Also known as: Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare · Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare · privilege against self-incrimination · right against self-incrimination
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional privilege that protects a person from being compelled to provide testimony that could be used against them in a criminal case. The protection extends to answers that would furnish a lead to incriminating evidence and applies only when the risk is of criminal liability rather than civil exposure.
Naomi Norton testified on direct about revenue calculations at her company. On cross-examination counsel asked whether she had skimmed cash tips and failed to report the income. Her lawyer asserted the privilege because the question concerned only her character for truthfulness. The court sustained the objection and barred the inquiry.
Nigel Nelson appeared before a grand jury investigating procurement fraud. The prosecutor asked whether Nelson had signed off on safety reports he knew were false. Nelson refused to answer claiming any response would furnish a lead to evidence of criminal falsification. The court upheld the invocation because the question created a realistic risk of criminal liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nora Nash was arrested and questioned at the station about a theft. Officers never advised her of her rights before asking about her involvement. Nash made incriminating statements that the prosecution later sought to introduce. The court suppressed the statements because the questioning occurred without the required warnings.
Neville Norton faced state charges and sought to suppress statements obtained during a lengthy interrogation. He argued that the state procedures failed to protect his right against compelled self-incrimination. The court applied the federal standard to the state proceeding and excluded the statements.
Nia Nkosi refused to answer questions in a state civil contempt hearing fearing criminal exposure. The state court held her in contempt for the refusal. On review the federal court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege applies fully to state proceedings and overturned the contempt finding.
Natasha Nielsen gave a statement during federal questioning after officers relied on a statute that purported to limit the privilege. Defense counsel moved to suppress the statement at trial. The court ruled that the constitutional privilege could not be overridden by statute and excluded the evidence.
Yes. Testimony is incriminating if it would tie the witness to a crime or furnish a lead to such evidence. The answer need not itself establish guilt.
Yes. Testimony on another matter does not waive the privilege for questions that relate only to the witness's character for truthfulness.
Yes. The privilege is incorporated against the states and applies fully to state criminal and civil proceedings that carry a risk of criminal liability.
No. The constitutional privilege cannot be displaced by a federal statute that attempts to limit or override it.
…from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any…