Also known as: self incrimination doctrine · privilege against self-incrimination · Fifth Amendment privilege
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection that prevents the government from compelling an individual to provide testimony that could be used against them in a criminal proceeding. The protection covers only testimonial communications and does not extend to physical evidence or noncommunicative acts.
Skylar Sullivan testified on direct about revenue calculations at her firm. On cross-examination opposing counsel asked whether she had skimmed cash tips and failed to report them on her taxes. Skylar asserted the privilege and refused to answer. The court sustained the objection because the inquiry concerned only her character for truthfulness.
Simon Stern was taken to a small windowless room at the station and questioned for several hours about a missing shipment. Officers never advised him of his rights. Stern eventually admitted his involvement. The statements were excluded because no warnings had been given before the custodial interrogation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Scott Summers faced state charges for falsifying procurement records. At a preliminary hearing he refused to answer questions that would link him to the documents. The state court applied the federal privilege and excused him from testifying.
Sophia Singh was taken to the hospital after a collision. Officers directed a physician to draw blood without her consent. The results were admitted at trial because the extraction produced only physical evidence rather than compelled testimony.
Santiago Sanchez gave a statement to officers after an unlawful arrest. The statement led police to a warehouse containing incriminating documents. The documents were suppressed as fruit of the unlawful arrest.
Sierra Santos was subpoenaed before a grand jury investigating a conspiracy. The government granted her use and derivative-use immunity. She then answered questions about her role. The later prosecution could not use her compelled testimony or any evidence derived from it.
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.
Supporting sources
Warnings are required before any custodial interrogation. A statement obtained without the warnings is inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege protects only testimonial communications. Physical evidence such as blood samples may be compelled without violating the Fifth Amendment.
Use and derivative-use immunity prevents the government from using the compelled testimony or any evidence derived from it in a later prosecution.
…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…