Court Opinion

ID: 9754980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:20:03.163046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:01.213685
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice STEWART,
also concurring in the judgment, wrote:
The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination provides no protection for the commission of perjury.
425 U.S. at 609, 96 S.Ct. at 1792.
Two concurring justices (eight Justices voted; Mr. Justice STEVENS took no part in the decision) indicated that they might have granted the witness relief if the conviction had resulted from “governmental tactics or procedures so inherently unfair under all the circumstances as to constitute a prosecution for perjury a violation of the Due Process Clause . .” 425 U.S. at 585, 96 S.Ct. at 1780 (Mr. Justice BRENNAN, concurring in the judgment). The other two concurring justices spoke similarly of “prosecutorial conduct amounting to a denial of due process . . . .” 425 U.S. at 609, 96 S.Ct. at 1792 (Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring in the judgment) (footnote omitted). However, there is no allegation of such misconduct here.
Affirmed.
HOFFMAN and CERCONE, JJ., concur in the result.
WATKINS, former President Judge, and VAN der VOORT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.