Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Privilege Against Compelled Production of Evidence Later Usable Against an Accused
Leading case
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892)
How courts have described it
noting that the Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted if one is "compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action" (emphasis added)
Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)
listing a sample of cases, including preframing eases, in which the privilege was asserted, none of which involve fear of foreign prosecution
United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)
listing a sample of cases, including preframing cases, in which the privilege was asserted, none of which involve fear of foreign prosecution
United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)
explaining that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted if one is "compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action"
United States v. Joshua Riley, 920 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2019)
holding that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination “must have a broad construction in favor of the right which it was intended to secure”
Anderer, Joseph R. v. Jones, Arthur (7th Cir. 2005)
considering the constitutionality of a federal immunity statute for the first time and declaring it unconstitutional because it did “not afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offence to which the question relates”
United States v. Aloyzas Balsys, 119 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 1997)
reviewing federal provision and various state provisions and stating that “however differently worded, [the provisions] should have as far as possible the same interpretation”
Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (Ga. 2019)
providing that the objective of the privilege against self-incrimination is “to insure that a person should not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime”
State v. George, 52 A.3d 903 (Me. 2012)
noting that the Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted if one is `compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action' ....
Maldonado v. Superior Court, 274 P.3d 1110 (Cal. 2012)
holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings
Ajabu v. State, 693 N.E.2d 921 (Ind. 1998)
Related doctrines
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.