[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
A grand jury twice subpoenaed the defendant to appear and provide handwriting and printing exemplars for comparison with documents already in the grand juryโs possession. The defendant refused, asserting that requiring him to produce the exemplars would violate his Fourth Amendment protections. Additionally, because he had not seen the documents in the grand juryโs possession, the defendant alleged that the government might actually be seeking โtestimonialโ communications (i.e., the contents of the handwriting exemplars, as opposed to the physical characteristics of his writing) in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Whether compelling a defendant to provide handwriting exemplars violates the defendantโs Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
No. Compelling a defendant to provide handwriting exemplars does not require the defendant to make a communicative assertion.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination did not protect the production of handwriting exemplars. โIf the Government should seek more than the physical characteristics of the witnessโ handwriting – if, for example, it should seek to obtain written answers to incriminating questions or a signature on an incriminating statement – then, of course, the witness could assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.โ Here, the grand jury was not concerned with the contents of the writings, but rather with the physical characteristics of the individual writer.
410 U.S. 19, 93 S. Ct. 774 (1973)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved