Grosso v. United States/Concurrence Stewart

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
932195Grosso v. United States — ConcurrencePotter Stewart
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinions
Brennan
Stewart
Dissenting Opinion
Warren

United States Supreme Court

390 U.S. 62

Grosso  v.  United States


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]
  1. And in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923.
  2. 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