Invocation of the right against self-incrimination in civil proceedings may have certain adverse consequences when the invoking party or witness in good faith refuses to provide information implicating him or her in potential crimes. Although the invoker may not be directed, say, to answer the interrogatory or to pay a fine or be imprisoned for a refusal to do so, a non-criminal sanction may be imposed to advance the search for truth and justice in civil matters without impairing the historic essence of the privilege.
This historic essence preserves a person’s right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. U.S. Const. Amend. V; State v. Stas, 212 N.J. 37, 50-51 (2012) (noting that the privilege against self-incrimination is firmly embedded in this state’s common law). A person need not be guilty or believe himself guilty of criminal conduct to invoke the privilege; invoking the privilege is justified even when the invoker insists he never committed a crime. Ullman v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 426-28 (1956).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
