Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 765

524US2

Unit: $U97

[09-06-00 19:37:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN

720

UNITED STATES v. BALSYS

Breyer, J., dissenting

day’s immunity means more potentially imprisonable citizens
remain at liberty. This is a price that the Amendment ex-
tracts where government wishes to compel
incriminating
testimony; and it is difﬁcult to see why that price should not
be paid where there is a real threat of prosecution, but it
is foreign.

*

*

*

In sum, I see no reason why the Court should resurrect
the pale shadow of Murdock’s “same sovereign” rule, a rule
that Murphy demonstrated was without strong historical
foundation and that would serve no more valid a purpose in
today’s world than it did during Murphy’s time. Murphy
supports recognizing the privilege where there is a real and
substantial threat of prosecution by a foreign government.
Balsys is among the few to have satisﬁed this threshold.
The basic values that this Court has said underlie the Fifth
Amendment’s protections are each diminished if the priv-
ilege may not be claimed here. And surmountable practi-
cal concerns should not stand in the way of constitutional
principle.

For these and related reasons elaborated by the Second

Circuit, I respectfully dissent.