Testimonial, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information. only then is a person compelled to be a "witness" against himself. this understanding is perhaps most clearly revealed in those cases in which the court has held that certain acts, though incriminating, are not within the privilege. thus, a suspect may be compelled to furnish a blood sample, * * * ; to provide a handwriting exemplar, * * * , or a voice exemplar, * * * ; to stand in a lineup, * * * ; and to wear particular clothing, * * * . these decisions are grounded on the proposition that "the privilege protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the state with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature." * * * * the court accordingly held that the privilege was not implicated in each of those cases, because the suspect was not required "to disclose any knowledge he might have, " or "to speak his guilt, " * * * . it is the "extortion of information from the accused, " * * * the attempt to force him "to disclose the contents of his own mind, " * * * that implicates the self-incrimination clause. * * * * "unless some attempt is made to secure a communication -- written, oral or otherwise -- upon which reliance is to be placed as involving [the accused's] consciousness of the facts and the operations of his mind in expressing it, the demand made upon him is not a testimonial one." * * * * . it is consistent with the history of and the policies underlying the self-incrimination clause to hold that the privilege may be asserted only to resist compelled explicit or implicit disclosures of incriminating information. historically, the privilege was intended to prevent the use of legal compulsion to extract from the accused a sworn communication of facts which would incriminate him. such was the process of the ecclesiastical courts and the star chamber -- the inquisitorial method of putting the accused upon his oath and compelling him to answer questions designed to uncover uncharged offenses, without evidence from another source. * * * * the major thrust of the policies undergirding the privilege is to prevent such compulsion. the self-incrimination clause reflects "'a judgment . that the prosecution should [not] be free to build up a criminal case, in whole or in part, with the assistance of enforced disclosures by the accused'" emphasis added ; . * * * * the court in murphy v. waterfront comm'n of new york harbor, * * * explained that the privilege is founded on "our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; our sense of fair play which dictates `a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government to leave the individual alone until good cause is shown for disturbing him and by requiring the government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load, ' .; our respect for the. Download free casino games software for the most famous casino on the las vegas strip.