holding that the privilege against self-incrimination prevents an individual from providing evidence which may lead to his own prosecution and may be invoked by an individual who has a reasonable basis for believing his testimony will be incriminatory
How later courts described this case
- holding that the privilege against self-incrimination prevents an individual from providing evidence which may lead to his own prosecution and may be invoked by an individual who has a reasonable basis for believing his testimony will be incriminatory
- “Our holding is limited to the facts sub judice….”
- “Where other evidence tends to implicate [a potential] witness in criminal activity, the witness may have justification for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege to prevent being harmed by his own words.”
- “Where other evidence tends to implicate the witness in criminal activity, the witness may have justification for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege to prevent being harmed by his own words.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
dissenting.
If, as the majority suggests, the only reason Mr. Steele would not testify is that the truth would inculpate him, the matter should end here and now, as he is the only witness that inculpates the appellee. I would remand the case to determine if that is his position, or whether there are other sufficient reasons that would make him legally privileged.