Also known as: incriminates · incriminated · incriminating · incrimination · incriminatory · self-incrimination
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statement or act that tends to link a person to the commission of a crime or to supply a lead to evidence of criminal conduct. The connection must be real and appreciable rather than speculative or remote.
Ian Iverson testified on direct about revenue calculations at his firm. On cross-examination the opposing lawyer asked whether Ian had previously skimmed cash from client accounts without reporting the income. Ian's counsel objected and asserted the privilege. The court sustained the objection because the inquiry related only to character for truthfulness.
During a lawful Terry stop, an officer patted down Isaiah Ishikawa and felt a small hard object in his pocket. The officer immediately recognized the object as a crack pipe by its distinctive shape and texture. The officer seized the pipe without further manipulation. The seizure was upheld because the incriminating character was immediately apparent.
Israel Irving was taken into custody and questioned for hours about falsifying records. Officers never advised him of his rights. Irving eventually signed a detailed statement admitting the falsifications. The statement was suppressed because it was obtained through custodial interrogation without the required warnings.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View caseIsabella Ingram was subpoenaed before a grand jury and granted use and derivative-use immunity. She still refused to answer questions about her role in a price-fixing scheme. The court ordered her to testify because the immunity eliminated any risk that her answers could be used to incriminate her.
In February 1971 petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California investigating violations of federal gambling and related laws. The government believed that petitioners were likely to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Prior to the scheduled appearances, the government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003. Petitioners opposed issuance of the order, contending that the scope of the immunity provided by the statute was not coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and therefore was not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel their testimony. The District Court rejected this contention and ordered petitioners to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions under the grant of immunity. Petitioners appeared but refused to answer questions, asserting their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. They were brought before the District Court, and each persisted in his refusal to answer the grand jury's questions notwithstanding the grant of immunity. The court found both in contempt and committed them to the custody of the Attorney General until either they answered the grand jury's questions or the term of the grand jury expired. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt findings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether testimony may be compelled by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom or whether transactional immunity is necessary.
View caseIbrahim Iqbal was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Officers directed a physician to draw a blood sample without his consent. The results were admitted at trial over his objection. The sample was not testimonial and therefore did not implicate the privilege against self-incrimination.
Petitioner Schmerber and a companion had been drinking at a tavern and bowling alley on November 12, 1964. Petitioner was driving from the bowling alley about midnight when the car skidded, crossed the road, and struck a tree. Both petitioner and his companion were injured and taken to a hospital for treatment. A police officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident smelled liquor on petitioner's breath and testified that petitioner's eyes were bloodshot, watery, and sort of a glassy appearance. The officer saw petitioner again at the hospital within two hours of the accident and noticed similar symptoms of drunkenness. He thereupon informed petitioner that he was under arrest and that he was entitled to the services of an attorney, that he could remain silent, and that anything he told the officer would be used against him in evidence. At the direction of a police officer, a blood sample was then withdrawn from petitioner's body by a physician at the hospital. The chemical analysis of this sample revealed a percent by weight of alcohol in his blood at the time of the offense which indicated intoxication. The report of this analysis was admitted in evidence at the trial. Petitioner objected to receipt of this evidence of the analysis on the ground that the blood had been withdrawn despite his refusal, on the advice of his counsel, to consent to the test. Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles Municipal Court of the criminal offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Appellate Department of the California Superior Court rejected petitioner's contentions and affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseIsmael Ibrahim was subjected to an unconstitutional search of his apartment. Agents seized documents containing admissions of tax evasion. The documents were suppressed because they were obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation and their use would compel the defendant to incriminate himself.
A question tends to incriminate when a reasonable person in the witness's position would apprehend that an answer could furnish a lead to evidence of criminal conduct. The risk must be real and appreciable rather than speculative. The privilege applies even if the answer would not itself establish guilt.
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. The court must sustain an objection asserting the privilege in that situation.
No. The privilege protects only testimonial communications. Physical evidence such as blood samples, fingerprints, or handwriting exemplars is not testimonial and therefore does not implicate the privilege against self-incrimination.
…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…