Court Opinion

ID: 9426846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:05.480572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:03.428289
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins, concurring in part.
I join the Court’s judgment, for the reasons stated in Parts (1), (2), and (3) of its opinion. I cannot, however, join Part (4), because I continue to believe that “the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires that any jurisdiction that compels a man to incriminate himself grant him absolute immunity under its laws from prosecution for any transaction revealed in that testimony.” Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U. S. 548, 562 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting). See also Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 462 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting); id., at 467 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Moreover, even on the Court’s assumption that a lesser immunity is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Fifth Amendment, I question the propriety of the Court’s suggestion that the New York Legislature’s decision to grant *810additional protection to the Fifth Amendment rights of grand jury witnesses was somehow contrary to the State’s best interests.