Analysis of the Fifth Amendment and Key Supreme Court Cases

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, focusing on the right against self-incrimination. It begins with a definition of the Fifth Amendment's protections, which shield individuals from being compelled to disclose information that could lead to criminal charges. The report then examines several landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped the interpretation and application of this right. These cases include McCarthy vs. Arndstein (1924), which established the right of debtors to refuse self-incriminating questions in bankruptcy trials; United States vs. White (1951), which limited the self-incrimination privilege for labor unions; Griffin vs. California (1965), which prohibited prosecutors from using a defendant's silence against them; Chambers vs. Florida (1940), which ruled against the use of coerced confessions; Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), which established the Miranda rights; Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004), which addressed the requirement to provide identification; Ashcraft vs. Tennessee (1944), which addressed harsh interrogation tactics; Schmerber vs. California (1966), which addressed blood tests in DUI cases; Illinois vs. Perkins (1990), which addressed undercover police questioning; and Salinas vs. Texas (2010), which clarified the requirement to explicitly invoke the right to remain silent. The report highlights the evolution of the Fifth Amendment's protections and their implications for criminal justice and individual rights.

CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW (Fifth
Amendment)

Introduction
The Fifth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution has protected an
individual from being obligatory to disclose any information to the Judge,
police officer, prosecutor or any adjudicators of the court that may issue him
to criminal activity.
McCarthy vs Arndstein 1924
The US Supreme Court has held that a debtor, at the time of
testifying his own bankruptcy trial can refuse the questions, which
might tend to incriminate him.
The court of law has further said that such Fifth Amendment has
privileged such self-incrimination, which may apply:
 Not only to the accused persons when the criminal
hearing consequences from any confession.
 Also applies to the defendants in the civil cases.

The United States vs White 1951
• The SC of the United States has ruled that under the
criminal investigation, a labour union is not allowed to
show its record on the ground of self-incrimination.
• The Apex court has explained that the labour union
cannot take shelter of Bill of Rights as it has been
enacted to protect form such activities of government
towards the individual, and not for an organization.

Griffin vs California
1965 The US Apex court has stated that the Fifth Amendment, that is, right
in contradiction of self-incrimination permits the accused person to
refuse to stand in the witness box during the trial.
 If the accused remains silent, the prosecutor cannot
demand the silence as hiding of something
 The right against self-incrimination can be meaningless
if the accused person has exercised his right, which can
be used against him.

Chambers Vs Florida
1940 The SC has ruled the Fifth Amendment,
that is, any Authority can not infringe the
right against the self-incrimination of the
accused person.
 The SC has stated that corporeal torture should not
be a condition to establish such confession and it
is inadmissible and unreliable in the court of law.
 The accused persons should have been informed of
the self-incrimination clause that they have possessed
a right staying silent when they are questioned
repeatedly.

Miranda vs Arizona
1966
 The accused person has possessed a right to stay silent.
 He has a right to take his attorney with him at the time of question session.
 He has a right to discuss previously with the attorney they are interrogated.
 He may apply for appointing an attorney through the court if he is not able to appoint a private
attorney.
 And whichever he gives as a statement, can be used against him in the court of law.
This case is the most prominent case in accordance
with the self-incrimination clause in the Fifth
Amendment. In this case, Chief Judge of The US
Supreme Court has established the five basic
requirements which the person should have been
informed at the time of the arrest (Fielding 2018).
Those are,

Hiibel vs Sixth Judicial
District Court of Nevada
2004In this case, The SC held that:
 The rules, which have bound the accused to unveil his identity
before a government officer, do not infringe the clause of Self-
incrimination in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
 The police officer can ask a person for providing the
identification of such person if :
• He has already committed a crime or an offence,
or
• He is suspected or there is a reasonable suspicion
to become a criminal.

Ashcraft vs Tennessee 1944
The court of law has also thrown out in the reason of:
 harsh interrogation procedures by the police officers.
 The confession has made forcefully by the
officers
 It has violated the Fifth Amendment of the US
Constitution regarding to self-incrimination.

Schmerber vs California
1966The SC of the United States has laid down that:
 A defendant is an accused of drunken-driving.
 The blood test, which shows the illegal alcohol can be admitted as an evidence.
 The blood test of the defendant of drunken-driving can not be a infringement of
the Fifth Amendment regarding such self-incrimination.

Illinois vs Perkins
1990
The SC of the United States has ruled that:
The undercover police officer can compel
to confess a prisoner posing as his
associate convict.
Even though the police force do give any
Miranda cautionary to the suspicious, there
may not be any violation of Fifth
Amendment does not take place.

Salinas vs Texas 2010
The US Supreme Court has governed in this case:
 That the liability is on the person who has to invoke
his right staying quiet by saying so.
 The case has concerned about a suspect who has read
the Miranda rights, but has refused to signing the
acknowledged form.
 The person has remained silent almost three hours
and does not answer to any query .

References
Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (1944)
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)
Fielding, K., 2018. Compulsory Psychiatric Examination in Civil Commitment and the Privilege Against
Self-Incrimination. Gonz. L. Rev., 54, p.223.
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Profit, M.V., 2016. Refusing to Be One's Own Witness: How the Privilege against Self-Incrimination
Differs in China, France, and the United States. Elon L. Rev., 8, p.155.
Salinas v. Texas 369 S. W. 3d 176 (2010)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
United States v. White, 405 F.2d 838 (1951)