Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 747.0

524US2

Unit: $U97

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

702

UNITED STATES v. BALSYS

Breyer, J., dissenting

As a restraint on compelling a person to bear witness against
himself, the Amendment ordinarily should command the
respect of United States interrogators, whether the pros-
ecution reasonably feared by the examinee is domestic or
foreign. Cf. DKT Memorial Fund Ltd. v. Agency for
International Development, 887 F. 2d 275, 307–308 (CADC
1989) (R. B. Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and dissenting
in part) (“just as our ﬂag carries its message . . . both at
home and abroad, so does our Constitution and the values it
expresses”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted);
United States v. Tiede, 86 F. R. D. 227 (U. S. Court for Berlin
1979) (foreign national accused of hijacking Polish aircraft
abroad was tried under German substantive law in Berlin in
a court created by United States; U. S. court held foreign
national entitled to jury trial as a matter of constitutional
right). On this understanding of the “fundamental de-
cenc[y]” the Fifth Amendment embodies, “its expression of
our view of civilized governmental conduct,” Griswold,
supra, at 8, 9, I join Justice Breyer(cid:146)s dissenting opinion.

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,

dissenting.

Were Aloyzas Balsys to face even a theoretical possibility
that his testimony could lead a State to prosecute him for
murder, the Fifth Amendment would prohibit the Federal
Government from compelling that testimony. The Court
concludes, however, that the Fifth Amendment does not pro-
hibit compulsion here because Balsys faces a real and sub-
stantial danger of prosecution not, say, by California, but by
a foreign nation. The Fifth Amendment, however, provides
that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5 (em-
phasis added). This Court has not read the words “any
criminal case” to limit application of the Clause to only fed-
eral criminal cases. See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of
N. Y. Harbor, 378 U. S. 52 (1964). That precedent, as well