Home      Login

Abstract: 

This four-case survey maps the shifting boundary of the Fifth Amendment where domestic-violence facts and civil proceedings intersect. New Jersey (Supreme Court)—In PDVA final-order hearings, a respondent may invoke the privilege question-by-question, and courts may not draw adverse inferences; limited statutory immunity is not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment. Analysis: Correctly recognizes the “criminal overlay” of DV restraining-order proceedings while preserving investigation by law enforcement. M.A. v. J.H.M., 334 A.3d 1211 (N.J. 2025). Connecticut (Ct. App.)—No violation where a father’s rights were terminated based on sustained denials and noncompliance, not compelled testimony; he never invoked the privilege. Analysis: Voluntary denials ≠ compulsion; outcome might differ if testimony were compelled. In re Skye B., 331 A.3d 769 (Conn. Ct. App. 2025). North Dakota (Supreme Court)—Ordering a stipulated criminal-responsibility exam did not violate the privilege; no admission of guilt and the report was not used at trial. Analysis: Recognizes necessity of psychiatric evaluations; remedy would be suppression if statements were used. State v. Allman, 19 N.W.3d 803 (N.D. 2025). Alaska (Ct. App.)—Requiring an open-court proffer of relevance for DV-shelter records did not compel self-incrimination. Analysis: The privilege shields against compelled testimonial self-incrimination, not defense fishing expeditions into a victim’s privileged records. Drummer v. State, 545 P.3d 452 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024).

Keywords: Self-Incrimination; Domestic Violence; Civil Protective Orders; Termination of Parental Rights; Mental Health Defense; Discovery and Privilege

Affiliations:  1: Contributing Editor; 2: Associate Editor.