Also known as: Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum · Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare · nemo tenetur · privilege against self-incrimination · right to silence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin maxim stating the principle that no individual is obligated to furnish evidence that would incriminate himself in a criminal proceeding. The maxim protects against compelled testimonial disclosures that could tie a person to criminal conduct or furnish leads to such evidence.
Stephanie testified on direct about her revenue calculations and occupancy reporting. On cross-examination counsel asked whether she had skimmed cash tips and failed to report the income. Stephanie asserted the privilege. The court sustained the objection because the inquiry related only to character for truthfulness.
Everett received a subpoena to a regulatory hearing and was asked whether he had signed off on components he knew had failed pressure tests. He refused to answer, asserting that any response would furnish a lead to evidence of falsifying safety records. The court upheld the invocation because the testimony would tie him to potential criminal conduct.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Officers arrested Felicity on suspicion of paying kickbacks and questioned her at the stationhouse. They did not advise her of her rights before asking about falsifying clinical trial reports. Felicity made incriminating statements that prosecutors later sought to introduce at trial.
Agents arrested Felicity and gave Miranda warnings. She invoked her right to remain silent. Two days later different agents gave fresh warnings and questioned her about a separate offense. Felicity made statements that were later offered at trial.
State university officials and campus police questioned Cassandra in her office about falsified research grants. They warned that refusal to answer could result in termination and criminal referral. Cassandra provided admissions that prosecutors later sought to use in a criminal case.
Kimberly was tried for mail fraud. The court instructed the jury that it could consider her decision not to testify as evidence of guilt. Defense counsel did not object. Kimberly was convicted and appealed on the ground that the instruction violated her constitutional protection.
No. A witness who testifies on another matter does not waive the privilege against self-incrimination when the cross-examination inquiry relates only to character for truthfulness.
Supporting sources
Testimony is incriminating if it would tie the witness to the commission of a crime or furnish a lead to evidence that could tie the witness to a crime. The testimony need not itself establish guilt.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and binds state officials in the same manner as federal officials.
Supporting sources
Yes, provided officers scrupulously honor the invocation by immediately stopping, waiting a significant period, giving fresh warnings, and limiting the new interview to a different offense.
Supporting sources
…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…