Pennsylvania v. Muniz

The privilege against self-incrimination protects an “accused from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise, provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature,” but not from being compelled by the State to produce “real or physical evidence.” Schmerber v. California. To be testimonial, the communication must, “explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information.” Doe v. United States.

The defendant’s answers to direct questions are not rendered inadmissible by Miranda merely because the slurred nature of his speech was incriminating. Any slurring of speech and other evidence of lack of muscular coordination revealed by the defendant’s responses constitute non-testimonial aspects of those responses. The defendant’s incriminating responses made during the sobriety tests were not the result of interrogation as the officer’s dialogue with him concerning the tests consisted of carefully scripted instructions as to how the tests were to be performed. Therefore, they were not “words or actions” constituting custodial interrogation.

However, the defendant’s response to the sixth birthday question was incriminating not just because of his delivery, but also because the content of his answer supported an inference that his mental state was confused. His response was testimonial because he was required to communicate an express or implied assertion of fact or belief and, thus, was confronted with the “trilemma” of truth, falsity, or silence, the historical abuse against which the privilege against self-incrimination was aimed.