Fifth Amendment : Due Process and self –incrimination

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a critical component of the Bill of Rights, encompassing several fundamental principles of justice and liberty. Among its provisions, two stand out for their significant impact on American jurisprudence: the protection against self-incrimination and the guarantee of due process. These clauses have played pivotal roles in shaping the legal landscape and safeguarding individual rights

The Fifth Amendment states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This text lays out several protections, but the focus here is on the due process and self-incrimination clauses.

Due Process of Law

The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This clause has been interpreted to encompass both procedural and substantive due process.

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process refers to the legal procedures that must be followed to protect the rights of individuals. It ensures fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially in matters of life, liberty, or property.

The core idea is that the government must provide a fair process before depriving a person of these fundamental rights. This includes the right to a fair trial, the right to be heard, and the right to an impartial tribunal.

For instance, in the landmark case of Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), the Supreme Court held that due process requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits can be deprived of those benefits. This case highlighted the necessity for a fair process, including the right to be heard and the right to confront adverse witnesses.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process, on the other hand, protects individuals from arbitrary or unjust laws that may infringe on fundamental rights. It goes beyond the procedures to consider whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person's life, liberty, or property.

A notable example of substantive due process in action is the case of Roe v. Wade (1973), where the Supreme Court recognized a woman's right to privacy, including the right to make decisions about her own body, as a fundamental right protected by substantive due process. The Court ruled that state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional as they violated a woman's right to privacy Protection Against Self-Incrimination

The protection against self-incrimination is another cornerstone of the Fifth Amendment. This clause states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This protection means that individuals cannot be forced to testify against themselves during criminal proceedings, which is a fundamental aspect of the adversarial system of justice.

The Right to Remain Silent

The most famous application of this protection is encapsulated in the "Miranda rights." In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights before being interrogated by the police. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The Court emphasized that without such warnings, any statements made by the suspect could not be used as evidence in court.

The Scope of the Privilege

The privilege against self-incrimination applies not only in criminal trials but also in any proceeding where the individual’s statements might later be used in a criminal case. This includes civil cases, legislative hearings, and even administrative proceedings. The protection aims to prevent the government from coercing individuals into confessing guilt or providing evidence that could lead to their conviction.

However, there are limits to this protection. For instance, the privilege does not apply to physical evidence such as fingerprints, blood samples, or handwriting exemplars. Additionally, if an individual voluntarily waives their right against self-incrimination, any statements made can be used in court.

1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Background: The case of Ernesto Miranda, who confessed to crimes without being informed of his right to remain silent or to have an attorney, led to one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions in American history.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to inform suspects of their rights before interrogation. These rights, known as Miranda rights, include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If these rights are not communicated, any statement made by the suspect cannot be used as evidence in court.

Impact: This decision established the procedural safeguards that police must follow, fundamentally altering law enforcement practices across the United States. The Miranda warning has become a crucial part of police procedure.

2. Malloy v. Hogan (1964)

Background: This case involved William Malloy, who was imprisoned for contempt when he refused to testify in a state inquiry on gambling, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This decision extended the protection against self-incrimination beyond federal cases to include state cases.

Impact: By incorporating the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination into the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ensured that this fundamental right applies uniformly across all states.

3. Griffin v. California (1965)

Background: In this case, Edward Griffin chose not to testify at his own trial for murder. During the trial, the prosecutor and the judge made comments suggesting that his silence was evidence of guilt.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment forbids the prosecution from commenting on the defendant's silence or the judge from instructing the jury that silence is evidence of guilt.

Impact: This ruling reinforced the principle that a defendant’s silence cannot be used against them in a court of law, thereby protecting the integrity of the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.

4. Schmerber v. California (1966)

Background: After a car accident, the police instructed hospital staff to draw blood from Armando Schmerber to determine his blood alcohol content without his consent. Schmerber argued that this violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment protects against testimonial compulsion, not against the collection of physical evidence. Therefore, taking a blood sample did not violate Schmerber’s Fifth Amendment rights.

Impact: This decision clarified that the protection against self incrimination applies specifically to compelled communications or testimony, not to physical evidence like blood samples or fingerprints.

5. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004)

Background: Larry Hiibel was arrested for refusing to identify himself to police during an investigative stop, arguing that this violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that requiring a suspect to disclose their name during a stop does not violate the Fifth Amendment, as long as the request is reasonably related to the circumstances of the stop.

Impact: This ruling clarified the limits of the Fifth Amendment, establishing that the right against self-incrimination does not extend to basic biographical information during a lawful stop.

6. Salinas v. Texas (2013)

Background: Genovevo Salinas voluntarily answered some police questions but remained silent when asked whether ballistic evidence would match his shotgun. His silence was used against him in court, leading to his conviction.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination does not apply to individuals who remain silent without expressly invoking their right to do so.

Impact: This decision emphasized the importance of explicitly invoking the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, rather than relying on silence alone to afford protection.

Conclusion

The right against self-incrimination is a cornerstone of American constitutional law, ensuring that individuals cannot be forced to testify against themselves. The Supreme Court’s judgments on this issue have both clarified and expanded the scope of this protection, adapting it to various contexts and ensuring its application across both federal and state levels. These decisions collectively underscore the fundamental principle that the government bears the burden of proving guilt without the coerced assistance of the accused.