Changes

{{cquote|'''No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a [[grand jury]], except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the [[militia]], when in actual service in time of [[war]] or [[martial law|public danger]]; nor shall any person be subject for the [[double jeopardy|same offense to be twice put in jeopardy]] of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, [[liberty]], or [[private property|property]], without [[due process]] of [[law]]; nor shall [[private property]] be taken for public use, without just compensation.'''}}

{{cquote|'''No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a [[grand jury]], except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the [[militia]], when in actual service in time of [[war]] or [[martial law|public danger]]; nor shall any person be subject for the [[double jeopardy|same offense to be twice put in jeopardy]] of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, [[liberty]], or [[private property|property]], without [[due process]] of [[law]]; nor shall [[private property]] be taken for public use, without just compensation.'''}}

This amendment is typically associated with criminal trials where witnesses "plead the 5th" to invoke their right to avoid [[self-incrimination]] during questioning. It is erroneously believed by many that only [[guilty]] people would plead the 5th. In fact, this amendment was crafted in part to [[protect the innocent]].<ref>"[W]e have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.' " ''Grunewald v. United States'', 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting ''Slochower v. [[Public school values|Board of Higher Ed]]. of [[New York City]]'', 350 U. S. 551, 557-558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422." OHIO v. MATTHEW REINER, No. 00-1028. Decided March 19, 2001. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1028</ref>

This amendment is typically associated with criminal trials where witnesses "plead the 5th" to invoke their right to avoid [[self-incrimination]] during questioning. It is erroneously believed by many that only guilty people would plead the 5th. In fact, this amendment was crafted in part to protect the innocent.<ref>"[W]e have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.' " ''Grunewald v. United States'', 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting ''Slochower v. [[Public school values|Board of Higher Ed]]. of [[New York City]]'', 350 U. S. 551, 557-558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In ''Grunewald'', we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422." ''Ohio v. Matthew Reiner'', No. 00-1028 (decided March 19, 2001). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1028</ref>

In a decision in July 2023 by the [[Arizona]] Court of Appeals, it held that answering some questions does not waive the Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer others.<ref>https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/crime-courts/arizona-appeals-court-rules-the-right-to-remain-silent-is-absolute/article_34196332-2e5e-11ee-95e1-6f8a51e5edac.html?utm_source=tucson.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&lctg=3758824&tn_email_eh1=3149f36320f0e64ca2e6cbe50eb780fea839a310</ref>  But waiver of this right might still be found in other jurisdictions when a defendant answers or testifies in any way.

In a decision in July 2023 by the [[Arizona]] Court of Appeals, it held that answering some questions does not waive the Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer others.<ref>https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/crime-courts/arizona-appeals-court-rules-the-right-to-remain-silent-is-absolute/article_34196332-2e5e-11ee-95e1-6f8a51e5edac.html?utm_source=tucson.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fnews-alert&utm_medium=PostUp&lctg=3758824&tn_email_eh1=3149f36320f0e64ca2e6cbe50eb780fea839a310</ref>  But waiver of this right might still be found in other jurisdictions when a defendant answers or testifies in any way.