Also known as: testimonial compulsions · compelled testimony · compelled self-incrimination
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The government compulsion of an individual to communicate information drawn from the contents of the mind that may tend to incriminate the individual in a criminal proceeding. The protection applies only when the evidence is testimonial in character rather than physical or real evidence obtained without communicative acts by the accused.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Theodore Tucker was taken to the station after a traffic stop and questioned for two hours about a robbery while officers withheld any advice of rights. His detailed answers supplied the only direct link to the crime. Because the questioning occurred in custody and produced testimonial statements without warnings, the statements cannot be introduced at trial.
Tracy Torres received a state grand-jury subpoena requiring her to testify about her role in preparing documents later alleged to be fraudulent. She asserted the privilege on the ground that truthful answers would expose her to criminal liability. The state court must honor the claim because the Fifth Amendment privilege applies to state proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Tyler Taylor was arrested for driving under the influence and a nurse drew a blood sample at the hospital on police order. The chemical analysis revealed an illegal blood-alcohol level. The results are admissible because the extraction and testing involved no communicative act by Taylor and therefore did not constitute testimonial compulsion.
Tanya Tang, a journalist, was subpoenaed to identify a confidential source who supplied documents showing judicial bribery. She moved to quash on First Amendment grounds. The court denied the motion because the First Amendment does not create a privilege that overrides the ordinary testimonial obligation to appear and answer relevant questions before a good-faith grand jury.
Tyrone Tran was pulled over for a broken taillight and asked routine questions about his travel plans while still in his vehicle. The officer did not place Tran in custody or deliver warnings. Tran's answers are admissible because the brief roadside encounter did not rise to the level of custodial interrogation that triggers the need for warnings before testimonial statements may be used.
Tara Tran appeared under subpoena before a federal grand jury investigating public corruption and invoked the privilege when asked about her own payments from a contractor. After the government granted use and derivative-use immunity, the court ordered her to answer. The compelled testimony may be used against her only if the prosecution shows it was obtained independently of the immunized statements.
Yes. The Fifth Amendment privilege applies to any person compelled to give testimonial evidence that might tend to incriminate her, whether she appears in federal or state court and whether she is formally a defendant or simply a witness. Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment makes the protection fully applicable to state proceedings.
Supporting sources
…forbids interrogation except in the presence of counsel. That is, instead of confining itself to protection of the right against compelled self-incrimination the Court has created a limited Fifth Amendment right to counsel—or, as the Court expresses it, a "need for counsel to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege . . . ." Ante , at 470. The…
…to have excluded from criminal trials any evidence illegally seized; the right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to be free of compelled self-incrimination; and the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to confrontation of opposing witnesses, and to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. The test for…
…if not fears, of its own shadowy distinction between compelling “physical evidence” like blood which it holds does not amount to compelled self-incrimination, and “eliciting responses which are essentially
…Court held that "a state witness may not be compelled to give testimony
…privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a
She must appear. A valid subpoena compels appearance and the taking of an oath. Once there, the witness may refuse to answer particular questions if truthful answers might tend to incriminate her, but the privilege does not create a blanket right to avoid appearing before the grand jury.
Supporting sources
No. Extraction and chemical analysis of blood involve no communicative act by the accused and therefore fall outside the Fifth Amendment privilege. The results are admissible even though obtained through compulsion because the evidence is physical rather than testimonial.
Supporting sources
No. Once the privilege is invoked, the government must grant adequate immunity before the statements may be used. Without immunity the compelled testimony is inadmissible in any subsequent criminal case against the witness.
Supporting sources