How have courts interpreted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Cahill, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 5 Cal.4th 478, 853 P2d 1037 (Cal. 1993):

Thus, in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, supra, 378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, the court declared at page 55, 84 S.Ct. at page 1596: "The privilege against self-incrimination 'registers an important advance in the development of our liberty--"one of the great landmarks in man's struggle to make himself civilized." ' [Citation.] It reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations," including "our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice" and "our sense of fair play which dictates 'a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government to leave the individual alone until good cause is shown for disturbing him and by requiring the government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load[.]' " (Fn. omitted.)

In Malloy v. Hogan, supra, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653, the court observed at pages 7 to 8, 84 S.Ct. at page 1493: "[T]he American system of criminal prosecution is accusatorial, not inquisitorial, and ... the Fifth Amendment privilege is its essential mainstay. [Citation.] Governments, state and federal, are thus constitutionally compelled to establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured, and may not by coercion prove a charge against an accused out of his own mouth."

And in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, the court elaborated at page 460, 86 S.Ct. at page 1620: "[T]he constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government--state or federal--must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. To maintain a 'fair state-individual balance,' to require the government 'to shoulder the entire load,' [citation], to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth."

Other Questions


In what circumstances will the court uphold a finding that appellant voluntarily and knowingly waived her Fifth Amendment right to the Fifth Amendment? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination? (California, United States of America)
When will the court allow the government to cross-examine a witness who has previously waived his Fifth Amendment privilege? (California, United States of America)
Can an appellate court amend an order of the Superior Court of Appeal in cases not before the court? (California, United States of America)
How has the Fifth Amendment been interpreted by the US Supreme Court? (California, United States of America)
Can an appellate court amend an order made by the Superior Court of Justice in a case not before the court? (California, United States of America)
Does the Fifth Amendment privilege apply outside of the criminal court proceedings? (California, United States of America)
What is the current state of the law regarding the privilege of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination? (California, United States of America)
Can an appellate court amend an order made by the Superior Court of Justice in a case not before the court? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.