http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/self-incrimination/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_5404/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_1646/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1182/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_190/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_87_3/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_5313/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_43_2/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_75/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_673/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_5060/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_95/ <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><p>No; the Court remanded the substantive due process portion of the question. In a 6-3 judgment delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that Chavez did not deprive Martinez of his Fifth Amendment rights. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, joined Justice Thomas. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, reasoned that Martinez's claim that his questioning alone was a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments could be recognized if a "core guarantee" would be placed at risk; however, Martinez could not make the showing necessary to expand protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. Regarding substantive due process, Justice Souter delivered a 5-4 holding concluding that the issue whether Martinez may pursue a claim of liability for a substantive due process violation should be addressed on remand.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1444/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_84/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_889/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_260/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1753/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1127/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_18/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_635/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_100/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_13/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_202/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_12_2/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_236/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_46/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_78_6809/ <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><p>The Court found that compelled testimony is legitimate given the grant of immunity. Justice Powell found that the protections of immunity that a congressional statute provided were "coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination" and "sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_117/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_189/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_6942/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_236/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_9/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_65/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_260/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_331/ <p>Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect a state witness's Fifth Amendment guarantee again self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding?</p><p>Yes. In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without any direct or implied promised or improper influence. Noting that the American judicial system is accusatorial, not inquisitorial, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment secures defendants against self-incrimination and compels state and federal officials to establish guilt by evidence that is free and independent of a suspect's or witnesses' statements.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_110/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_2/ <p>Does the Kansas Sexual Abuse Treatment Program violate inmates' Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination?</p><p>No. In a plurality opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the SATP serves a vital penological purpose, and that offering inmates minimal incentives to participate does not amount to compelled self-incrimination prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Filing an opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, while noting that the Court was divided over the standard for evaluating compulsion for purposes of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a prison setting, agreed that Lile's argument was unpersuasive. Justice O'Connor reasoned that the Fifth Amendment's text does not prohibit all penalties levied in response to a person's refusal to incriminate himself; it prohibits only the compulsion of such testimony. Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer joined, arguing that the Court's decision "characterized a threatened harm as 'a minimal incentive.'"</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1187/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_74/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_827/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_189/ <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><p>No and no. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that in the federal criminal system, a guilty plea does not waive the self-incrimination privilege at sentencing and that a sentencing court may not draw an adverse inference from a defendant's silence in determining facts relating to the circumstances and details of the crime. "Treating a guilty plea as a waiver of the privilege at sentencing would be a grave encroachment on the rights of defendants," wrote Justice Kennedy for the Court. Justice Kennedy continued that "by holding [Mitchell's] silence against her in determining the facts of the offense at the sentencing hearing, the District Court imposed an impermissible burden on the exercise of the constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination." Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenting minority, expressed the view that, while the Court properly held Mitchell did not waive her privilege, she "did not have the right to have the sentencer abstain from making the adverse inferences that reasonably flow from her failure to testify."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_7541/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1531/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_138/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_134/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1489/ <p>May a witness who claims no involvement in a crime assert a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?</p><p>Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that, while the self-incrimination privilege's protection only extended to witnesses who had reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer, the babysitter's expression of innocence did not by itself eliminate the babysitter's privilege and that the grant of immunity was thus not an error. The opinion stated that the "defense's theory of the case was that Batt, not [Reiner], was responsible for Alex's death... . In this setting, it was reasonable for Batt to fear that answers to possible questions might tend to incriminate her. Batt therefore had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_1028/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_97/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_122/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_825/ <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><p>No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the prosecutor's comments did not violate Agard's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and that the prosecutor's comments also did not violate Agard's right to due process. "Allowing comment upon the fact that a defendant's presence in the courtroom provides him a unique opportunity to tailor his testimony is appropriate and...sometimes essential to the central function of the trial, which is to discover the truth," Justice Scalia wrote for the Court. Dissenting, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice David H. Souter, observed that the majority's holding "transforms a defendant's presence at trial from a Sixth Amendment right into an automatic burden on his credibility."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1170/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_29/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_78_1793/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_823/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_7/ <p>Did the blood test violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination?</p><p>No. Justice Brennan argued for a unanimous Court that the protection against self-incrimination applied specifically to compelled communications or testimony. Since the results of the blood test were neither "testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_658/ <p>Did compelling individuals to state whether or not they had registered violate the Fifth Amendment?</p><p>The Court upheld the law. Since no student is compelled to seek financial aid, requiring an applicant to state whether or not he had registered for the draft would not be equivalent to forcing an individual to incriminate himself.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_276/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_16/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1453/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_62/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_210/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_143/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_58/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_78_972/ <p>Is fear of foreign prosecution sufficient grounds to justify the invocation of the Firth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?</p><p>No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that although resident aliens are entitled to the same Fifth Amendment protections as citizen "persons" the risk of their deportation is not sufficient to sustain a self-incrimination privilege intended to apply only to the United States government. The Court explained that since the Fifth Amendment does not bind foreign governments, and that would not be subject to domestic enforcement of immunity-for-testimony deals, one could not assert a self-incrimination protection against possible prosecution at their hands.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_97_873/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_531/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_366/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_786/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_78_1453/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_345/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_13/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1463/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_305/ <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><p>Yes and no. In an 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court, in order to determine the precise scope of a grant of immunity with respect to the production of documents in response to a subpoena, held that a person responding to subpoena, pursuant to a court order granting immunity, could not be prosecuted on the basis of information in the documents produced if the government did not have any prior, independent knowledge of the documents. Thus, the indictment against Hubbell was dismissed because it was not derived from sources independent of documents produced under his grant of immunity. Justice Stevens wrote for the Court, "we have no doubt that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination protects the target of a grand jury investigation from being compelled to answer questions designed to elicit information about the existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was the lone dissenter.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_166/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_17/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_87/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_937/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1120/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_394/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_74_1106/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_235/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_74_635/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1480/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_6042/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_69_4/