Court Opinion

ID: 9695846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:30:19.916623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:16.983335
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The majority describes three options as being open to the appellants when called to testify before the grand jury: (1) to act in a contemptuous manner, (2) to make harmful disclosures, and (3) to commit perjury. There is, however, a fourth option: exercise of the constitutional right against self-incrimination. But nobody told these appellants about their constitutional rights. The majority says that the appellants could have invoked their constitutional rights, and since “this avenue was available” the appellants should have pursued it. How could they? The very point of the appellants’ appeal is that one compelled to talk by government coercion is entitled to be informed of his constitutional rights. The majority fails to answer the only issue raised — why are citizens not entitled to be informed of their constitutional rights when compelled to testify? It would be simple, painless, and relatively costless to tell people of their constitutional rights. Why not do it? I must dissent.