Suppose in a robbery case that the State asks the defendant--who does not plan to testify--to stand in the courtroom wearing a mask allegedly worn by the robber. The defense objects on grounds of self-incrimination. How should the court rule? Case law holds that requiring a defendant to stand or otherwise exhibit himself or herself before the jury is permissible and does not does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination. That privilege “offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, or measurements, to write or speak for identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk, or to make a particular gesture.” Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966). The privilege protects a defendant “only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature.” Id. at 761. Furthermore, “compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of ‘real or physical evidence’ does not violate [the privilege].” Id. at 764; see also 1 Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis & Broun On North Carolina Evidence § 126 (7th ed. 2011) (discussing the privilege against self-incrimination); State v. Suddreth, 105 N.C. App. 122, 127-28 (1992) (requiring the defendant to put on an executioner’s mask similar to one worn by the perpetrator and to stand in front of the jury did not violate the privilege against self-incrimination); United States v. Turner, 472 F.2d 958, 959-60 (4th Cir. 1973) (requiring the defendant to put on a wig and [...]
Faculty Coordinators
