## Facts

- Ohio prosecuted Matthew Reiner for involuntary manslaughter after his two-month-old son died from “shaken baby syndrome.”
- The State’s timing evidence suggested the fatal injury occurred shortly before the child stopped breathing, when Reiner had been alone with the child.
- Defense experts suggested the injury could have occurred hours earlier while the child was in the care of the family babysitter, Susan Batt, and the defense theory was that Batt was responsible.
- Before testifying, Batt informed the trial court she intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- At the State’s request, the trial court granted Batt transactional immunity under Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.44, after which she testified and denied wrongdoing.
- The jury convicted Reiner.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the state court judgment when it turned on a threshold determination of federal Fifth Amendment law.
2. Whether a witness who claims innocence may nonetheless have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, permitting a lawful grant of immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction because the state court’s ruling depended on a threshold federal-law determination about the Fifth Amendment privilege.
- The Court reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- The Court held that a witness may have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege even while denying culpability.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s Fifth Amendment analysis.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment privilege applies when a witness has reasonable cause to fear that a direct answer could create a real and appreciable risk of self-incrimination; the court determines whether that risk exists.
- The privilege is not limited to those who admit guilt; it also protects innocent persons who could be implicated by ambiguous circumstances.
- A witness’s assertion of innocence does not, by itself, eliminate the possibility that testimony could supply a link in the chain of evidence toward prosecution.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that a witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment despite professing innocence when the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension that answers may be incriminating, and it reversed the state court’s contrary ruling that had treated the immunity grant as unlawful.


Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001)