Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 750

524US2

Unit: $U97

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

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

705

Breyer, J., dissenting

has the majority to believe that Murphy subscribes to, or
depends in any way upon, this phrasing of the privilege’s
“principle” rather than upon the critically different “princi-
ple” I suggested above, i. e., the principle that “courts may
not in fairness compel a witness who reasonably fears prose-
cution to furnish testimony that may be used to prove his
guilt?”

The majority points to two relevant Murphy statements.
In the ﬁrst, Murphy said that Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1
(1964), which incorporated the Fifth Amendment privilege
as part of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,
“necessitates a reconsideration” of United States v. Murdock,
284 U. S. 141 (1931), which had held that the Fifth Amend-
ment protected an individual only from prosecutions by the
Federal Government. Murphy, 378 U. S., at 57.
In the
second, Murphy mentioned, as one of many items of support
for its analysis, that most Fifth Amendment policies are
defeated

“when a witness ‘can be whipsawed into incriminating
himself under both state and federal law even though’
the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination
Id., at 55 (quoting Knapp
is applicable to each.”
v. Schweitzer, 357 U. S. 371, 385 (1958)
(Black, J.,
dissenting)).

Since the ﬁrst statement mentions only a reason for reconsid-
ering Murdock, since the second offers support on either
analysis, and since neither refers to any “alternative ration-
al[e]” for decision, ante, at 680, the majority’s evidence for
its reinterpretation of Murphy seems rather skimpy.

Now consider the reasons for believing that Murphy rests
upon a different rationale—a rationale that, by focusing upon
the basic nature and history of the underlying right, rejects
Murdock’s “same sovereign” rule. First, Murphy holds that
the “constitutional privilege” itself, not that privilege to-
gether with principles of federalism, “protects . . . a federal