1. The 5th Amendment
The 5th Amendment is made up of 5 specific parts containing 6 different clauses, including:
The Grand Jury Clause.
The Grand Jury Exception Clause.
The Double Jeopardy Clause.
The Self-Incrimination Clause.
The Due Process Clause.
The Eminent Domain Clause.

2. The Grand Jury Clause
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”.
The Grand Jury Clause guarantees that Americans cannot be charged with serious federal crimes except with an indictment by a grand jury. This is generally considered to be a protection from corrupt government officials who might try to prosecute people unfairly, because a group of fellow citizens is required to look over the evidence first.

3. The Grand Jury Exception Clause
“…except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger."
The Grand Jury Clause guarantees all Americans the right to have serious federal criminal charges reviewed by a grand jury except to military personnel.

4. The Double Jeopardy Clause
“nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
The 5th Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees that Americans cannot be tried twice or punished twice for the same crime.

5. Self-Incrimination Clause
"No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
This clause guarantees that you do not have to testify against yourself in criminal proceedings.

6. Due Process Clause
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees that the government cannot take your "life, liberty, or property" without following a "due" process.
Due process means the government must obey written laws whenever it deals with people. Officials cannot make up their own rules on a whim or on the spur of the moment. They must always follow written procedures that are clearly spelled out ahead of time. In other words, a policeman or judge cannot throw you in jail just because he doesn't like something you did. He must first prove that you violated a written law.The Due Process Clause guarantees that you must be treated fairly and be informed of the issues at stake any time the government deals with you in a criminal or administrative matter.

7. Eminent Domain Clause
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The Eminent Domain Clause, also known as the "Takings Clause," promises that if the government ever needs to "take" your property for a public use, such as building a highway, that it must pay you a reasonable amount for the property.

8. COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF
What Does That Mean??

9. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT WARNING AS TO YOUR RIGHTS
You are under arrest. Before we ask you any questions, you must understand what your rights are. You have the right to remain silent. You are not required to say anything to us at any time or to answer any questions. Anything you say can be used against you in court.
You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we question you and to have him with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer and want one, a lawyer will be provided for you.
If you want to answer questions now without a lawyer present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.
WAIVER
Have you read or had read to you the warning as to your rights? __________________
Do you understand these rights? ___________________
Do you wish to answer any questions? ________________
Are you willing to answer questions without having an
attorney present? _______________________
Signature of the defendant on the line below
______________________________________________
Time ____________ Date _____________________
Signature of Officer_______________________________
Signature of Witness ______________________________

10. Did using the suspect’s clothing compel him to be a witness against himself?

11. No!
The clothing was not “testimonial.” It did not communicate anything. Therefore, the clothes did not compel the suspect to be a “witness” against himself.
Warden v. Hayden

12. Did mentioning the danger to handicapped children compel the suspect to be a witness against himself?

13. No!
The suspect was not compelled to confess. First, the officers were talking to each other, not to the suspect. More importantly, although the officers may have hoped the suspect would react to what they were saying, they had no reason to believe the suspect would care whether children got hurt.
Rhode Island v. Innis

14. Did the medicine compel the suspect to be a witness against himself even though the police didn’t know it was a “truth serum?”

15. yes!
If the drug had the effect of a “truth serum,” then the suspect could not exercise his free will. It doesn’t matter whether the police realized the medication had that effect on the suspect. If the suspect could not exercise his free will, then his statements were compelled.
Townsend v. Sain

16. Does interrogating someone without telling them their rights compel them to be a witness against themself?

17. SORT OF!
When a person is interrogated by police, there is a great danger that the person will be compelled to speak. A person is put into an unfamiliar place away from other people.

18. SORT OF!
During an interrogation, police often behave in an intimidating way because they are trying to get information. In order to guard against people being compelled to speak against themselves, police must tell them what their rights are before questioning begins.
Miranda v. Arizona

19. Did the “friend’s” offer of protection compel the suspect to be a witness against himself?

20. YES!
The only reason the prisoner confessed was because he was afraid that, without protection from his friend, other prisoners would hurt him. A threat of physical violence is enough to cause a statement to be compelled. There does not have to be actual physical violence.
Arizona v. Fulminante

21. Did making him try on the shirt compel the suspect to be a witness against himself?

22. NO!
Being a witness against yourself only applies to communication. When he was forced to put on the shirt, he was not forced to communicate anything. If the 5th Amendment could stop this, then it could also stop the jury from looking at the suspect and comparing him to a photograph of someone.
Holt v. U.S.

23. Did forcing the suspect to give a blood sample compel him to be a witness against himself?

24. Schmerber v. California
NO!
When the officer told the doctor to take the blood sample even after the suspect protested, the suspect was compelled to give blood. However, being a “witness” against yourself only applies to communication. The suspect was compelled to give physical evidence. He was not compelled to communicate anything.
Schmerber v. California

25. Did questioning the guy in the hospital compel the suspect to be a witness against himself?

26. YES!
The suspect was at the detective’s mercy. He could not move because of all the equipment he was hooked up to, and he was in a lot of pain. He also said he was confused and could not think clearly. The detective ignored all the suspect’s requests to stop the interrogation. Under these circumstances, the suspect was not able to exercise his free will.
Mincey v. Arizona