Under what conditions can the right to remain silent be revoked in the USA?












1















To quote this article about Chelsea Manning's jailing:




She said prosecutors have granted her immunity for her testimony, which eliminates her ability to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.




I don't understand how granting immunity for a testimony can eliminate the right to remain silent?



linked: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/23980/6057










share|improve this question




















  • 8





    The right is to not incriminate yourself, not to remain silent. If your speech cannot incriminate you, then you can't say 'Im remaining silent to avoid incriminating myself'

    – Orangesandlemons
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @Orangesandlemons that's an answer, not a comment.

    – phoog
    3 hours ago
















1















To quote this article about Chelsea Manning's jailing:




She said prosecutors have granted her immunity for her testimony, which eliminates her ability to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.




I don't understand how granting immunity for a testimony can eliminate the right to remain silent?



linked: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/23980/6057










share|improve this question




















  • 8





    The right is to not incriminate yourself, not to remain silent. If your speech cannot incriminate you, then you can't say 'Im remaining silent to avoid incriminating myself'

    – Orangesandlemons
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @Orangesandlemons that's an answer, not a comment.

    – phoog
    3 hours ago














1












1








1








To quote this article about Chelsea Manning's jailing:




She said prosecutors have granted her immunity for her testimony, which eliminates her ability to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.




I don't understand how granting immunity for a testimony can eliminate the right to remain silent?



linked: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/23980/6057










share|improve this question
















To quote this article about Chelsea Manning's jailing:




She said prosecutors have granted her immunity for her testimony, which eliminates her ability to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.




I don't understand how granting immunity for a testimony can eliminate the right to remain silent?



linked: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/23980/6057







united-states law human-rights






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 57 mins ago









TheLeopard

1,336418




1,336418










asked 7 hours ago









toogleytoogley

347118




347118








  • 8





    The right is to not incriminate yourself, not to remain silent. If your speech cannot incriminate you, then you can't say 'Im remaining silent to avoid incriminating myself'

    – Orangesandlemons
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @Orangesandlemons that's an answer, not a comment.

    – phoog
    3 hours ago














  • 8





    The right is to not incriminate yourself, not to remain silent. If your speech cannot incriminate you, then you can't say 'Im remaining silent to avoid incriminating myself'

    – Orangesandlemons
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @Orangesandlemons that's an answer, not a comment.

    – phoog
    3 hours ago








8




8





The right is to not incriminate yourself, not to remain silent. If your speech cannot incriminate you, then you can't say 'Im remaining silent to avoid incriminating myself'

– Orangesandlemons
7 hours ago





The right is to not incriminate yourself, not to remain silent. If your speech cannot incriminate you, then you can't say 'Im remaining silent to avoid incriminating myself'

– Orangesandlemons
7 hours ago




2




2





@Orangesandlemons that's an answer, not a comment.

– phoog
3 hours ago





@Orangesandlemons that's an answer, not a comment.

– phoog
3 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5














The actual wording of the Fifth Admendment is




No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...




Once a person has been granted immunity, that person's testimony cannot be used against him or her, and so compelling testimony does not violate this right.



A person asserting this right ("Pleading the Fifth") must have a reasonable belief that the testimony might actually be used in a criminal proceeding against him or her.



In Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) at page 68 it is pointed out that




the danger of prosecution "must be real and appreciable . . . , not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character. . . ."




(quoting The Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, a English case decided by the Queen's Bench in 1861)




In The Queen v. Boyes a witness had declined to answer a question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him, whereupon the




"Solicitor General then produced a pardon of the witness."




The witness nevertheless refused to answer the question on the ground that he could still be impeached by the Parliament. The court held




"that the danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things -- not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct. . . ."





(from Footnote 7 of Murphy)



Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, reviews the history of grants of immunity is some detail, and is worth reading for those interested in the subject. In that case the rule against self-incrimination was made fully applicable to the states, and State and Federal governments were each required to honor grants of immunity by the other.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




























    2














    Go to the actual text of the Fifth Amendment:




    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.




    On a strictly literal reading, this is a very narrow right, which can only be violated if:




    1. There is a criminal trial.

    2. A witness is called during the trial.

    3. The witness is the defendant.

    4. The testimony is compelled.


    However, the actual law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is closer to the following:




    1. There is a possibility of criminal prosecution.

    2. Someone gives testimony which could be used to prosecute that crime.

    3. The witness could potentially be a defendant.

    4. The testimony is compelled. If the witness was in custody, this requirement is assumed and must be rebutted by an explicit waiver of rights.


    Transactional (sometimes called "blanket" or "total") immunity eliminates #3 (by making the witness not liable for the crime at all), and "use and derivative use" immunity eliminates #2 (by making the statements inadmissible at trial). In Kastigar v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that use and derivative use immunity is sufficient to avoid offending the Fifth Amendment in federal cases. State cases are complicated by the additional rights afforded by the constitutions of each state, and the requirements therefore vary by state.






    share|improve this answer


























    • In the actual interpretation section, shouldn't "gives testimony" be "makes a statement"? For example, statements made in response to a police interrogation are not testimony, yet it is well known that the Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment prevents police from compelling such statements.

      – phoog
      3 hours ago











    • @phoog: No, because "testimony" does not exclusively refer to statements made during a trial or before a grand jury. It would indeed include statements made in response to a police interrogation. However, it typically would not include, for example, the production of documents or physical evidence. The word "testimonial" is specifically used when evaluating whether something is eligible for Fifth Amendment protections, so removing it from my answer would be misleading at best.

      – Kevin
      2 hours ago













    • @phoog actually, the fifth amendment's provision against self-incrimination does not, directly, prohibit forced confessions or police abuse. What it does is render such statements inadmissible in court, i.e that cannot be used as testimony. It also excludes evidence found by aid of such statements i.e "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police abuse can be addressed by section 1983 suits.

      – David Siegel
      2 hours ago



















    0














    Yes, immunity from prosecution can be granted, at which point a person in the US can't refuse to testify on the basis of self incrimination, because whatever they won't say can't be used to prosecute them - per the grant of immunity.



    However, grants of immunity are typically specific, not a general absolution of any criminal behavior. The prosecution agrees not to charge the person on specific crimes, to get them to testify in court, presumably to go after a much greater criminal.



    In this case, a grand jury wants Manning to testify. Unless the questions fall into the specific grant of immunity given to Manning, she can take the 5th.



    Instead, Manning refuses to answer any questions. Her actions are now contempt of court, and typically for cases like this, she goes to jail until either she testifies, or the grand jury's term expires. Another grand jury can be empaneled to replace the expired one, can ask the same question, and can jail her again if she refuses to testify.



    This is a telling line from that article:




    “I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to,
    particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists
    for protected political speech,” she said in a statement released
    after she was taken into custody.




    Morally objecting to a secret process is not grounds for refusing to testify. It is also well established in US law that an unauthorized release of classified information is not protected political speech.






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "475"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39307%2funder-what-conditions-can-the-right-to-remain-silent-be-revoked-in-the-usa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5














      The actual wording of the Fifth Admendment is




      No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...




      Once a person has been granted immunity, that person's testimony cannot be used against him or her, and so compelling testimony does not violate this right.



      A person asserting this right ("Pleading the Fifth") must have a reasonable belief that the testimony might actually be used in a criminal proceeding against him or her.



      In Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) at page 68 it is pointed out that




      the danger of prosecution "must be real and appreciable . . . , not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character. . . ."




      (quoting The Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, a English case decided by the Queen's Bench in 1861)




      In The Queen v. Boyes a witness had declined to answer a question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him, whereupon the




      "Solicitor General then produced a pardon of the witness."




      The witness nevertheless refused to answer the question on the ground that he could still be impeached by the Parliament. The court held




      "that the danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things -- not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct. . . ."





      (from Footnote 7 of Murphy)



      Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, reviews the history of grants of immunity is some detail, and is worth reading for those interested in the subject. In that case the rule against self-incrimination was made fully applicable to the states, and State and Federal governments were each required to honor grants of immunity by the other.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.

























        5














        The actual wording of the Fifth Admendment is




        No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...




        Once a person has been granted immunity, that person's testimony cannot be used against him or her, and so compelling testimony does not violate this right.



        A person asserting this right ("Pleading the Fifth") must have a reasonable belief that the testimony might actually be used in a criminal proceeding against him or her.



        In Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) at page 68 it is pointed out that




        the danger of prosecution "must be real and appreciable . . . , not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character. . . ."




        (quoting The Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, a English case decided by the Queen's Bench in 1861)




        In The Queen v. Boyes a witness had declined to answer a question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him, whereupon the




        "Solicitor General then produced a pardon of the witness."




        The witness nevertheless refused to answer the question on the ground that he could still be impeached by the Parliament. The court held




        "that the danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things -- not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct. . . ."





        (from Footnote 7 of Murphy)



        Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, reviews the history of grants of immunity is some detail, and is worth reading for those interested in the subject. In that case the rule against self-incrimination was made fully applicable to the states, and State and Federal governments were each required to honor grants of immunity by the other.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.























          5












          5








          5







          The actual wording of the Fifth Admendment is




          No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...




          Once a person has been granted immunity, that person's testimony cannot be used against him or her, and so compelling testimony does not violate this right.



          A person asserting this right ("Pleading the Fifth") must have a reasonable belief that the testimony might actually be used in a criminal proceeding against him or her.



          In Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) at page 68 it is pointed out that




          the danger of prosecution "must be real and appreciable . . . , not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character. . . ."




          (quoting The Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, a English case decided by the Queen's Bench in 1861)




          In The Queen v. Boyes a witness had declined to answer a question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him, whereupon the




          "Solicitor General then produced a pardon of the witness."




          The witness nevertheless refused to answer the question on the ground that he could still be impeached by the Parliament. The court held




          "that the danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things -- not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct. . . ."





          (from Footnote 7 of Murphy)



          Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, reviews the history of grants of immunity is some detail, and is worth reading for those interested in the subject. In that case the rule against self-incrimination was made fully applicable to the states, and State and Federal governments were each required to honor grants of immunity by the other.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.










          The actual wording of the Fifth Admendment is




          No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...




          Once a person has been granted immunity, that person's testimony cannot be used against him or her, and so compelling testimony does not violate this right.



          A person asserting this right ("Pleading the Fifth") must have a reasonable belief that the testimony might actually be used in a criminal proceeding against him or her.



          In Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) at page 68 it is pointed out that




          the danger of prosecution "must be real and appreciable . . . , not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character. . . ."




          (quoting The Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, a English case decided by the Queen's Bench in 1861)




          In The Queen v. Boyes a witness had declined to answer a question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him, whereupon the




          "Solicitor General then produced a pardon of the witness."




          The witness nevertheless refused to answer the question on the ground that he could still be impeached by the Parliament. The court held




          "that the danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things -- not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct. . . ."





          (from Footnote 7 of Murphy)



          Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, reviews the history of grants of immunity is some detail, and is worth reading for those interested in the subject. In that case the rule against self-incrimination was made fully applicable to the states, and State and Federal governments were each required to honor grants of immunity by the other.







          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 3 hours ago





















          New contributor




          David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 5 hours ago









          David SiegelDavid Siegel

          1634




          1634




          New contributor




          David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          David Siegel is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.























              2














              Go to the actual text of the Fifth Amendment:




              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.




              On a strictly literal reading, this is a very narrow right, which can only be violated if:




              1. There is a criminal trial.

              2. A witness is called during the trial.

              3. The witness is the defendant.

              4. The testimony is compelled.


              However, the actual law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is closer to the following:




              1. There is a possibility of criminal prosecution.

              2. Someone gives testimony which could be used to prosecute that crime.

              3. The witness could potentially be a defendant.

              4. The testimony is compelled. If the witness was in custody, this requirement is assumed and must be rebutted by an explicit waiver of rights.


              Transactional (sometimes called "blanket" or "total") immunity eliminates #3 (by making the witness not liable for the crime at all), and "use and derivative use" immunity eliminates #2 (by making the statements inadmissible at trial). In Kastigar v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that use and derivative use immunity is sufficient to avoid offending the Fifth Amendment in federal cases. State cases are complicated by the additional rights afforded by the constitutions of each state, and the requirements therefore vary by state.






              share|improve this answer


























              • In the actual interpretation section, shouldn't "gives testimony" be "makes a statement"? For example, statements made in response to a police interrogation are not testimony, yet it is well known that the Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment prevents police from compelling such statements.

                – phoog
                3 hours ago











              • @phoog: No, because "testimony" does not exclusively refer to statements made during a trial or before a grand jury. It would indeed include statements made in response to a police interrogation. However, it typically would not include, for example, the production of documents or physical evidence. The word "testimonial" is specifically used when evaluating whether something is eligible for Fifth Amendment protections, so removing it from my answer would be misleading at best.

                – Kevin
                2 hours ago













              • @phoog actually, the fifth amendment's provision against self-incrimination does not, directly, prohibit forced confessions or police abuse. What it does is render such statements inadmissible in court, i.e that cannot be used as testimony. It also excludes evidence found by aid of such statements i.e "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police abuse can be addressed by section 1983 suits.

                – David Siegel
                2 hours ago
















              2














              Go to the actual text of the Fifth Amendment:




              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.




              On a strictly literal reading, this is a very narrow right, which can only be violated if:




              1. There is a criminal trial.

              2. A witness is called during the trial.

              3. The witness is the defendant.

              4. The testimony is compelled.


              However, the actual law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is closer to the following:




              1. There is a possibility of criminal prosecution.

              2. Someone gives testimony which could be used to prosecute that crime.

              3. The witness could potentially be a defendant.

              4. The testimony is compelled. If the witness was in custody, this requirement is assumed and must be rebutted by an explicit waiver of rights.


              Transactional (sometimes called "blanket" or "total") immunity eliminates #3 (by making the witness not liable for the crime at all), and "use and derivative use" immunity eliminates #2 (by making the statements inadmissible at trial). In Kastigar v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that use and derivative use immunity is sufficient to avoid offending the Fifth Amendment in federal cases. State cases are complicated by the additional rights afforded by the constitutions of each state, and the requirements therefore vary by state.






              share|improve this answer


























              • In the actual interpretation section, shouldn't "gives testimony" be "makes a statement"? For example, statements made in response to a police interrogation are not testimony, yet it is well known that the Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment prevents police from compelling such statements.

                – phoog
                3 hours ago











              • @phoog: No, because "testimony" does not exclusively refer to statements made during a trial or before a grand jury. It would indeed include statements made in response to a police interrogation. However, it typically would not include, for example, the production of documents or physical evidence. The word "testimonial" is specifically used when evaluating whether something is eligible for Fifth Amendment protections, so removing it from my answer would be misleading at best.

                – Kevin
                2 hours ago













              • @phoog actually, the fifth amendment's provision against self-incrimination does not, directly, prohibit forced confessions or police abuse. What it does is render such statements inadmissible in court, i.e that cannot be used as testimony. It also excludes evidence found by aid of such statements i.e "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police abuse can be addressed by section 1983 suits.

                – David Siegel
                2 hours ago














              2












              2








              2







              Go to the actual text of the Fifth Amendment:




              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.




              On a strictly literal reading, this is a very narrow right, which can only be violated if:




              1. There is a criminal trial.

              2. A witness is called during the trial.

              3. The witness is the defendant.

              4. The testimony is compelled.


              However, the actual law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is closer to the following:




              1. There is a possibility of criminal prosecution.

              2. Someone gives testimony which could be used to prosecute that crime.

              3. The witness could potentially be a defendant.

              4. The testimony is compelled. If the witness was in custody, this requirement is assumed and must be rebutted by an explicit waiver of rights.


              Transactional (sometimes called "blanket" or "total") immunity eliminates #3 (by making the witness not liable for the crime at all), and "use and derivative use" immunity eliminates #2 (by making the statements inadmissible at trial). In Kastigar v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that use and derivative use immunity is sufficient to avoid offending the Fifth Amendment in federal cases. State cases are complicated by the additional rights afforded by the constitutions of each state, and the requirements therefore vary by state.






              share|improve this answer















              Go to the actual text of the Fifth Amendment:




              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.




              On a strictly literal reading, this is a very narrow right, which can only be violated if:




              1. There is a criminal trial.

              2. A witness is called during the trial.

              3. The witness is the defendant.

              4. The testimony is compelled.


              However, the actual law as interpreted by the Supreme Court is closer to the following:




              1. There is a possibility of criminal prosecution.

              2. Someone gives testimony which could be used to prosecute that crime.

              3. The witness could potentially be a defendant.

              4. The testimony is compelled. If the witness was in custody, this requirement is assumed and must be rebutted by an explicit waiver of rights.


              Transactional (sometimes called "blanket" or "total") immunity eliminates #3 (by making the witness not liable for the crime at all), and "use and derivative use" immunity eliminates #2 (by making the statements inadmissible at trial). In Kastigar v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that use and derivative use immunity is sufficient to avoid offending the Fifth Amendment in federal cases. State cases are complicated by the additional rights afforded by the constitutions of each state, and the requirements therefore vary by state.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 5 hours ago

























              answered 5 hours ago









              KevinKevin

              1,618723




              1,618723













              • In the actual interpretation section, shouldn't "gives testimony" be "makes a statement"? For example, statements made in response to a police interrogation are not testimony, yet it is well known that the Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment prevents police from compelling such statements.

                – phoog
                3 hours ago











              • @phoog: No, because "testimony" does not exclusively refer to statements made during a trial or before a grand jury. It would indeed include statements made in response to a police interrogation. However, it typically would not include, for example, the production of documents or physical evidence. The word "testimonial" is specifically used when evaluating whether something is eligible for Fifth Amendment protections, so removing it from my answer would be misleading at best.

                – Kevin
                2 hours ago













              • @phoog actually, the fifth amendment's provision against self-incrimination does not, directly, prohibit forced confessions or police abuse. What it does is render such statements inadmissible in court, i.e that cannot be used as testimony. It also excludes evidence found by aid of such statements i.e "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police abuse can be addressed by section 1983 suits.

                – David Siegel
                2 hours ago



















              • In the actual interpretation section, shouldn't "gives testimony" be "makes a statement"? For example, statements made in response to a police interrogation are not testimony, yet it is well known that the Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment prevents police from compelling such statements.

                – phoog
                3 hours ago











              • @phoog: No, because "testimony" does not exclusively refer to statements made during a trial or before a grand jury. It would indeed include statements made in response to a police interrogation. However, it typically would not include, for example, the production of documents or physical evidence. The word "testimonial" is specifically used when evaluating whether something is eligible for Fifth Amendment protections, so removing it from my answer would be misleading at best.

                – Kevin
                2 hours ago













              • @phoog actually, the fifth amendment's provision against self-incrimination does not, directly, prohibit forced confessions or police abuse. What it does is render such statements inadmissible in court, i.e that cannot be used as testimony. It also excludes evidence found by aid of such statements i.e "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police abuse can be addressed by section 1983 suits.

                – David Siegel
                2 hours ago

















              In the actual interpretation section, shouldn't "gives testimony" be "makes a statement"? For example, statements made in response to a police interrogation are not testimony, yet it is well known that the Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment prevents police from compelling such statements.

              – phoog
              3 hours ago





              In the actual interpretation section, shouldn't "gives testimony" be "makes a statement"? For example, statements made in response to a police interrogation are not testimony, yet it is well known that the Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment prevents police from compelling such statements.

              – phoog
              3 hours ago













              @phoog: No, because "testimony" does not exclusively refer to statements made during a trial or before a grand jury. It would indeed include statements made in response to a police interrogation. However, it typically would not include, for example, the production of documents or physical evidence. The word "testimonial" is specifically used when evaluating whether something is eligible for Fifth Amendment protections, so removing it from my answer would be misleading at best.

              – Kevin
              2 hours ago







              @phoog: No, because "testimony" does not exclusively refer to statements made during a trial or before a grand jury. It would indeed include statements made in response to a police interrogation. However, it typically would not include, for example, the production of documents or physical evidence. The word "testimonial" is specifically used when evaluating whether something is eligible for Fifth Amendment protections, so removing it from my answer would be misleading at best.

              – Kevin
              2 hours ago















              @phoog actually, the fifth amendment's provision against self-incrimination does not, directly, prohibit forced confessions or police abuse. What it does is render such statements inadmissible in court, i.e that cannot be used as testimony. It also excludes evidence found by aid of such statements i.e "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police abuse can be addressed by section 1983 suits.

              – David Siegel
              2 hours ago





              @phoog actually, the fifth amendment's provision against self-incrimination does not, directly, prohibit forced confessions or police abuse. What it does is render such statements inadmissible in court, i.e that cannot be used as testimony. It also excludes evidence found by aid of such statements i.e "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police abuse can be addressed by section 1983 suits.

              – David Siegel
              2 hours ago











              0














              Yes, immunity from prosecution can be granted, at which point a person in the US can't refuse to testify on the basis of self incrimination, because whatever they won't say can't be used to prosecute them - per the grant of immunity.



              However, grants of immunity are typically specific, not a general absolution of any criminal behavior. The prosecution agrees not to charge the person on specific crimes, to get them to testify in court, presumably to go after a much greater criminal.



              In this case, a grand jury wants Manning to testify. Unless the questions fall into the specific grant of immunity given to Manning, she can take the 5th.



              Instead, Manning refuses to answer any questions. Her actions are now contempt of court, and typically for cases like this, she goes to jail until either she testifies, or the grand jury's term expires. Another grand jury can be empaneled to replace the expired one, can ask the same question, and can jail her again if she refuses to testify.



              This is a telling line from that article:




              “I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to,
              particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists
              for protected political speech,” she said in a statement released
              after she was taken into custody.




              Morally objecting to a secret process is not grounds for refusing to testify. It is also well established in US law that an unauthorized release of classified information is not protected political speech.






              share|improve this answer




























                0














                Yes, immunity from prosecution can be granted, at which point a person in the US can't refuse to testify on the basis of self incrimination, because whatever they won't say can't be used to prosecute them - per the grant of immunity.



                However, grants of immunity are typically specific, not a general absolution of any criminal behavior. The prosecution agrees not to charge the person on specific crimes, to get them to testify in court, presumably to go after a much greater criminal.



                In this case, a grand jury wants Manning to testify. Unless the questions fall into the specific grant of immunity given to Manning, she can take the 5th.



                Instead, Manning refuses to answer any questions. Her actions are now contempt of court, and typically for cases like this, she goes to jail until either she testifies, or the grand jury's term expires. Another grand jury can be empaneled to replace the expired one, can ask the same question, and can jail her again if she refuses to testify.



                This is a telling line from that article:




                “I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to,
                particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists
                for protected political speech,” she said in a statement released
                after she was taken into custody.




                Morally objecting to a secret process is not grounds for refusing to testify. It is also well established in US law that an unauthorized release of classified information is not protected political speech.






                share|improve this answer


























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  Yes, immunity from prosecution can be granted, at which point a person in the US can't refuse to testify on the basis of self incrimination, because whatever they won't say can't be used to prosecute them - per the grant of immunity.



                  However, grants of immunity are typically specific, not a general absolution of any criminal behavior. The prosecution agrees not to charge the person on specific crimes, to get them to testify in court, presumably to go after a much greater criminal.



                  In this case, a grand jury wants Manning to testify. Unless the questions fall into the specific grant of immunity given to Manning, she can take the 5th.



                  Instead, Manning refuses to answer any questions. Her actions are now contempt of court, and typically for cases like this, she goes to jail until either she testifies, or the grand jury's term expires. Another grand jury can be empaneled to replace the expired one, can ask the same question, and can jail her again if she refuses to testify.



                  This is a telling line from that article:




                  “I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to,
                  particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists
                  for protected political speech,” she said in a statement released
                  after she was taken into custody.




                  Morally objecting to a secret process is not grounds for refusing to testify. It is also well established in US law that an unauthorized release of classified information is not protected political speech.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Yes, immunity from prosecution can be granted, at which point a person in the US can't refuse to testify on the basis of self incrimination, because whatever they won't say can't be used to prosecute them - per the grant of immunity.



                  However, grants of immunity are typically specific, not a general absolution of any criminal behavior. The prosecution agrees not to charge the person on specific crimes, to get them to testify in court, presumably to go after a much greater criminal.



                  In this case, a grand jury wants Manning to testify. Unless the questions fall into the specific grant of immunity given to Manning, she can take the 5th.



                  Instead, Manning refuses to answer any questions. Her actions are now contempt of court, and typically for cases like this, she goes to jail until either she testifies, or the grand jury's term expires. Another grand jury can be empaneled to replace the expired one, can ask the same question, and can jail her again if she refuses to testify.



                  This is a telling line from that article:




                  “I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to,
                  particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists
                  for protected political speech,” she said in a statement released
                  after she was taken into custody.




                  Morally objecting to a secret process is not grounds for refusing to testify. It is also well established in US law that an unauthorized release of classified information is not protected political speech.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 24 mins ago









                  tj1000tj1000

                  7,018627




                  7,018627






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39307%2funder-what-conditions-can-the-right-to-remain-silent-be-revoked-in-the-usa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

                      Single-Malt-Whisky

                      Czorneboh