Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 727.0

524US2

Unit: $U97

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

682

UNITED STATES v. BALSYS

Opinion of the Court

feature unique to the guarantee against self-incrimination
In the ab-
among the several Fifth Amendment privileges.
sence of waiver, the other such guarantees are purely and
simply binding on the government. But under the Self-
Incrimination Clause, the government has an option to ex-
change the stated privilege for an immunity to prosecutorial
use of any compelled inculpatory testimony. Kastigar v.
United States, 406 U. S., at 448–449. The only condition on
the government when it decides to offer immunity in place
of the privilege to stay silent is the requirement to provide
an immunity as broad as the privilege itself.
Id., at 449.
After Malloy had held the privilege binding on the state
jurisdictions as well as the National Government, it would
therefore have been intolerable to allow a prosecutor in one
or the other jurisdiction to eliminate the privilege by offer-
ing immunity less complete than the privilege’s dual jurisdic-
tional reach. Murphy accordingly held that a federal court
could not receive testimony compelled by a State in the ab-
sence of a statute effectively providing for federal immunity,
and it did this by imposing an exclusionary rule prohibiting
the National Government “from making any such use of com-
pelled testimony and its fruits,” 378 U. S., at 79 (footnote
omitted).

This view of Murphy as necessitated by Malloy was
adopted in the subsequent case of Kastigar v. United States,
supra, at 456, n. 42 (“Reconsideration of the rule that the
Fifth Amendment privilege does not protect a witness in one
jurisdiction against being compelled to give testimony that
could be used to convict him in another jurisdiction was
made necessary by the decision in Malloy v. Hogan”). Read
this way, Murphy rests upon the same understanding of the
Self-Incrimination Clause that Murdock recognized and to
which the earlier cases had pointed. Although the Clause
serves a variety of interests in one degree or another, see

the States were not deemed fully bound by the privilege against self-
incrimination.”

378 U. S., at 57, n. 6.