Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 717

524US2

Unit: $U97

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

672

UNITED STATES v. BALSYS

Opinion of the Court

that any testimony he might give in the deportation investi-
gation could be used in a criminal proceeding against him
brought by the Government of either the United States or
one of the States, he would be entitled to invoke the privi-
lege.
It “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or crimi-
nal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory,”
in which the witness reasonably believes that the informa-
tion sought, or discoverable as a result of his testimony, could
be used in a subsequent state or federal criminal proceeding.
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 444–445 (1972); see
also McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 40 (1924) (the priv-
ilege “applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wher-
ever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsi-
bility him who gives it”). But Balsys makes no such claim,
contending rather that his entitlement to invoke the privi-
lege arises because of a real and substantial fear that his
testimony could be used against him by Lithuania or Israel
in a criminal prosecution. The reasonableness of his fear is
not challenged by the Government, and we thus squarely
face the question whether a criminal prosecution by a foreign
government not subject to our constitutional guarantees pre-
sents a “criminal case” for purposes of the privilege against
self-incrimination.

III

Balsys relies in the ﬁrst instance on the textual contrast
between the Sixth Amendment, which clearly applies only
to domestic criminal proceedings, and the Compelled Self-
Incrimination Clause, with its facially broader reference
to “any criminal case.” The same point is developed by
Balsys’s amici,3 who argue that “any criminal case” means
exactly that, regardless of the prosecuting authority. Ac-
cording to the argument, the Framers’ use of the adjective
“any” precludes recognition of the distinction raised by the

3 See Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al.

as Amici Curiae 5.