Court Opinion

ID: 9423607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:08:25.606636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:44.994750
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stewart,
concurring.*
If we were writing upon a clean slate, I would agree with the conclusion reached by The Chief Justice in these cases.1 Por I am' convinced that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was originally meant to do no more than confer a testimonial privilege upon a witness in a judicial proceeding.2 But the Court long ago lost sight of that original mean*77ing. In the absence of a fundamental re-examination of our decisions, the most relevant recent one being Albertson v. SACB, 382 U. S. 70, I am compelled to join the opinions and judgments of the.Court.

[This opinion applies also to No. 2, Marchetti v. United States, ante, p. 39.]

 And in Haynes v. United States, post, p. 85.

 That, after all, is what the clause says:
“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .