Also known as: 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination · Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination · self-incrimination privilege · Fifth Amendment privilege · privilege against self-incrimination
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional protection that prohibits the government from compelling individuals to provide testimony that could incriminate them in a criminal proceeding. The protection applies during custodial interrogation and in other compelled settings unless warnings are given and a valid waiver is obtained.
Janet took the stand for the hotel and described fee disclosure practices. On cross-examination Deborah's counsel asked whether Janet had skimmed cash tips from employees in a manner that could expose her to tax fraud. Janet refused to answer and invoked the privilege. The court declined to compel her response because the new topic related only to character for truthfulness.
Officers placed Eric in a locked interview room at the station and questioned him at length about vehicle identification numbers. No warnings were given before the questioning began. Eric later sought to exclude his statements. The court suppressed them because the statements were obtained during custodial interrogation without the required advisements.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
State prosecutors subpoenaed Kathleen to testify before a grand jury about bid rigging. She invoked the privilege but was compelled to answer without immunity and admitted accepting payments. Prosecutors later sought to use her testimony in a bribery trial. The court excluded the statements because the Fifth Amendment privilege applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Officers directed a hospital to draw Frank Fisher's blood after a DUI arrest. Fisher objected that the procedure violated his Fifth Amendment right. The court admitted the results because the blood sample was physical evidence rather than compelled testimony.
Officers arrested Francois Fortier without probable cause and obtained a statement that led them to a witness. The witness later identified Fortier at trial. The court suppressed the identification because it was obtained as a result of the initial illegality.
Prosecutors subpoenaed Felicity French before a grand jury and granted her use and derivative-use immunity. She still refused to testify. The court held her in contempt because the immunity adequately protected her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
No. A witness who testifies on another matter does not waive the privilege against self-incrimination for testimony that relates only to character for truthfulness.
Supporting sources
Yes. Once the privilege is invoked, the government may not use the testimony in a later prosecution unless it first grants immunity from prosecution.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege protects only against a real and appreciable risk of criminal liability. Exposure limited to civil consequences does not support invocation.
Supporting sources
…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…