Taking the Fifth Amendment In No Way Implies Guilt


Always a champion of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the news media unfortunately often give little weight to another important right: the right against self-incrimination.  Recent reporting on a criminal investigation conducted by a Santa Clara County grand jury insinuated that a public official who asserted the Fifth Amendment when called before the grand jury must be guilty of the crime under investigation.  This presumption of guilt shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the constitutional privilege.

There is nothing inconsistent between asserting rights under the Fifth Amendment in a judicial proceeding and publicly declaring one's innocence. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, "one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."  In a criminal case, the burden remains exclusively on the prosecution to prove a defendant's guilt, and every citizen enjoys the right to refuse to provide any information that may assist the prosecution in its efforts.

Justice Felix Frankfurter described the Fifth Amendment as "one of the greatest landmarks in man's struggle to make himself civilized."  Although the privilege against self-incrimination is sometimes considered to be a shelter to the guilty, it is also highly regarded as a protection to the innocent.  Both the guilty and innocent may avail themselves of the privilege, and a witness who declares innocence in an informal public setting does not "lie" by refusing to answer questions when forced to appear before an accusatorial body.

Unlike a trial jury, which hears cases in open court, a grand jury conducts its activities in secret, with only a prosecutor admitted to assist in its investigations.  It is the prosecutor who conducts the examination of witnesses, who are not allowed to have an attorney present to object to ambiguous questions, seek clarification or ask questions designed to show innocence, rather than guilt.  Only the prosecutor has the right to make a closing argument.  As a general rule, the only prudent course for a witness who may be the subject of a grand jury investigation is to refuse to testify.

In the words of Justice Frankfurter, the view that people who invoke their rights under the Fifth Amendment are guilty of a crime, "does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights."  It is the law that no inference whatsoever may be drawn from a witness' reliance on the Fifth Amendment.  The invocation of one's rights says nothing about guilt, and the conclusion that a witness who exercises his or her right not to testify is guilty is unfounded and unworthy of those who honor the Constitution.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McManis Faulkner | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


McManis Faulkner on:

Popular Topics
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.