Compulsion

Question 1

Contempt of Court

Answer 1

If someone refuses to testify, the Court has the power to hold them in contempt, meaning that they could be sent to jail. A person cannot be compelled to make incriminated statements based on the threat of contempt.

Question 2

Cruel Trilemma

Answer 2

1. Remain silent and face imprisonment (by being held in contempt)
2. Tell the truth and face imprisonment (by incriminating yourself)
3. Tell a lie and face imprisonment (for perjury)

Question 3

Lefkowitz v. Turley (SCOTUS 1973)

Answer 3

This case held that a waiver of 5th amendment rights secured based on the threat of significant economic sanctions is not voluntary.

*Facts: A New York law stated that contractor who refused to prove incriminating statements regarding state contracts could have existing contracts cancelled and future contracts denied. *

Question 4

Economic sanctions

Answer 4

Incriminating statements given under threat of economic sanctions are not voluntary.
Economic sanctions include being fired.

Question 5

McKune v. Lile (SCOTUS 2002)

Answer 5

This case held that whether a person is suffering a benefit or penalty for providing incriminating information has no bearing on whether there is compulsion. This is because what is a benefit and what is a detriment is in the eye of the beholder. If we used the benefit-penalty framework, this would create perverse incentives to keep people in the “penalty” state so there is only ever a benefit.

Counter argument: to hold this basically means that a person can sanctioned for failing to incriminate themselves.

*Facts: The sex offender programming at the defendant’s prison required him to admit to his offense of conviction as well as all other sex offenses he had committed, whether he had been convicted for them or not. These answers were verified using a polygraph test. If Lile refused to participate, his security level would be dropped, and he would lose certain privileges. The Court held that these consequences did not constitute compulsion. *

Question 6

Griffin v. California (SCOTUS 1965)

Answer 6

This case held that a comment to a jury by a judge or a prosecutor regarding a defendant’s decision to not to testify constitutes punishment and is therefore compulsion.

Counter argument: judges and prosecutors don’t need to announce this fact to the jury. They can see it themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Question 7

Lakeside v. Oregon (SCOTUS 1978)

Answer 7

This case qualified Griffin and held that a judge can instruct a jury that they are not allowed to draw a negative conclusion/inference from the fact that a defendant is not testifying in their case.

Question 8

United States v. Robinson (SCOTUS 1988)

Answer 8

This case qualified Griffin and held that a prosecutor can point out that a defendant had an opportunity to testify and did not in response to a claim by a defense attorney that the defendant did not have a chance to share their side of the story. AKA when the defense attorney prompts rebuttal.