In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution, any statements made as a result of custodial interrogation may be admissible in trial only if the government can demonstrate that the defendant: (1) was informed prior to the interrogation of his or her right to consult an attorney and right against self-incrimination; (2) understood these rights; and (3) voluntarily waived these rights.
self-incrimination
Definition
The act of implicating oneself in a crime or exposing oneself to criminal prosecution. Self-incrimination may occur as a result of interrogation or may be made voluntarily. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects a person from being compelled to incriminate oneself. Also termed self-crimination; self-inculpation.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
The making of statements that might expose the maker to criminal prosecution, either now or in the future. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing a person to provide evidence (as in answering questions) that might lead to prosecution for a crime.
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:24 pm
“Statements compelled by police interrogations of course may not be used against a defendant at trial, see Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 286, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936), but it is not until their use in a criminal case that a violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause occurs, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 264, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990) (‘The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. Although conduct by law enforcement officials prior to trial may ultimately impair that right, a constitutional violation occurs only at trial’ (emphases added; citations omitted)); Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 692, 113 S.Ct. 1745, 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (describing the Fifth Amendment as a ‘ “trial right” ’); id., at 705, 113 S.Ct. 1745 (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (describing ‘true Fifth Amendment claims’ as ‘the extraction and use of compelled testimony’ (emphasis altered)).
“Here, Martinez was never made to be a ‘witness’ against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause because his statements were never admitted as testimony against him in a criminal case. Nor was he ever placed under oath and exposed to ‘ “the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.” ’ Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 445, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974) (quoting Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52, 55, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964)). The text of the Self-Incrimination Clause simply cannot support the Ninth Circuit’s view that the mere use of compulsive questioning, without more, violates the Constitution.”
J. Thomas, Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 767 (2003).
