Also known as: nemo tenetur seipsum prodere · nemo tenetur · nemo tenetur se ipsum prodere · privilege against self-incrimination · right against self-incrimination
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A foundational principle providing that no individual may be compelled to furnish testimonial evidence that could be used against him in a criminal prosecution.
Neville Norton testified on direct about his company's revenue figures. On cross-examination the opposing party asked whether he had lied on a prior job application about his educational background. Norton asserted the privilege. The court sustained the objection because the inquiry concerned only character for truthfulness.
Nestor Navarro appeared before a grand jury under subpoena and was asked whether he had steered city contracts in exchange for cash. An affirmative answer would furnish a lead to evidence of bribery. Navarro invoked the privilege and refused to answer.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nia Nkosi was isolated in a conference room by armed federal agents who questioned her for hours about falsifying safety records. The agents gave no warnings and discouraged her from contacting counsel. Nkosi eventually signed a confession that the prosecutor later sought to introduce at trial.
Natalie Norris was summoned before a state ethics commission and threatened with contempt and loss of pension if she refused to answer questions about contractor kickbacks. Norris asserted the privilege. The commission referred her for criminal contempt in state court.
Nadia Novak appeared before a state administrative hearing and was ordered to answer questions about falsifying grant applications. She refused on the ground that truthful answers would expose her to federal criminal liability. The hearing officer sought to hold her in contempt.
Natasha Nielsen was read her rights during custodial questioning and remained silent for hours. Later at trial the prosecutor commented on her failure to speak. Nielsen moved to exclude the comments as burdening the privilege.
The maxim protects only against compelled testimonial communications that could be used in a criminal case. It does not apply to physical evidence such as handwriting or blood samples, nor does it bar civil liability alone.
Supporting sources
Yes. Testimony on a different subject does not waive the privilege for questions that relate only to character for truthfulness.
Supporting sources
Yes. The privilege is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore binds state officials and state courts.
Supporting sources
The witness must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension that a truthful answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to criminal liability.
Supporting sources
Once warnings are given, the government may not use post-warning silence as substantive evidence of guilt.
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…