142 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1968–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2014The Supreme Court in Miranda further held that “the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege....” 384 U.S. at 469 . 2014The Supreme Court in Miranda further held that “the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege....” 384 U.S. at 469 . | 9 | 18 |
Ex Parte Baughgreen2 sentences2004A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. [ Ex parte ] Baugh , [ 530 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1988)], [ Ex parte ] Great Escapes Travel , [ Inc. , 573 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1990)], [ Ex parte ] Coastal Training Institute , [ 583 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1991)], [ Ex parte Price , 707 So.2d 1105 (Ala. 1997) (` Price II ')], and [ Ex parte ] Williams , [ 775 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2000)]. "2. 2004A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. [ Ex parte ] Baugh , [ 530 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1988)], [ Ex parte ] Great Escapes Travel , [ Inc. , 573 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1990)], [ Ex parte ] Coastal Training Institute , [ 583 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1991)], [ Ex parte Price , 707 So.2d 1105 (Ala. 1997) (` Price II ')], and [ Ex parte ] Williams , [ 775 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2000)]. "2. | 6 | 13 |
Beard v. Stategreen2 sentences2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). 2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). | 6 | 6 |
Ex Parte Rawlsgreen2 sentences2024See Ex parte Rawls, 953 So. 2d at 381-82 (granting a petition for the writ of mandamus to stay a divorce trial so that the husband's right against self-incrimination would not be threatened by having to participate in the divorce trial and having to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to certain questions, the answers to which he might deem potentially incriminating). 2024See Ex parte Rawls, 953 So. 2d at 381-82 (granting a petition for the writ of mandamus to stay a divorce trial so that the husband's right against self-incrimination would not be threatened by having to participate in the divorce trial and having to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to certain questions, the answers to which he might deem potentially incriminating). | 4 | 7 |
Harry Duncan, Jr. v. Leroy Stynchcombe, Sheriff, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences1993See also Biddie v. State , 516 So.2d 837 , 843 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), reversed on other grounds , 516 So.2d 846 (Ala. 1987)." The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that a prosecutor's comments "on the failure of the defense, as opposed to that of the defendant to counter or explain the testimony presented or evidence introduced is not an infringement of the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege." Duncan v. Stynchcombe , 704 F.2d 1213 , 1215-16 (11th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). *Page 1020 In the present case, the prosecutor commented that "neither of the defense att 1993See also Biddie v. State , 516 So.2d 837 , 843 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), reversed on other grounds , 516 So.2d 846 (Ala. 1987)." The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that a prosecutor's comments "on the failure of the defense, as opposed to that of the defendant to counter or explain the testimony presented or evidence introduced is not an infringement of the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege." Duncan v. Stynchcombe , 704 F.2d 1213 , 1215-16 (11th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). *Page 1020 In the present case, the prosecutor commented that "neither of the defense att | 4 | 5 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen2 sentences1991The Fifth Amendment privilege "does not protect a suspect from being compelled by the State to produce 'real or physical evidence.' [ Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 ,] 764 [ 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 1832 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)]. 1991The Fifth Amendment privilege "does not protect a suspect from being compelled by the State to produce 'real or physical evidence.' [ Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 ,] 764 [ 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 1832 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)]. | 3 | 11 |
Ex Parte Reevesgreen2 sentences1994In Matthews v. State, 611 So.2d 1207, 1212 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), this court held: “ With regard to the privilege against self-incrimination, the “correct” rule is that “a witness, other than the defendant himself, cannot refuse to take the stand and testify by ‘taking the Fifth.’ A witness may only invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination after he has been sworn and asked a question which would elicit incriminating evidénce if answered by such witness.”’” Quoting Ex parte Reeves, 463 So.2d 177, 178 (Ala.1984). 1991With regard to the privilege against self-incrimination, the “correct” rule is that “a witness, other than the defendant himself, cannot refuse to take the stand and testify by ‘taking the Fifth.’ A witness may only invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination after he has been sworn and asked a question which would elicit incriminating evidence if answered by such witness.” Reeves v. State, 463 So.2d 174, 176 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed on other grounds, 463 So.2d 177, 178 (Ala.1984). | 3 | 4 |
JDS v. Stategreen2 sentences2010J.D.S. v. State, 587 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). 1992Moreover, this court recently addressed this issue and held: “With regard to the privilege against self-incrimination, the ‘correct’ rule is that ‘a witness, other than the defendant himself, cannot refuse to take the stand and testify by “taking the Fifth.” A witness may only invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination after he has been sworn and asked a question which would elicit incriminating evidence if answered by such witness.’ Reeves v. State.” J.D.S. v. State, 587 So.2d 1249, 1257 (Ala. Crim.App.1991). | 2 | 4 |
Ex Parte Pegramgreen2 sentences2004Baugh, Coastal Training , [ Ex parte ] Pegram , [ 646 So.2d 644 (Ala. 1994)], and Price II. 2004Baugh, Coastal Training , [ Ex parte ] Pegram , [ 646 So.2d 644 (Ala. 1994)], and Price II. | 2 | 3 |
Ex Parte Pricegreen2 sentences2004A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. [ Ex parte ] Baugh , [ 530 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1988)], [ Ex parte ] Great Escapes Travel , [ Inc. , 573 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1990)], [ Ex parte ] Coastal Training Institute , [ 583 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1991)], [ Ex parte Price , 707 So.2d 1105 (Ala. 1997) (` Price II ')], and [ Ex parte ] Williams , [ 775 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2000)]. "2. 2004A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. [ Ex parte ] Baugh , [ 530 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1988)], [ Ex parte ] Great Escapes Travel , [ Inc. , 573 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1990)], [ Ex parte ] Coastal Training Institute , [ 583 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1991)], [ Ex parte Price , 707 So.2d 1105 (Ala. 1997) (` Price II ')], and [ Ex parte ] Williams , [ 775 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2000)]. "2. | 2 | 3 |
Griffin v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Duncan v. Stynchcombe, 704 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 (11th Cir.1983); Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1993); Griffin v. State, 393 So.2d 523, 528 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981)." 695 So.2d at 180 (holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendant's innocence was not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify). "`"A prosecutor's statement that the defense has failed to put on evidence as promised by defense counsel is not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. 2000Duncan v. Stynchcombe, 704 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 (11th Cir.1983); Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1993); Griffin v. State, 393 So.2d 523, 528 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981)." 695 So.2d at 180 (holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendant's innocence was not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify). "`"A prosecutor's statement that the defense has failed to put on evidence as promised by defense counsel is not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. | 2 | 3 |
| Jo Ann Lyons v. Wilbur R. Johnson, Jo Ann Lyons v. F. J. Delarios, Jo Ann Lyons v. F. J. Delariosgreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Floridagreen | 2 | 2 |
| Local 783, Bridge Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers v. BE&K Construction Co.green | 2 | 2 |
| County of Fulton v. Whalengreen | 2 | 2 |
| Parker v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Jeffery Jackson, Cross-Appelleegreen | 2 | 2 |
| Smith v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Reeves v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Carl D. Wehling and Geraldine D. Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting Systemgreen2 sentences2003“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), and the privilege is applicable in state as well as in federal proceedings, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), and in civil as well as in criminal proceedings, Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir.1979); Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d 238 (Ala.1988). 2003“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), and the privilege is applicable in state as well as in federal proceedings, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), and in civil as well as in criminal proceedings, Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir.1979); Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d 238 (Ala.1988). | 1 | 7 |
Ex Parte Ebbersgreen2 sentences2010Thus, the mother "is entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. . . [because she] reasonably apprehends a risk of self-incrimination." Ebbers, 871 So.2d at 787 . 2010Thus, the mother "is entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. . . [because she] reasonably apprehends a risk of self-incrimination." Ebbers, 871 So.2d at 787 . | 1 | 5 |
Larry Thompson v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitationgreen2 sentences2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). 2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). | 1 | 5 |
Ex Parte McWilliamsgreen2 sentences2000Duncan v. Stynchcombe, 704 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 (11th Cir.1983); Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1993); Griffin v. State, 393 So.2d 523, 528 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981)." 695 So.2d at 180 (holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendant's innocence was not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify). "`"A prosecutor's statement that the defense has failed to put on evidence as promised by defense counsel is not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. 2000Duncan v. Stynchcombe, 704 F.2d 1213, 1215-16 (11th Cir.1983); Ex parte McWilliams, 640 So.2d 1015 (Ala.1993); Griffin v. State, 393 So.2d 523, 528 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981)." 695 So.2d at 180 (holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendant's innocence was not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify). "`"A prosecutor's statement that the defense has failed to put on evidence as promised by defense counsel is not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. | 1 | 4 |
Ex Parte Whitegreen2 sentences1997In Ex parte White , 551 So.2d 923 (Ala. 1989), we discussed the interests that must be weighed in a case like this: on the one hand a litigant's interest in asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege, and on the other, the opposing litigant's interest in preventing prejudice that might be caused by a postponement. 1997In Ex parte White , 551 So.2d 923 (Ala. 1989), we discussed the interests that must be weighed in a case like this: on the one hand a litigant's interest in asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege, and on the other, the opposing litigant's interest in preventing prejudice that might be caused by a postponement. | 1 | 4 |
New York v. Quarlesgreen2 sentences1986Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420 , 430 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 3145 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); see also New York v. Quarles, supra , 467 U.S., at 660 , 104 S.Ct., at 2634 (concurring opinion); Fare v. Michael C. , 442 U.S., [707] at 718, 99 S.Ct., [2560] at 2568. [ 61 L.Ed.2d 197 ] . . ." *Page 699 The Court also wrote, at ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. at 1144 : "The position urged by respondent would upset this carefully drawn approach in a manner that is both unnecessary for the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege and injurious to legitimate law enforcement. 1986Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420 , 430 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 3145 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); see also New York v. Quarles, supra , 467 U.S., at 660 , 104 S.Ct., at 2634 (concurring opinion); Fare v. Michael C. , 442 U.S., [707] at 718, 99 S.Ct., [2560] at 2568. [ 61 L.Ed.2d 197 ] . . ." *Page 699 The Court also wrote, at ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. at 1144 : "The position urged by respondent would upset this carefully drawn approach in a manner that is both unnecessary for the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege and injurious to legitimate law enforcement. | 1 | 3 |
Griffin v. Californiagreen2 sentences1997It is clear that 'it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege when he is under police custodial interrogation.' *Page 1129 ( Miranda v. State of Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 468 , fn. 37, 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 1625 , fn. 37, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 .) This doctrine is a logical extension ( People v. Cockrell (1965) 63 Cal.2d 659 , 47 Cal.Rptr. 788 , 408 P.2d 116 ) of the rule of Griffin v. State of California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , prohibiting comment on the failure of an accused to testify at trial. comment on refusal to testif 1997It is clear that 'it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege when he is under police custodial interrogation.' *Page 1129 ( Miranda v. State of Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 468 , fn. 37, 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 1625 , fn. 37, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 .) This doctrine is a logical extension ( People v. Cockrell (1965) 63 Cal.2d 659 , 47 Cal.Rptr. 788 , 408 P.2d 116 ) of the rule of Griffin v. State of California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , prohibiting comment on the failure of an accused to testify at trial. comment on refusal to testif | 1 | 3 |
| Fare v. Michael C.green | 1 | 2 |
| Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodardgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Edwards v. Arizonagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Lefkowitz v. Cunninghamgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Thomas v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| O'CONNOR v. City of Montgomerygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Shockley v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Allison v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 2 |
| Roberts v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ex Parte State of Alabamagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rockwood Computer Corp. v. Morrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Woodsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hinds v. Hindsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Coastal Training Institute
green
2 sentences2004A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. [ Ex parte ] Baugh , [ 530 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1988)], [ Ex parte ] Great Escapes Travel , [ Inc. , 573 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1990)], [ Ex parte ] Coastal Training Institute , [ 583 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1991)], [ Ex parte Price , 707 So.2d 1105 (Ala. 1997) (` Price II ')], and [ Ex parte ] Williams , [ 775 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2000)]. "2. 2004A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. [ Ex parte ] Baugh , [ 530 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1988)], [ Ex parte ] Great Escapes Travel , [ Inc. , 573 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1990)], [ Ex parte ] Coastal Training Institute , [ 583 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1991)], [ Ex parte Price , 707 So.2d 1105 (Ala. 1997) (` Price II ')], and [ Ex parte ] Williams , [ 775 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2000)]. "2. | 9 | 1997–2017 |
Nollie Lee Martin v. Louie L. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). 2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). | 5 | 1988–2009 |
Hoffman v. United States
green
2 sentences2003“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), and the privilege is applicable in state as well as in federal proceedings, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), and in civil as well as in criminal proceedings, Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir.1979); Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d 238 (Ala.1988). 2003“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), and the privilege is applicable in state as well as in federal proceedings, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), and in civil as well as in criminal proceedings, Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir.1979); Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d 238 (Ala.1988). | 4 | 1991–2003 |
Malloy v. Hogan
green
2 sentences2003“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), and the privilege is applicable in state as well as in federal proceedings, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), and in civil as well as in criminal proceedings, Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir.1979); Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d 238 (Ala.1988). 2003“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 , 71 S.Ct. 814 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), and the privilege is applicable in state as well as in federal proceedings, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), and in civil as well as in criminal proceedings, Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir.1979); Ex parte Baugh, 530 So.2d 238 (Ala.1988). | 4 | 1992–2003 |
Baxter v. Palmigiano
green
2 sentences2009Although the assertion of a party’s Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil case per *229 mits the trier of fact to draw an adverse inference against the party asserting the privilege, see Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 , 96 S.Ct. 1551 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), we cannot agree that the assertion of the privilege should be the sole basis for a determination that a summary judgment is due the State in this case. 2009Although the assertion of a party’s Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil case per *229 mits the trier of fact to draw an adverse inference against the party asserting the privilege, see Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 , 96 S.Ct. 1551 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), we cannot agree that the assertion of the privilege should be the sole basis for a determination that a summary judgment is due the State in this case. | 3 | 1990–2013 |
Stewart v. State
green
2 sentences2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). 2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). | 3 | 1992–2009 |
Bush v. State
green
2 sentences2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). 2009“When a purported invocation of a Fifth Amendment privilege is ambiguous, [however,] the police may question the accused for the narrow purpose of clarifying the equivocal request.” Ex parte Woods, 789 So.2d 941, 946 (Ala.2001) (quoting Beard v. State, 612 So.2d 1335, 1341 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (citing Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918 (11th Cir.1985); Thompson v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1979); Stewart v. State, 562 So.2d 1365 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); and Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1988))). | 3 | 1992–2009 |
Ex Parte Williams
green
2 sentences2004A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. [ Ex parte ] Baugh , [ 530 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1988)], [ Ex parte ] Great Escapes Travel , [ Inc. , 573 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1990)], [ Ex parte ] Coastal Training Institute , [ 583 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1991)], [ Ex parte Price , 707 So.2d 1105 (Ala. 1997) (` Price II ')], and [ Ex parte ] Williams , [ 775 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2000)]. "2. 2004A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. [ Ex parte ] Baugh , [ 530 So.2d 238 (Ala. 1988)], [ Ex parte ] Great Escapes Travel , [ Inc. , 573 So.2d 278 (Ala. 1990)], [ Ex parte ] Coastal Training Institute , [ 583 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1991)], [ Ex parte Price , 707 So.2d 1105 (Ala. 1997) (` Price II ')], and [ Ex parte ] Williams , [ 775 So.2d 146 (Ala. 2000)]. "2. | 3 | 2003–2004 |
Ex Parte Brooks
green
2 sentences2003"Further, a prosecutor has the right to indicate to the jury those parts of the evidence or testimony presented by the State that the defense has failed to contradict; that process is not an infringement of the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d at 180 . "`The general rule is that statements by the prosecutor to the effect that [the] State's evidence is undenied or uncontroverted are merely indirect references to the defendant's failure to testify and thus do not violate the statute. 2003"Further, a prosecutor has the right to indicate to the jury those parts of the evidence or testimony presented by the State that the defense has failed to contradict; that process is not an infringement of the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d at 180 . "`The general rule is that statements by the prosecutor to the effect that [the] State's evidence is undenied or uncontroverted are merely indirect references to the defendant's failure to testify and thus do not violate the statute. | 3 | 2000–2003 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1997The government may, for example, compel a person to reenact crime; shave his beard or mustache; try on clothing; dye her hair; demonstrate speech or other physical characteristics;[1930] furnish handwriting samples; hair samples, or fingerprints, have her teeth and gums examined; or take a blood-alcohol, breathalyzer, or urine test. [1930] "See Pennsylvania v. Muniz , 496 U.S. 582 , 592 [ 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 2645 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 ] (1990) (compelling drunk driving defendant to demonstrate slurred speech and lack of coordination on videotape not Fifth Amendment violation because not testimonial); 1997The government may, for example, compel a person to reenact crime; shave his beard or mustache; try on clothing; dye her hair; demonstrate speech or other physical characteristics;[1930] furnish handwriting samples; hair samples, or fingerprints, have her teeth and gums examined; or take a blood-alcohol, breathalyzer, or urine test. [1930] "See Pennsylvania v. Muniz , 496 U.S. 582 , 592 [ 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 2645 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 ] (1990) (compelling drunk driving defendant to demonstrate slurred speech and lack of coordination on videotape not Fifth Amendment violation because not testimonial); | 3 | 1968–1997 |
Douglas v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1995“However, the law with regard to the questioning of witnesses who have invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a refusal to testify is found in the United States Supreme Court decision in Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965), wherein that Honorable Court wrote as follows: “ ‘We decide today that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is applicable to the States. 1995“However, the law with regard to the questioning of witnesses who have invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a refusal to testify is found in the United States Supreme Court decision in Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965), wherein that Honorable Court wrote as follows: “ ‘We decide today that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is applicable to the States. | 3 | 1981–1995 |
Estelle v. Smith
green
2 sentences2011Woodward also argues that the trial court’s admission and consideration of the report violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and he cites Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). 2011Woodward also argues that the trial court’s admission and consideration of the report violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and he cites Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). | 2 | 1991–2011 |
| Kastigar v. United States green | 2 | 1999–2006 |
| Mitchell v. United States green | 2 | 1999–2004 |
| Ex Parte Weems green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| United States v. Handley green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| Nollie Lee Martin v. Louie L. Wainwright green | 2 | 1992–2001 |
| Rath Packing Co. Creditors' Trust v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission green | 2 | 1992–2001 |
| Martin v. Wainwright green | 2 | 1992–2001 |
| Simmons v. Blodgett green | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Johnson v. Hill green | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Grahovac v. United States green | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Brooks v. State green | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Buchanan v. Kentucky green | 2 | 1991–1999 |
| Pennsylvania v. Muniz green | 2 | 1991–1997 |
| Fisher v. United States green | 2 | 1993–1997 |
| Couch v. United States green | 2 | 1993–1997 |
| Johnson v. State green | 2 | 1988–1995 |
| Thomas Clayton Sanders v. United States green | 2 | 1975–1995 |
| Allison v. State green | 2 | 1988–1995 |
| Marcus T. Baumann v. United States green | 2 | 1990–1992 |
| John D. Brown v. Robert H. Butler, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent green | 2 | 1990–1992 |
| Lee v. Illinois green | 2 | 1991–1991 |
| United States v. Nobles green | 2 | 1982–1988 |
| United States v. Apfelbaum green | 2 | 1982–1988 |
| Brown v. Illinois green | 2 | 1982–1985 |
| Biles v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Lefkowitz v. Turley green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.