Self-IncriminationIn addition to the guarantee of a jury trial, the Fifth Amendment states that no person “shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The accused, however, cannot simply avoid testifying because of potential embarrassment. Rather, they must have a legitimate concern that their testimony will contribute to their conviction of a crime. Persons accused of crimes or witnesses in legal proceedings will often invoke this right by “pleading the Fifth” or by “claiming their Fifth Amendment rights.” Most Americans (at least those who have watched any “cop” shows), know that when someone is arrested, they must be “read their rights.” The “reading of rights” to an accused individual is often referred to as the “Miranda warning.” (The warning is named after an individual who maintained that he was not aware of his Fifth Amendment rights when he confessed to a crime immediately after being arrested.) In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court concluded: The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given. Assessments of the knowledge the defendant possessed, based on information as to his age, education, intelligence, or prior contact with authorities, can never be more than speculation; a warning is a clearcut fact. More important, whatever the background of the person interrogated, a warning at the time of the interrogation is indispensable to overcome its pressures and to insure that the individual knows he is free to exercise the privilege at that point in time.In many instances, a prosecutor or investigator would rather hear what an individual has to say than attempt to prosecute them based on their testimony. In such cases, individuals may be granted immunity in exchange for providing information about a crime. For example, in the investigation of President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Lewinsky was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony about her relationship with Clinton. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity to persons suspected of committing lesser crimes if their testimonies might help convict a more prominent suspect of a more serious crime.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License |