5th Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Flashcards
What are some common justifications for the 5th? (10)
- Protection of the innocent
The privilege against self-incrimination helps protect innocent individuals from being coerced into admitting guilt or providing information that could be misinterpreted as evidence of guilt.
- The Cruel Trilemma
The privilege protects individuals from facing the cruel trilemma of choosing between perjury, contempt of court, or self-incrimination.
- Deter Perjury
By allowing individuals to remain silent, the privilege may prevent them from lying under oath to avoid self-incrimination.
- Unreliability of Coerced Statements
Coerced confessions or statements are often unreliable, and the privilege against self-incrimination helps prevent their use in court.
- Preference for
Accusatorial System
The privilege supports an accusatorial legal system, where the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, instead of an inquisitorial system where defendants may be compelled to prove their innocence. - Deter Improper Police practices
The privilege discourages law enforcement from using abusive or coercive tactics to obtain confessions or incriminating statements.
- Fair State-Individual Balance
The privilege helps balance the power between the state and individuals by preventing the state from forcing individuals to incriminate themselves.
- Preservation of Official Morality
The privilege upholds the moral integrity of the legal system by preventing the state from using coercion to obtain evidence;
- Privacy Rationale
The privilege respects an individual’s right to privacy by not forcing them to divulge personal information that could be incriminating; respect human personality and individual to live private life - First Amendment Rationale
The privilege against self-incrimination supports the First Amendment right to free speech by allowing individuals to decide whether to speak or remain silent.
The contempt power
the authority of a court to punish individuals for actions that obstruct the administration of justice, show disrespect towards the court, or violate its rules or orders. Contempt of court can be classified into two categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt.
Trilemma dilemma
Self-incrimination: Telling the truth and potentially incriminating themselves, which could lead to criminal charges or other legal consequences.
Perjury: Lying under oath to avoid self-incrimination, which is itself a criminal offense and can result in prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.
Contempt of court: Refusing to testify, which can be considered contempt of court and result in sanctions such as fines or imprisonment.
Lefkowitz v. Turley
A waiver secured under threat of substantial economic sanction cannot be termed voluntary
The State could not compel testimony that had not been immunized, and the waiver sought by the State, under threat of loss of contracts, would have been no less compelled than a direct request for the testimony without resort to the waiver device, and there is no constitutional distinction in terms of compulsion between the threat of job loss in those cases and the threat of contract loss to a contractor.
National Federation of Federal Employees v. Greenberg—Function of Immunity
The court concluded that the government could fire employees that exercised their 5th right so long as the questions/answers concerned would not be used against them in a criminal prosecution
US v. Cruz—The Benefit-Penalty Distinction
A compelled waiver of one’s Fifth Amendment rights is unconstitutional, as it violates the right against self-incrimination.
On the other hand, if the government offers a benefit, such as immunity from prosecution, in exchange for an individual’s voluntary waiver of their Fifth Amendment rights, it is generally considered constitutionally permissible.
Brown v. walker
A defendant who took the stand in his own defense could not claim the privilege of self-information when the prosecution sought to cross-examine them
Griffin v. California - Griffin Rule
Held that adverse comment to the jury, by either the judge or prosecutor the defendant’s election not to testify constitutions punishment for the invocation of silence—which is tantamount to compulsion and therefore violates the 5th
US v. Robinson
Held that a prosecutor property pointed out in closing argument that the defendant had a opportunity to testify—prosecutor was replying the defense council closing argument that the defendant had not been permitted to explain his stride of the story—defendant opened the door to a rebuttal
Fisher v. US - Collective Entity Rule
The basis of the collective entity rule lies in the idea that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, intended to protect individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves in criminal proceedings. Collective entities, as creations of the law, do not have the same personal interests and are, therefore, not entitled to the same constitutional protections as individuals.
Schmerber v. California—Non-Testimonial Evidence
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence. Forcing a suspect to submit to a blood test, therefore, does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination. Taking a blood sample is an invasive procedure, and chemical analysis can provide proof of guilt.
Precedent has consistently limited the privilege to evidence gained by forcing an individual to speak against himself. Physical evidence gathered from the individual, such as fingerprints or photographs, does not fall within the privilege.
Pennsylvania v. Muniz—Testimonial Evidence & Cruel Trilemma
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that answers to an officer’s questions should be admissible when the questions are meant to elicit responses to ascertain the suspect’s mental state. In such a case, the questions serve the same purpose as the field sobriety tests, and the answers are not testimonial.
Muniz was compelled to reveal his inability to calculate the date of his sixth birthday, thus testifying against himself concerning his mental state. The content of his answer is testimonial evidence protected by the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, the content of Muniz’s answer should have been suppressed from evidence.
Doe v. US—Express or Implied Assertions
Held that a person’s compelled signature on a bank consent form, directing the release of records was not testimonial because there was no assertion of fact that the records did or did not exist
South Dakota v. Neville—Adverse Inference for Refusing to Produce Non-Testimonial Evidence
The admission into evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test does not offend his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A refusal to take such a test, after a police officer has lawfully requested it, is not an act coerced by the officer, and thus is not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.
Kastigar v. US—Immunity
A person who received immunity has no right to refuse to testify and may be punished by imprisonment for contempt for so refusing—they are not subject to the cruel trilemma because there is no punishment for the truth given the immunity
