Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 754.0

524US2

Unit: $U97

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 666 (1998)

709

Breyer, J., dissenting

the danger of any such prosecution was speculative or
insubstantial. Cf. Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 330,
121 Eng. Rep. 730, 738 (Q. B. 1861) (“[T]he danger to
be apprehended must be real and appreciable . . . not a
danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character”).

Where is Murphy’s error?

Id., at 104.

2. Murdock thought that earlier American cases re-
quired a “same sovereign” rule, but they did not. To
the contrary: Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v.
Saline Bank of Va., 1 Pet. 100 (1828), wrote that “a
party is not bound to make any discovery which would
Justice Holmes
expose him to penalties.”
later cited this case as authority for the proposition that
the Fifth Amendment privilege “exonerated” a federal
witness “from [making] disclosures which would have
exposed him to the penalties of the state law.” Ball-
mann v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186, 195 (1906). Lower federal
courts, consistent with the English rule, had held that a
witness could refuse to answer questions based on the
danger of incrimination in another jurisdiction. See,
e. g., In re Hess, 134 F. 109, 112 (ED Pa. 1905); In re
Graham, 10 F. Cas. 913, 914 (No. 5,659) (SDNY 1876).
True, the Court had written in dicta that “[w]e think the
legal immunity is in regard to a prosecution in the same
jurisdiction, and when that is fully given it is enough.”
Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372, 382 (1905). But that un-
explained dicta, which a later case linked to a (misunder-
stood) English rule, see Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43,
68–69 (1906), provides an insufﬁcient historical basis for
Murdock’s summary conclusion, particularly since the
Court, immediately prior to Murdock, had indicated that
the question remained open. See United States ex rel.
Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103
(1927) (reserving question; citing Saline Bank and Ball-
mann v. Fagin).