The Oyez Project: Criminal Procedure Issues - Self-Incrimination

Allen v. Illinois

No details yet.

Andresen v. Maryland

No details yet.

Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight

No details yet.

Bellis v. United States

No details yet.

Braswell v. United States

No details yet.

Brooks v. Tennessee

No details yet.

Brown v. United States

No details yet.

California v. Byers

No details yet.

Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid

No details yet.

Carter v. Kentucky

No details yet.

Chapman v. California

No details yet.

Chavez v. Martinez

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.

Cohen v. Hurley

No details yet.

Couch v. United States

No details yet.

Curcio v. United States

No details yet.

Doe v. United States

No details yet.

Estelle v. Smith

No details yet.

Fisher v. United States

No details yet.

Gardner v. Broderick

No details yet.

Garner v. United States

No details yet.

Garrity v. New Jersey

No details yet.

Griffin v. California

No details yet.

Grosso v. United States

No details yet.

Haynes v. United States

No details yet.

Hutcheson v. United States

No details yet.

Jenkins v. Anderson

No details yet.

Kastigar v. United States

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.

Knapp v. Schweitzer

No details yet.

Lakeside v. Oregon

No details yet.

Lanza v. New York

No details yet.

Lawn v. United States

No details yet.

Leary v. United States

No details yet.

Lefkowitz v. Cunningham

No details yet.

Lefkowitz v. Turley

No details yet.

Malloy v. Hogan

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.

Marchetti v. United States

No details yet.

McKune v. Lile

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.

Mills v. Louisiana

No details yet.

Minnesota v. Murphy

No details yet.

Minor v. United States

No details yet.

Mitchell v. United States

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.

Montana v. Jackson

No details yet.

Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n

No details yet.

Namet v. United States

No details yet.

New Jersey v. Portash

No details yet.

Ohio v. Reiner

Matthew Reiner was charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of his 2-month-old son Alex. The defense planned to argue that Susan Batt, the family's babysitter, was the culpable party. The trial court granted Batt transactional immunity from prosecution, at the state's request, after she informed the court she intended to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Ultimately, Batt denied any involvement in the death. Reiner was convicted. The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed. In affirming, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that "Susan Batt's [trial] testimony did not incriminate her because she denied any involvement in the abuse. Thus, she did not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege." The court noted that the defense's theory of Batt's guilt was not grounds for a grant of immunity, "when the witness continues to deny any self-incriminating conduct." The court also found that the wrongful grant of immunity prejudiced Reiner, because it effectively told the jury that Batt did not cause Alex's injuries.

Piccirillo v. New York

No details yet.

Piemonte v. United States

No details yet.

Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy

No details yet.

Portuondo v. Agard

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.

Reina v. United States

No details yet.

Roberts v. United States

No details yet.

Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Comm'r

No details yet.

Sarno v. Illinois Crime Comm'n

No details yet.

Schmerber v. California

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.

Selective Service System v. Minn. Pub. Int.

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.

Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States

No details yet.

South Dakota v. Neville

No details yet.

Spevack v. Klein

No details yet.

Stevens v. Marks

No details yet.

Stewart v. United States

No details yet.

Ullmann v. United States

No details yet.

United States v. Apfelbaum

No details yet.

United States v. Balsys

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.

United States v. Blue

No details yet.

United States v. Covington

No details yet.

United States v. Doe

No details yet.

United States v. Euge

No details yet.

United States v. Freed

No details yet.

United States v. Gainey

No details yet.

United States v. Hasting

No details yet.

United States v. Havens

No details yet.

United States v. Hubbell

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.

United States v. Knox

No details yet.

United States v. Kordel

No details yet.

United States v. Robinson

No details yet.

United States v. Rylander

No details yet.

United States v. Ward

No details yet.

United States v. Washington

No details yet.

United States v. Welden

No details yet.

United States v. Wong

No details yet.

Wainwright v. Greenfield

No details yet.

Wardius v. Oregon

No details yet.

Zicarelli v. New Jersey Investigation Comm'n

No details yet.