INCRIMINATION. The Vth Amendment of the United States constitution provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself." A witness may refuse to furnish evidence which will incriminate himself ; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 12 Sup. Ct. 195, 35 L. Ed. 1110. That the seizure or compul sory production of a man's private papers to be used in evidence against him is equiva lent to compelling him to be a witness against himself was held in Boyd v. U. S., 116 1J. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746; U. S. v. Wong Quong Wong, 94 Fed. 832. Schedules filed in bankruptcy proceedings are within the operation of U. S. R. S. § 860, forbidding the admission in any criminal proceeding of any pleading of a party or dis covery or evidence obtained from a party by means of a judicial proceeding ; Johnson v. U. S., 163 Fed. 30, 89 C. C. A. 508, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1194. Prescriptions of druggists are not within that class of private papers shielded from inspection for the purpose of obtaining evidence against the druggist ; State v. Davis, 108 Mo. 666, 18 S. W. 894, 32 Am. St. Rep. 640.
Forcibly taking shoes from an accused person for the purpose of comparison with footprints; State v. Fuller, 34 Mont. 12, 85 Pac. 369, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762, 9 Ann. Cas. 648; seizing private papers of a defendant found in the execution of a search warrant ; Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, 24 Sup. Ct. 372, 48 L. Ed. 575, affirming People v. Adams, 176 N. Y. 351, 68 N. E. 636, 63 L. R. A. '406, 98 Am. St. Rep. 675; the use of an envelope containing' pictures as evidence to show that the conduct of an accused in respect to such articles was incriminating ; State v. Griswold, 67 Conn. 290, 34 AU. 1046, 33 L. R. A. 227; seizing lottery tickets and lottery paraphernalia under a search war rant ; Com. v. Dana, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 329; or jugs and bottles at the time of making an arrest for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors; State v. O'Connor, 3 Kan. App. 594, 43 Pac. 859; do not violate the constitutional protection • against self-incrimination. The accused may not be compelled to furnish the evidence, but, if he or his belongings are searched by another, although without au thority, the evidence may be used against him ; Duren v. City of Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1, 53 S. E. 814 ; State v. Burroughs, 72 Me. 479; Com. v. Henderson, 140 Mass. 303, 5 N. E. 832.
In extradition proceedings, the evidence of the party charged as to his identity cannot be admitted, being incriminatory ; Ex parte La Mantia, 206 Fed. 330.
The Vth Amendment does not apply where the criminality, is taken away, as in the anti-trust law, which secures a person from prosecution or penalty or forfeiture on account of any transaction concerning which he may testify; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 66, 26 Sup. Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652. A pardon takes away the privilege of refusing, though not accepted; U. S. v. Burdick, 211 Fed. 492.
Self-incrimination does not apply to a wit ness subpoenaed to produce corporate books; Wilson v. U. S., 221 U. S. 361, 31 Sup. Ct.
538, 55 L. Ed. 771, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 558 ; Dreier v. U. S., 221 U. S. 394, 31 Sup. Ct. 550, 55 L. Ed. 784. Even though he wrote or signed them ; the early English cases (1 W. Bl. 37; 7 St. Tr. N. S. 979) were not followed.
The mere statement by an officer of a cor pqration, who has been directed to turn its books over to a receiver, that he has been indicted for an offense connected with the management of the corporation, and that the contents of the books may tend to incrimi nate him, is not sufficient to excuse him from obeying the order of the court ; Man ning v. Securities Co., 242 Ill. 584, 90 N. E. 238, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 725; Tolleson v. Greene, 83 Ga. 499, 10 S. E. 120.
Where the corporate misconduct involves also the claimant's misconduct (as well as that of the corporation), or where the docu ment is in reality the personal act of the claimant, though nominally that of the cor poration, its disclosures are virtually his own and to that extent his privilege protects him from producing them ; Wigmore, Ev. § 2259; Ex parte Chapman, 153 Fed. 371; and see Blum v. State, 94 Md. 375, 51 Atl. 26, 56 L. R. A. 322; In re Kanter, 117 Fed. 356; but where the president of a banking corpo ration was indicted for receiving a deposit with knowledge that he and the corporation were insolvent, and with intent to embezzle, the district attorney and another were per mitted to examine the books of the corpora tion then in the hands of a receiver to se cure evidence for the prosecution of the president for embezzlement ; McElree v. Dar lington, 187 Pa. 593, 41 Atl. 456, 67 Am. St. Rep. 592. To the same effect State v. Strait, 94 Minn. 384, 102 N. W. 913.
The purpose of the act of February 25, 1903, granting to witnesses in investigations of violations of the Sherman act immunity against prosecution for matters testified to, was to obtain evidence that otherwise could not be obtained; the act was not intended as a gratuity to crime and is to be as far as possible, as coterminous with the privilege of the person concerned; Virtue v. Mfg. Co., 227 U. S. 13, 33 Sup. Ct. 202, 57 L. Ed. 393.
There is a clear distinction between an amnesty under the statute and the constitu tional protection (Vth Amendment) of a par ty from being compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself; Heike v. U. S., 227 U. S. 142, 33 Sup. Ct. 226, 57 L. Ed. 450.
See CRIMINATE ; PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.
Exemption from compulsory self-incrimi nation did not form part of the law of the land prior to the separation of the colonies from the mother country, nor is it one of the fundamental rights, immunities and privileg es of citizens of the United States or an ele ment of due process of law within the mean ing of the constitution or the XIVth Amend ment ; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 29 Sup. Ct.• 14, 53 L. Ed. 97, affirming State v. Twining, 73 N. J. L. 683, 67 Atl. 1073, 1135. See CONSTITUTION.