Opinion ID: 505933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voluntariness of Tucker's Trial Testimony

Text: 39 Next, the Government contends that Tucker's testimony in State v. Robinson should not have been suppressed as involuntary. Our reversal of the district court on this issue requires little elaboration beyond our discussion of the voluntariness issue above. 40 The district court held that Tucker was forced to testify because he was subpoenaed and sworn to tell the truth before the judge; therefore, his testimony was not voluntary. Handley III, 644 F.Supp. at 1200. This holding ignores fundamental principles of law. Tucker was in the position of: 41 the ordinary witness at a trial or before a grand jury who is subpoenaed, sworn to tell the truth, and obligated to answer on the pain of contempt, unless he invokes the privilege and shows that he faces a realistic threat of self-incrimination. The answers of such a witness to questions put to him are not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment unless the witness is required to answer over his valid claim of the privilege. 42 Murphy, 465 U.S. at 427. Since Tucker was not required to testify over a valid claim of the Fifth Amendment, his testimony was not compelled. That Tucker was not represented by an attorney is irrelevant. 19 The lower court should have concluded that Tucker lost his Fifth Amendment privilege by failing to assert it. See id. 20