http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/self-incrimination/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Wed, 30 Apr 1986 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 85-5404_19860430-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5404/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 25 Feb 1976 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 74-1646_19760225-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_1646/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 07 Nov 1989 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 88-1182_19891107-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1182/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Mar 1988 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 87-3_19880301-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_87_3/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 14 Jan 1981 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 80-5060_19810114-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_5060/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Oliverio Martinez was stopped while riding his bicycle home from work by police investigating narcotics violations. When police attempted to handcuff him, a struggle ensued, but it is unclear who started it. During the struggle, Martinez was shot, resulting in permanent paralysis and loss of vision. A year later he sued the officers, saying the search and use of deadly force were unconstitutional. The officers introduced as evidence in their defense a taped confession obtained while Martinez was receiving medical treatment in the hospital, in which he admitted to grabbing the gun of one of the officers during the struggle. Martinez claimed that the tape could not be used as evidence because he had not been read his Miranda rights. The district court ruled with Martinez that the tape was inadmissible. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.</p> <p>Are a suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to be free from coercive questioning violated when he was subjected to coercive questioning while in police custody, even if his coerced statements were never used against him in a criminal case?</p> 01-1444_20021204-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1444/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 02 Mar 1988 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 86-1753_19880302-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1753/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 08 Oct 1980 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 79-1127_19801008-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1127/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 03 Nov 1975 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 74-18_19751103-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_18/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 04 Nov 1975 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 74-100_19751104-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_100/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 11 Jan 1972 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Kastigar cited his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before a grand jury, even though prosecutors had granted him immunity from the use of his testimony in subsequent criminal proceedings. He was found in contempt of court for failing to testify.</p> <p>Can the government, by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony in future prosecutions, force a witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment to testify?</p> 70-117_19720111-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_117/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 18 Jan 1978 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 76-6942_19780118-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_6942/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 28 Feb 1977 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 76-260_19770228-argument-1 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_260/argument-1/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 28 Feb 1977 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 76-260_19770301-argument-2 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_260/argument-2/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Thu, 05 Mar 1964 12:00:00 -0500 <p>William Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in 1959 by Hartford, Connecticut police. After pleading guilty to pool selling, a misdemeanor, he was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $500, but the sentence was suspended after 90 days and Malloy was placed on two years probation. Some 16 months following his plea, a Superior Court appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County. When Malloy refused, "on grounds it may tend to incriminate [him]" he was imprisoned for contempt and held until willing to answer questions. Malloy filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his confinement. On appeal from the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors ruling, upholding an adverse Superior Court denial, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.</p> <p>Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect a state witness's Fifth Amendment guarantee again self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding?</p> 110_19640305-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_110/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A few years before his release, prison officials ordered Robert Lile, who was convicted of rape, to participate in a Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (SATP). As part of the program, participating inmates are required to complete and sign an "Admission of Responsibility" form, in which they accept responsibility for the crimes for which they have been sentenced, and complete a sexual history form detailing all prior sexual activities, regardless of whether the activities constitute uncharged criminal offenses. The information obtained from SATP participants is not privileged. By refusing to participate, a prisoner's privileges are reduced. Lile refused to participate in the SATP on the ground that the required disclosures of his criminal history would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The District Court granted Lile summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the compelled self-incrimination can be established by penalties that do not constitute deprivations of protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause. The appellate court concluded that the SATP could treat inmate admissions as privileged.</p> <p>Does the Kansas Sexual Abuse Treatment Program violate inmates' Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination?</p> 00-1187_20011128-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1187/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 12 Oct 1983 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 82-827_19831012-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_827/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 09 Dec 1998 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Amanda Mitchell and others were indicted for offenses arising from a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Mitchell was charged with one count of conspiring to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine. Mitchell pleaded guilty, but reserved the right to contest the drug quantity attributable to her under the conspiracy count during her sentencing hearing. Before accepting her plea, the District Court told Mitchell that she faced a mandatory minimum of 1 year in prison for distributing cocaine and a 10-year minimum for conspiracy if the government could show the required 5 kilograms. The court also explained to Mitchell that by pleading guilty she would be waiving her right "at trial to remain silent." At Mitchell's sentencing hearing, the District Court found, after hearing testimony that included some of Mitchell's codefendants, that Mitchell's alleged drug sales of 1 1/2 to 2 ounces of cocaine twice a week for year and a half put her over the 5-kilogram threshold. Mitchell did not testify to rebut the Government's evidence about drug quantity; however, her counsel argued the quantity of cocaine attributable to her for sentencing purposes. The District Court ruled that as a consequence of Mitchell's guilty plea, she had no right to remain silent about her crime's details; found that the codefendants' testimony put her over the 5-kilogram threshold, thus mandating the 10-year minimum; and noted that her failure to testify was a factor in persuading the court to rely on the codefendants' testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed.</p> <p>Does a guilty plea in federal court waive a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during sentencing? When a defendant invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege during sentencing, may a trial court draw an adverse inference from the defendant's silence?</p> 97-7541_19981209-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_7541/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 06 Oct 1982 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 81-825_19821006-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_825/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 01 Nov 1999 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Ray Agard was tried in New York on sodomy, assault, and weapons counts. Ultimately, Agard's trial turned on whether the jury believed the testimony of the victim and her friend or the conflicting testimony of Agard. The prosecutor challenged Agard's credibility. During summation, the prosecutor remarked, "[h]e gets to sit here and listen to the testimony of all the other witnesses before he testifies," and "[t]hat gives [him] a big advantage, doesn't it?" The prosecutor alleged that Agard had tailored his testimony to fit evidence that he heard from witnesses through the course of the trial. The trial court rejected Agard's objection that these comments violated his right to be present at trial. After exhausting his state appeals, Agard petitioned for federal habeas corpus, claiming that the prosecutor's comments violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to be present at trial and confront his accusers, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The District Court denied his petition. The Court of Appeals reversed.</p> <p>Does a prosecutor's summation comment calling to the jury's attention the fact that the defendant had opportunity to hear all the other witnesses before testifying and tailor his testimony violate the accused's rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 98-1170_19991101-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1170/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 25 Apr 1966 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Schmerber had been arrested for drunk driving while receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his treatment, a police officer ordered a doctor to take a blood sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while driving. The blood test was introduced as evidence in court and Schmerber was convicted.</p> <p>Did the blood test violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination?</p> 658_19660425-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_658/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 23 Apr 1984 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Part of the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1983 denied federal financial aid to males between the ages of 18 and 26 who had failed to register for selective service. Applicants for financial aid were required to inform their universities that they had (or had not) registered for the draft.</p> <p>Did compelling individuals to state whether or not they had registered violate the Fifth Amendment?</p> 83-276_19840423-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_276/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 08 Dec 1982 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 81-1453_19821208-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1453/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Aloyzas Balsys was subpoenaed by the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) to testify about his wartime activities between 1940 and 1944 and his subsequent immigration to the United States. Fearing prosecution by a foreign nation, Balsys refused the subpoena by claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. On appeal from an appellate court's reversal of a district court ruling granting OSI's subpoena enforcement petition, the Supreme Court granted the United States certiorari.</p> <p>Is fear of foreign prosecution sufficient grounds to justify the invocation of the Firth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?</p> 97-873_19980420-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_97_873/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 07 Dec 1983 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 82-786_19831207-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_786/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 07 Dec 1982 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 81-1463_19821207-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1463/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In 1994, Webster Hubbell, in a plea agreement, promised to provide the Independent Counsel with information about matters relating to the Whitewater investigation. Subsequently, the Independent Counsel served Hubbell with a subpoena calling for such information, and Hubbell invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to state whether he had the documents the Independent Counsel demanded. After being granted immunity, pursuant to 18 USC section 6003 (a), Hubbell produced the desired documents. The Independent Counsel then used those documents to indict Hubbell on tax and fraud charges. The District Court dismissed the indictment because the evidence that would be used against Hubbell was derived either directly or indirectly from his immunized act of producing those documents. Vacating that decision, the Court of Appeals directed the District Court to determine the scope of the Government's knowledge of Hubbell's financial affairs on the day the subpoena was issued. The court determined that if the Government could not demonstrate with reasonable particularity that there existed a prior awareness of the contents of the documents and that those documents were in Hubbell's possession, then the indictment was tainted. After acknowledging he could not meet this standard, the Independent Counsel entered into a conditional plea agreement providing for the dismissal of the indictment, unless the Supreme Court's disposition of the case made it reasonably likely that Hubbell's immunity would not pose a significant bar to his prosecution.</p> <p>Does the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protect a witness from being compelled to disclose the existence of incriminating documents that the Government is unable to describe with reasonable particularity? If the witness produces such documents, pursuant to a grant of immunity, may the Government use them to prepare criminal charges against him?</p> 99-166_20000222-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_166/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 03 Nov 1987 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 86-937_19871103-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_937/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 18 Jan 1983 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 81-1120_19830118-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1120/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 13 Nov 1985 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 84-1480_19851113-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1480/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist