D appears before a state legislative commission. Members of the commission
clearly indicate that the privilege against self-incrimination is available to D,
although in fact D could be convicted for failure to answer. Can D’s conviction
for refusal to answer be upheld? No, because the crime was induced by
methods that shock the conscience. [Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959)]
If a crime is induced by official actions that themselves shock the conscience, any conviction
therefrom offends due process.
but what is "the privilege against self-incrimination"?
No comments:
Post a Comment