Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 745

524US2

Unit: $U97

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

700

UNITED STATES v. BALSYS

Stevens, J., concurring

at issue here, and the mere support of one nation for the
prosecutorial efforts of another does not transform the
prosecution of the one into the prosecution of the other. Cf.
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, 122–124 (1959) (rejecting
double jeopardy claim where federal ofﬁcials turned over all
evidence they had gathered in connection with federal prose-
cution of defendant for use in subsequent state prosecution
of defendant).
In this case there is no basis for concluding
that the privilege will lose its meaning without a rule pre-
cluding compelled testimony when there is a real and sub-
stantial risk that such testimony will be used in a criminal
prosecution abroad.

*

*

*

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is re-
versed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens, concurring.
While I join the Court’s opinion without reservation, I

write separately to emphasize these points.

The Clause that protects every person from being “com-
pelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ”
is a part of the broader protection afforded by the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution. That Amendment con-
strains the power of the Federal Government to deprive any
person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law,” just as the Fourteenth Amendment imposes compara-
ble constraints on the power of the States. The primary
ofﬁce of the Clause at issue in this case is to afford protection
to persons whose liberty has been placed in jeopardy in an
American tribunal. The Court’s holding today will not have
any adverse impact on the fairness of American criminal
trials.

The fact that the issue in this case has been undecided for
such a long period of time suggests that our ruling will have