Grosso v. United States/Concurrence Stewart
Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring.
If we were writing upon a clean slate, I would agree with the conclusion reached by THE CHIEF JUSTICE in these cases. [1] For I am convinced that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was originally meant to do no more than confer a testimonial privilege upon a witness in a judicial proceeding. [2] But the Court long ago lost sight of that original meaning. In the absence of a fundamental re-examination of our decisions, the most relevant recent one being Albertson v. SACB, 382 U.S. 70, 86 S.Ct. 194, 15 L.Ed.2d 165, I am compelled to join the opinions and judgments of the Court.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, dissenting in No. 2.
Notes[edit]
- ↑ And in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923.
- ↑ That, after all, in what the clause says:
'No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself * * *.'
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse