1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,700
In criminal law, 
self-incrimination is the act of

2
00:00:02,708 --> 00:00:05,800
exposing oneself generally by 
making a statement to an 

3
00:00:05,800 --> 00:00:09,300
accusation or charge of crime to
involve oneself or another in a 

4
00:00:09,300 --> 00:00:11,500
criminal prosecution or the 
danger, their of 

5
00:00:12,000 --> 00:00:15,000
self-incrimination can occur 
either directly or indirectly 

6
00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:16,900
directly. 
By means of interrogation. 

7
00:00:16,900 --> 00:00:18,800
Were information of a self 
incriminatory. 

8
00:00:18,800 --> 00:00:21,800
Nature is disclosed or 
indirectly, when information of 

9
00:00:21,800 --> 00:00:24,500
a self incriminatory. 
Nature is disclosed voluntarily 

10
00:00:24,500 --> 00:00:27,900
without pressure from another 
person in many legal systems. 

11
00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:30,400
Accused criminals cannot be 
compelled to incriminate 

12
00:00:30,400 --> 00:00:32,299
themselves. 
They may choose to speak to 

13
00:00:32,299 --> 00:00:34,900
police or other authorities, but
they cannot be punished for 

14
00:00:34,908 --> 00:00:38,100
refusing to do so. 
There are 108 countries and 

15
00:00:38,100 --> 00:00:40,500
jurisdictions that currently 
issue legal warnings to 

16
00:00:40,500 --> 00:00:43,100
suspects, which include the 
right to remain silent and the 

17
00:00:43,108 --> 00:00:46,000
right to legal counsel. 
These laws are not uniform 

18
00:00:46,000 --> 00:00:48,900
across the world. 
However, members of the European

19
00:00:48,900 --> 00:00:52,200
Union have developed their laws 
around the eu's guide English 

20
00:00:52,200 --> 00:00:54,100
and Welsh law. 
The right against 

21
00:00:54,100 --> 00:00:57,200
self-incrimination, originated 
in England and Wales in 

22
00:00:57,200 --> 00:00:59,900
countries deriving their laws as
an extension of the history. 

23
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:02,700
English common law. 
A body of law has grown around 

24
00:01:02,700 --> 00:01:05,099
the concept of providing 
individuals, with the means to 

25
00:01:05,099 --> 00:01:08,100
protect themselves from 
self-incrimination, applying to 

26
00:01:08,100 --> 00:01:10,600
England and Wales. 
The criminal justice and public 

27
00:01:10,600 --> 00:01:13,900
order act, 1994 amended the 
right to Silence by allowing 

28
00:01:13,900 --> 00:01:16,900
inferences to be drawn by the 
jury in cases, where a suspect 

29
00:01:16,900 --> 00:01:19,800
refuses to explain something and
then later produces an 

30
00:01:19,800 --> 00:01:22,500
explanation. 
In other words, the jury is 

31
00:01:22,500 --> 00:01:24,900
entitled to infer. 
That the accused fabricated the 

32
00:01:24,900 --> 00:01:28,200
explanation at a later date as 
he or she refused to provide the

33
00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:30,700
explanation during the time of 
the he's questioning. 

34
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:34,400
The jury is also free not to 
make such an inference United 

35
00:01:34,400 --> 00:01:37,300
States law, the Fifth Amendment 
to the United States 

36
00:01:37,300 --> 00:01:39,900
Constitution protects the 
accused from being forced to 

37
00:01:39,900 --> 00:01:43,000
incriminate themselves in a 
crime, the amendment reads. 

38
00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:46,600
No person shall be compelled in 
any criminal case to be a 

39
00:01:46,600 --> 00:01:49,600
witness against himself. 
Additionally under the Miranda 

40
00:01:49,600 --> 00:01:52,700
ruling, a person also has the 
right to remain silent while in 

41
00:01:52,700 --> 00:01:54,700
police custody. 
So as to not reveal any 

42
00:01:54,700 --> 00:01:57,400
incriminating information in 
order to invoke this 

43
00:01:57,400 --> 00:02:00,900
constitutional right to remain 
silent a Must explicitly and 

44
00:02:00,900 --> 00:02:03,600
unambiguously tell officers that
they are exercising. 

45
00:02:03,600 --> 00:02:07,000
This right to remain silent. 
Therefore, staying silent 

46
00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:09,500
without a prior exclamation that
you are exercising this 

47
00:02:09,500 --> 00:02:12,800
constitutional right does not 
invoke the right in Miranda v, 

48
00:02:12,800 --> 00:02:17,100
Arizona 1966, the United States 
Supreme Court ruled that the 

49
00:02:17,100 --> 00:02:19,400
Fifth Amendment privilege 
against self-incrimination 

50
00:02:19,400 --> 00:02:21,600
requires law. 
Enforcement officials to advise 

51
00:02:21,600 --> 00:02:23,600
a suspect interrogated in 
custody of them. 

52
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:26,200
Their right to remain silent and
their right to an attorney 

53
00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:29,300
Justice, Robert H Jackson 
further notes that any lawyer 

54
00:02:29,300 --> 00:02:31,800
worth his salt Salt will tell 
the suspect in, no uncertain 

55
00:02:31,800 --> 00:02:34,800
terms to make no statement to 
police under any circumstances, 

56
00:02:35,100 --> 00:02:36,900
Miranda warnings must be given 
before. 

57
00:02:36,900 --> 00:02:39,400
There is any questioning 
initiated by law enforcement 

58
00:02:39,400 --> 00:02:42,500
officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise 

59
00:02:42,500 --> 00:02:45,200
deprived of his freedom of 
action in any significant way, 

60
00:02:45,700 --> 00:02:48,900
suspects must be warned. 
Prior to the interrogation that 

61
00:02:48,900 --> 00:02:50,600
they have the right to remain 
silent. 

62
00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:53,000
That anything they say may be 
used against them in a court of 

63
00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:55,000
law that they have the right to 
have an attorney. 

64
00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:57,800
And if one cannot afford an 
attorney, one will be appointed 

65
00:02:57,800 --> 00:03:01,500
to defend such a person. 
Only after such warnings are 

66
00:03:01,500 --> 00:03:04,200
given an understood May the 
individual knowingly waived 

67
00:03:04,200 --> 00:03:06,600
them, and agree to answer 
questions or make a statement. 

68
00:03:06,900 --> 00:03:09,200
It is also important to note 
that the fifth amendment 

69
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:11,600
protects certain types of 
evidence, specifically 

70
00:03:11,600 --> 00:03:14,400
testimonial evidence, which are 
statements that are spoken by 

71
00:03:14,400 --> 00:03:17,100
the person in question that are 
made under oath shift. 

72
00:03:17,100 --> 00:03:20,300
In court decision regarding 
handcuff usage, the United 

73
00:03:20,300 --> 00:03:23,700
States, Supreme Court rulings of
Miranda, v Arizona and Terry V, 

74
00:03:23,700 --> 00:03:26,200
Ohio, leave questions about the 
types of conduct that are 

75
00:03:26,200 --> 00:03:28,700
appropriate for both the 
protection of the public and 

76
00:03:28,700 --> 00:03:30,400
criminal Suspects. 
Batu tional. 

77
00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:33,800
Writes the use of handcuffs on a
suspect during a Terry stop 

78
00:03:33,800 --> 00:03:36,700
infringes on their fourth and 
fifth amendment rights during 

79
00:03:36,700 --> 00:03:39,800
the action of handcuffing a 
suspect a custodial environment 

80
00:03:39,800 --> 00:03:42,900
is created there by invoking the
information of that individuals 

81
00:03:42,900 --> 00:03:45,400
Miranda rights. 
The second Circuit Court 

82
00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:48,000
maintain the notion that by 
utilizing handcuffs during a 

83
00:03:48,008 --> 00:03:51,200
Terry stop that stop is then 
automatically transformed into 

84
00:03:51,200 --> 00:03:53,100
an arrest. 
Thus warranting the reading of 

85
00:03:53,100 --> 00:03:56,100
Miranda rights up until the 
decision of u.s. versus Phi 

86
00:03:56,100 --> 00:03:58,900
School in Holdings of u.s. 
versus Phi SKU. 

87
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:01,600
The defendant Is that the 
officers use of handcuffs 

88
00:04:01,600 --> 00:04:04,600
convert a Terry stop into an 
arrest without probable cause 

89
00:04:04,700 --> 00:04:06,600
thus violating his fourth 
amendment rights. 

90
00:04:07,100 --> 00:04:09,700
The District Court ruled in. 
Disagreement with this matter, 

91
00:04:09,800 --> 00:04:12,100
suggesting that there were 
unusual circumstances 

92
00:04:12,100 --> 00:04:14,900
surrounding the investigatory, 
stop requiring, the use of 

93
00:04:14,900 --> 00:04:17,500
handcuffs in order to ensure the
protection of those officers 

94
00:04:17,500 --> 00:04:20,100
involved. 
This differs from second Circuit

95
00:04:20,100 --> 00:04:23,900
Court rulings of the past in the
case of u.s. versus Newton, a 

96
00:04:23,900 --> 00:04:27,000
police officer is permitted to 
utilize handcuffs during a Terry

97
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:28,500
stop. 
If he or she has reason to 

98
00:04:28,500 --> 00:04:31,000
believe that the detainee pose 
Poses, an immediate physical 

99
00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:32,600
threat. 
And that by handcuffing the 

100
00:04:32,600 --> 00:04:34,300
individual. 
The Potential Threat is 

101
00:04:34,300 --> 00:04:35,900
diffused. 
In the least, invasive means 

102
00:04:35,900 --> 00:04:38,700
possible in the case of US vs. 
Bailey. 

103
00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:40,800
The second Circuit Court found 
the officers. 

104
00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:43,200
Original stop to be 
constitutional, but ruled that 

105
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:45,800
the events, which transpired 
after handcuffing took place 

106
00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:49,200
fell outside, the realm of a 
constitutional Terry stop this 

107
00:04:49,200 --> 00:04:51,900
results from both suspects, 
having already been patted down 

108
00:04:51,900 --> 00:04:55,300
and deemed unarmed at which 
point the officers had no 

109
00:04:55,300 --> 00:04:57,200
authority to handcuff either of 
these men. 

110
00:04:57,400 --> 00:05:00,500
As they were already proven to 
be non-threatening In both 

111
00:05:00,500 --> 00:05:03,500
cases, the second Circuit Court 
made the determination that the 

112
00:05:03,500 --> 00:05:06,200
use of handcuffs converted these
stops into arrests and were 

113
00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:10,000
grounds for Miranda, the ruling 
of u.s. versus Phi SKU disrupts.

114
00:05:10,000 --> 00:05:12,800
This conversion Trend by 
determining otherwise the 

115
00:05:12,800 --> 00:05:15,600
grounds for this holding are 
ambiguous given the Striking 

116
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:18,300
similarities between this Court 
ruling in those of Newton and 

117
00:05:18,300 --> 00:05:20,000
Bailey. 
The new verdict could 

118
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:22,700
potentially be instituted to 
enable police officials to 

119
00:05:22,700 --> 00:05:24,800
impede on citizens 
constitutional rights. 

120
00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:27,500
As long as the technique being 
used is considered to be less 

121
00:05:27,500 --> 00:05:29,700
intrusive than that of an 
officer pulling his or her. 

122
00:05:29,900 --> 00:05:32,800
Gun on an unarmed suspect 
truthful, statements by an 

123
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:35,600
innocent person, an 
incriminating statement includes

124
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:37,600
any statement that tends to 
increase the danger. 

125
00:05:37,600 --> 00:05:40,000
That the person making the 
statement will be accused 

126
00:05:40,000 --> 00:05:43,400
charged or prosecuted, even if 
the statement is true and even 

127
00:05:43,400 --> 00:05:47,000
if the person is innocent of any
crime, thus, even a person who 

128
00:05:47,000 --> 00:05:49,600
is innocent of any crime who 
testifies truthfully can be 

129
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:53,100
incriminated by that testimony 
the United States Supreme Court 

130
00:05:53,100 --> 00:05:56,100
has stated that the Fifth 
Amendment privilege, protects 

131
00:05:56,100 --> 00:05:58,500
the innocent as well as the 
guilty one of the fifth 

132
00:05:58,500 --> 00:06:01,800
amendment's basic functions. 
Is to protect innocent men who 

133
00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:04,700
otherwise might be ensnared by 
ambiguous, circumstances, 

134
00:06:04,800 --> 00:06:07,500
truthful responses of an 
innocent witness as well. 

135
00:06:07,500 --> 00:06:10,100
As those of a wrongdoer May 
provide the government with 

136
00:06:10,100 --> 00:06:12,300
incriminating evidence from the 
speaker's own mouth. 

137
00:06:12,700 --> 00:06:16,700
The US Supreme Court has also 
stated too many, even those who 

138
00:06:16,700 --> 00:06:19,700
should be better, advised view 
this privilege as a shelter for 

139
00:06:19,700 --> 00:06:23,000
wrong doers, they too readily 
assume that those who invoke at 

140
00:06:23,000 --> 00:06:25,600
her either guilty of crime or 
commit perjury and claiming the 

141
00:06:25,600 --> 00:06:29,700
privilege Canadian law in 
Canada, similar rights exist. 

142
00:06:29,800 --> 00:06:33,100
Just pursuant to the Charter of 
Rights and Freedoms section. 11 

143
00:06:33,100 --> 00:06:35,700
of the charter provides that one
cannot be compelled to be a 

144
00:06:35,700 --> 00:06:38,800
witness in a proceeding against 
oneself section 11. 

145
00:06:38,800 --> 00:06:42,600
See States, any person charged 
with an offence has the right 

146
00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:45,100
not to be compelled to be a 
witness in proceedings against 

147
00:06:45,100 --> 00:06:46,900
that person in respect of the 
offense. 

148
00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:50,100
An important caveat in Canadian 
law is that this does not apply 

149
00:06:50,100 --> 00:06:52,000
to a person who is not charged 
in the case. 

150
00:06:52,000 --> 00:06:54,800
In question. 
A person issued a subpoena who 

151
00:06:54,800 --> 00:06:57,900
is not charged in respect of the
offense being considered must 

152
00:06:57,900 --> 00:07:01,400
give testimony. 
This testimony cannot later be 

153
00:07:01,400 --> 00:07:04,700
used against the person in 
another case section 13 of the 

154
00:07:04,700 --> 00:07:07,800
charter States. 
A witness who, testifies in any 

155
00:07:07,800 --> 00:07:10,600
proceedings has the right not to
have any incriminating evidence.

156
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:13,000
So given used to incriminate 
that witness in any other 

157
00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:15,900
proceedings except in a 
prosecution for perjury or for 

158
00:07:15,900 --> 00:07:19,100
the giving of contradictory 
evidence historically in 

159
00:07:19,100 --> 00:07:22,500
Canadian common law Witnesses, 
could refuse to give testimony. 

160
00:07:22,500 --> 00:07:26,000
That would self-incriminate, 
however, section 51 of the 

161
00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:28,600
Canada Evidence Act eliminated 
that absolute common law 

162
00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:31,600
privilege by instead. 
Compelling witnesses to testify 

163
00:07:31,900 --> 00:07:34,600
in exchange section 52 of the 
same act. 

164
00:07:34,600 --> 00:07:37,200
Granted the witnesses immunity 
from having that evidence used 

165
00:07:37,200 --> 00:07:39,700
against them in the future, 
except in the case of perjury or

166
00:07:39,700 --> 00:07:41,800
impeachment. 
While these provisions of the 

167
00:07:41,808 --> 00:07:44,000
Canada Evidence Act are still 
operational. 

168
00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:46,100
They have been overtaken in 
their application by the 

169
00:07:46,100 --> 00:07:49,500
immunities granted by sections 
13 and 7 of the Canadian Charter

170
00:07:49,500 --> 00:07:52,200
of Rights and Freedoms English, 
and Welsh law. 

171
00:07:52,600 --> 00:07:54,700
The right against 
self-incrimination, originated 

172
00:07:54,700 --> 00:07:57,900
in England and Wales in 
countries deriving their laws as

173
00:07:57,900 --> 00:07:59,500
an extension of the history of 
English. 

174
00:07:59,500 --> 00:08:02,600
Common Law, a body of law has 
grown around the concept of 

175
00:08:02,600 --> 00:08:05,200
providing individuals, with the 
means to protect themselves from

176
00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:08,300
self-incrimination, applying to 
England and Wales. 

177
00:08:08,300 --> 00:08:11,700
The criminal justice and public 
order act, 1994 amended the 

178
00:08:11,700 --> 00:08:14,500
right to Silence by allowing 
inferences to be drawn by the 

179
00:08:14,500 --> 00:08:18,000
jury in cases, where a suspect 
refuses to explain something and

180
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:19,700
then later produces an 
explanation. 

181
00:08:20,100 --> 00:08:22,700
In other words, the jury is 
entitled to infer. 

182
00:08:22,700 --> 00:08:25,900
That the accused fabricated the 
explanation at a later date as 

183
00:08:25,900 --> 00:08:28,700
he or she refused to provide the
explanation during the time of 

184
00:08:28,708 --> 00:08:31,600
the police questioning. 
Now, the jury is also free not 

185
00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:32,600
to make such an inference.