Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Information

94 Minnesota Law Review Headnotes 94 (2010)


In 2009, the author wrote an article on the Self-Incrimination Clause. In response to this article, Professors Cribari and Judges wrote a Response suggesting that the author was an abolitionist of the Self-Incrimination Clause. This article is intended to clarify the author's position on the Self-Incrimination Clause and on Griffin v. California. The article begins by explaining the purposes of the Self-Incrimination Clause and highlighting the differences between the right to testify and the right to remain silent. It then analyzes the "test the prosecution" reasoning for the Griffin rule, pointing out its shortcomings and lack of Constitutional basis. The article continues by critiquing the argument that Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, which describes the various values served by the Self-Incrimination Clause, gives several reasons to uphold the Griffin rule. The article concludes by summing up the policy reasons for abandoning the Griffin rule and attempting legal reform in another way.