Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

privilege against self-incrimination

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 341 U.S. 479 - Hoffman v. United States · 1951Most cited · 4,204 citing opinions

The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.

How the Supreme Court has restated “privilege against self-incrimination”

1944195019601968 most cited: 341 U.S. 479 - Hoffman v. United States (1951)
first statedevolveddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “privilege against self-incrimination,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “privilege against self-incrimination”

189019001925195019752000202520303.6k

Court decisions citing the 10 opinions that defined “privilege against self-incrimination” — 13,877 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 11 definitions, chronological · 1944–1968

  1. ORIGINAL

    The immunity from prosecution, like the privilege against testifying which it supplants, pertains to a prosecution in the same jurisdiction.

    jurisdictional scope

  2. 1944·322 U.S. 694 - United States v. White[p7]· cited 1,836×

    The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is essentially a personal one, applying only to natural individuals. It grows out of the high sentiment and regard of our jurisprudence for conducting criminal trials and investigatory proceedings upon a plane of dignity, humanity and impartiality. It is designed to prevent the use of legal process to force from the lips of the accused individual the evidence necessary to convict him or to force him to produce and authenticate any personal documents or effects that might incriminate him.

  3. 1951·340 U.S. 367 - Rogers v. United States[p3]· cited 2,175×

    the privilege against self-incrimination 'is solely for the benefit of the witness'... 'is purely a personal privilege of the witness.' A refusal to answer cannot be justified by a desire to protect others from punishment.

    personal nature

  4. that privilege has relation only to past acts, not to future acts that may or may not be committed

  5. no ritualistic formula or talismanic phrase is essential in order to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. All that is necessary is an objection stated in language that a committee may reasonably be expected to understand as an attempt to invoke the privilege.

    invocation standard

  6. The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury. As we pointed out in Ullmann, a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

  7. 1958·357 U.S. 371 - Knapp v. Schweitzer[p14]· cited 222×

    The sole—although deeply valuable—purpose of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is the security of the individual against the exertion of the power of the Federal Government to compel incriminating testimony with a view to enabling that same Government to convict a man out of his own mouth.

    Fifth Amendment

  8. the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is not an adjunct to the ascertainment of truth. That privilege, like the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, stands as a protection of quite different constitutional values—values reflecting the concern of our society for the right of each individual to be let alone.

    relationship to truth-finding

  9. the basic purposes that lie behind the privilege against self-incrimination do not relate to protecting the innocent from conviction, but rather to preserving the integrity of a judicial system in which even the guilty are not to be convicted unless the prosecution 'shoulder the entire load.

    basic purpose

  10. the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is 'essentially a personal one, applying only to natural individuals.' It 'cannot be utilized by or on behalf of any organization, such as a corporation.