City of Hays v. Vogt (16-1495)

argument 16-1495

City of Hays v. Vogt

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the core Fifth Amendment issue raised by the City of Hays in this case?

Mr. Heitens Unknown 0:00

We'll

John G. Roberts 0:00

hear argument next in Case 16-1495, the City of Hays versus Vote. Mr. Heitens?

Mr. Heitens Unknown 0:08

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the decision below should be reversed for two independent reasons. Reason number one, because the only setting in which a person can be made to be a witness against himself for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is during a proceeding where that person's guilt or punishment are to be adjudicated, that is, at trial. And second, because regardless of whether it is possible that some types of Fifth Amendment violations could ever occur before trial, the Court should reject any such notion with regard to the specific type of Fifth Amendment violation alleged here, which is the use of statements in violation of Garrity v. New Jersey.

Neil M. Gorsuch 0:49

Your

Mr. Heitens Unknown 0:50

first

Neil M. Gorsuch 0:50

statement was very well stated. The first reason is because the only thing that the clause applies to is —

Mr. Heitens Unknown 1:00

that the self-incrimination clause can only be violated during a proceeding where the person whose statements are at issue is being used to adjudicate that person's guilt or punishment for purposes of criminal liability. That's the first

Elena Kagan 1:11

reason. It has to be at trial. So in making that argument, Mr. Hyten, you were recognizing that you were shrinking to almost the vanishing point the possibility of using the Fifth Amendment to block the use against you. of incriminating and shrinking the privilege to nothing because there aren't many trials nowadays. Upwards of 95 percent of cases are disposed of by plea bargaining. So by limiting the Fifth Amendment to there must be a trial, there must be a witness at trial, you're saying effectively that The Fifth Amendment, which we've considered very important, is out of the picture in most criminal cases.

Mr. Heitens Unknown 2:00

I don't think that's right, Justice Ginsburg. And I think the reason for that is that it's critical to distinguish between two issues. The first issue is when can the privilege against self-incrimination be invoked? And the second is when the self-incrimination clause can actually be violated. So let me give you an example. Under this Court's decision in Chavez, if Chavez holds nothing else, I understand Chavez to hold this. Nothing that happens inside a police interrogation room can itself constitute a completed violation of the Fifth Amendment. But that is not to say, of course, that if an officer is interrogating me, I cannot say, I decline to answer your questions on the grounds that may incriminate me.

Mr. Heitens Unknown 2:40

So I think it's very important to distinguish between the question of of when the privilege can be asserted. I can assert the privilege in a civil case. I can assert the privilege in a police interrogation room. I can assert the privilege at someone else's criminal trial. And nothing that we're asking the Court to do is inconsistent with any of that.

Elena Kagan 2:55

So, Ms. Highton, if this defendant, based on what you just said, could refuse to answer the question if it had been put to him at the probable cause hearing. So tell us about that episode when you retained the knife. He could say, I won't, because that might incriminate me. He could raise it to privilege.

Mr. Heitens Unknown 3:16

Absolutely.

Elena Kagan 3:18

But he can object if prior testimony, a prior statement to that effect, is introduced at the probable cause hearing. He said it before. It can't be introduced. If he gives a testimony, if he gives a statement at the probable cause hearing, That's right. He doesn't have to incriminate himself. But he can't object to the introduction of a prior compelled

Mr. Heitens Unknown 3:45

school. I understand the apparent anomaly, Justice Ginsburg. And I think the reason, though, for it is the reason that he can assert the privilege against self-incrimination at the probable cause hearing is the same reason that he could assert it in the police interrogation room. It is the risk. that if he gives a statement in that setting, it could later be used against him at a trial on guilt or a trial on demerits. And that's the reason that he could assert the privilege at the probable cause hearing. But it is not because that anything that happens at the probable cause hearing can actually make him a witness against himself.