Also known as: 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination · Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination · privilege against self-incrimination · self-incrimination privilege · 5th Amendment self-incrimination
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection that shields individuals from being compelled to furnish testimony that could be used to establish their guilt of a crime. The protection applies whenever a real and appreciable risk of criminal liability exists. It does not extend to artificial entities or to nontestimonial physical evidence.
Forrest Falconer testified on direct about a business transaction. On cross-examination opposing counsel asked whether Falconer had previously falsified tax returns. Falconer asserted the privilege. The court sustained the objection because the inquiry related solely to character for truthfulness.
Felipe Figueroa received a grand jury subpoena concerning bid rigging. When asked about steering contracts, he refused to answer on the ground that any response would furnish a lead to evidence of bribery. The court upheld the refusal because the testimony would tie him to criminal conduct.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fatima Flores was arrested and placed in a locked interview room. Officers questioned her about a robbery without first advising her of her rights. Her later statements were suppressed because the questioning occurred in custody without the required warnings.
Frederick Ferguson was taken to the hospital after a collision. Officers directed a physician to draw blood without Ferguson's consent. The results were admitted at trial because the extraction produced only physical evidence rather than compelled testimony.
Fumiko Fujimoto made statements during an unlawful arrest. Police used those statements to locate additional witnesses and documents. The court excluded both the statements and the derivative evidence obtained through them.
Frank Fisher was subpoenaed before a grand jury and granted use and derivative-use immunity. He still refused to testify. The court held that the immunity was coextensive with the privilege and ordered him to answer.
No. The privilege belongs only to natural persons. A corporation or partnership cannot invoke it, and custodians of records may not refuse production on Fifth Amendment grounds when acting for the entity.
A declarant is unavailable when the court rules that the privilege applies and excuses the witness from testifying. Invocation alone satisfies the rule once the court accepts the claim.
Yes. Testimony on another matter does not waive the privilege for questions that relate only to the witness's character for truthfulness.
No. Refusal to take the test is considered nontestimonial conduct and therefore falls outside the protection of the privilege.
…to the innocent as well as to the guilty. IV Our decision in Malloy v. Hogan , 378 U.S. 1 (1964), established that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thus applicable to the States. Our holding today is that the prosecution may not use statements, whether…