Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure — Self-incrimination

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 3, 2014//

Criminal Procedure — Self-incrimination

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 3, 2014//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — Self-incrimination

Compelling a defendant to show the jury his platinum teeth did not violate his right against self-incrimination.

“We hold that the evidence of his platinum teeth was physical evidence that did not have a testimonial aspect sufficient to implicate constitutional protections. The relevant question under the case law is whether the evidence in question expresses, makes use of, reveals, or discloses the contents of the defendant’s mind. Teeth do not do so. We also hold that Gonzalez’s teeth are material to identification because they are probative of Gonzalez’s identity, which was a matter at issue. This case therefore fits squarely into the long-recognized category of cases involving the body as evidence and does not offend constitutional principles against self-incrimination.”

Affirmed.

2012AP1818-CR State v. Gonzalez

Crooks, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests