United States v. Hearst - 563 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1977)

Rule:

U.S. Const. amend. V provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. A defendant who testifies in his own behalf waives his privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the relevant matters covered by his direct testimony and subjects himself to cross-examination by the government.

Facts:

Defendant Patricia Campbell Hearst was tried under a two-count indictment of armed robbery. Plaintiff, the federal government, introduced photographs and testimony descriptive of defendant's role in the robbery. Defendant raised the defense of duress and contended that her co-participants compelled her to engage in the criminal activity. On cross-examination, defendant refused to answer most questions, invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Prior to government questioning, defendant had moved for an order limiting the scope of the cross-examination so as to avoid the necessity of invoking the Fifth Amendment in response to questions implicating her in other crimes for which she was not on trial. Finding that defendant had waived her privilege against self-incrimination as to all relevant matters by testifying in her own behalf, the court denied the motion and allowed the government to ask her questions which resulted in her assertion of the Fifth Amendment. The jury found defendant guilty. On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial judge erred in ruling on her Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. V, privilege against self-incrimination. According to the defendant, she did not voluntarily waive her Fifth Amendment privilege by testifying because her testimony was compelled by the introduction of certain evidence, i.e., post-crime conduct, which was challenged as inadmissible and highly prejudicial. 

Issue:

By testifying in her own behalf, did the defendant voluntarily waive her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the relevant matters covered by her direct testimony?   

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that, because defendant took the stand in her own behalf, she could not then claim the privilege during cross-examination on matters reasonably related to the subject matter of her direct examination. According to the court, when a defendant has taken the witness stand, his or her credibility may be impeached and his testimony assailed like that of any other witness, and the breadth of his or her waiver would be determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination. Thus, a defendant who took the stand in her own behalf cannot then claim the privilege against cross-examination on matters reasonably related to the subject matter of her direct examination. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion and affirmed the judgment.