they may not drawn an unfavorable inference against the person who testified or the party for whom they testified. This is an extremely important explanation to the jury because it goes directly against what they would normally want to do. Perhaps that's why it is given to the jury twice.