Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 748.0

524US2

Unit: $U97

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

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

703

Breyer, J., dissenting

as the basic principles underlying the privilege, convince
me that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-
incrimination should encompass not only feared domestic
prosecutions, but also feared foreign prosecutions where the
danger of an actual foreign prosecution is substantial.

I

I begin with a point that focuses upon precedent setting
forth the current understanding of the scope of the word
“any,” and that reveals the basic difference between the ma-
jority’s view of the privilege and the view this Court has
previously taken and should continue to take. The majority
focuses upon one case, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of
N. Y. Harbor, supra, which itself discusses much historically
relevant precedent. And the majority’s focus upon that one
case is appropriate.

Murphy holds that “the constitutional privilege against
self-incrimination protects . . . a federal witness against in-
crimination under state . . . law.”
Id., at 77–78. As I read
Murphy, the Court thought this conclusion ﬂowed naturally
from its basic understanding of the scope of the Fifth
Amendment privilege. On that understanding, the privi-
lege prohibits federal courts (and state courts through the
Fourteenth Amendment) from compelling a witness to fur-
nish testimonial evidence that may be used to prove his guilt
if that witness may reasonably fear criminal prosecution.
See id., at 60–63 (discussing the English cases, King of Two
Sicilies v. Willcox, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 301, 61 Eng. Rep. 116
(Ch. 1851), and United States of America v. McRae, 3 L. R.
Ch. 79 (1867), as ones that, if rightly understood, embody
that proposition of law).

The privilege, understood in this way, requires the aboli-
tion of any “same sovereign” rule.
It is often reasonable for
a federal witness to fear state prosecution, and vice versa.
Indeed, where testimony may incriminate and immunity has
not been granted, it is so reasonable that one can say, as a