CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Privileges
......Self-Incrimination Privilege
.........Waiver: Criminal Cases
19 Cards On This Topic:

In some instances, D may testify without waiving privilege.

Privilege not waived even if D called by own counsel; safeguards.

D's waiver of self incrimination privilege valid as state court testimony neither immunized nor compelled.

D who received and understood Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.

Because D experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than 14 days between first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards does not mandate suppression of his incriminating statements.

Sex offender-probationer's Fifth Amend. privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by Penal Code sex offender management program where compelled disclosure of information cannot be used to incriminate the probationer.

Spanish-speaking D’s responses made clear he was willing to speak with detective without an attorney present and his waiver of Miranda rights, including right to counsel, was voluntary, knowing and intelligent.

As juveniles claiming postwaiver invocation of Miranda are properly subject to Davis, trial court did not err in finding D's postwaiver requests to speak to mother not sufficiently clear to require cessation of the interrogation.

D voluntarily waived Miranda rights in 1/7 interview where it was reasonably contemporaneous with his advisement and waiver of Miranda rights on 1/6; absence of familiarity with justice system alone did not undermine the finding.

D's request to speak with father not an invocation of his 5th Amend. rights—totality of the relevant circumstances supported trial court's conclusion D knowingly and voluntarily waived privilege and confessions properly admitted.

D's stmts to Os admissible where he did not properly invoke right to remain silent by saying "That's all I can tell you," "I don't want to talk anymore right now" and "I should talk to a lawyer before I decide to take a polygraph."

D's knowledge that cohort was present at scene linked D more closely to crimes than his original statements, and his feigned ignorance of cohort's identity cast doubt on his later statements admitting limited involvement in murders.

Trial court erred in not applying Maryland v. Shatzer to D's suppression motion where police did not wait 14 days before they resumed questioning after D invoked his right to counsel and was released from custody.

D's probation condition requiring a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination re sex offender management polygraph exams is prohibited by 5th Amend. under Minnesota v. Murphy.

Under totality of circumstances, getaway driver impliedly waived her Miranda rights when she was interrogated by Os.

Murder D's refusals to demonstrate shooting and to undergo a polygraph test were insufficient to invoke his Miranda rights and ensuing statements properly admitted to impeach.

In view of testimony, trial court's determination that D initiated renewed questioning, and that express waiver was knowing and voluntary, was supported by substantial evidence.

Witness' answers to non-incriminating questions do not operate as waiver of privilege against self-incrimination.

Limitations on amount of privilege waived by D who takes stand to testify in criminal case.