Opinion ID: 1742511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: An Alleged Fifth Amendment Violation

Text: Defendant claims that, if the diary entries were confessions of actual events (which he denies), then their admission violated his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination, because he was never warned of this right, and it was never waived. First, the privilege did not attach when the entries were made in Georgia prison, because Langley had no reasonable cause to apprehend danger from making the entries. See State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99, 109 (La.1987) (quoting State v. Edwards, 419 So.2d 881 (La.1982)). Thus, the diary entries were not statements taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We also reemphasize that it was the defense that introduced the diary evidence and asserted that it was fantasy. The defense may have thought or hoped that the statements were not somehow incriminating, but it had no reasonable basis to believe that its view would be uncontested. The State was not required to Mirandize the defense against the possible adverse effects of the its own strategy. This assignment lacks merit.