holding on separation of powers grounds that district court may not review judgment of U.S. Attorney that testimony of witness is so important as to require the court’s affording the witness immunity
How later courts described this case
- holding on separation of powers grounds that district court may not review judgment of U.S. Attorney that testimony of witness is so important as to require the court’s affording the witness immunity
- stating that the privilege does not shield a witness from "disabilities ... such as loss of job, expulsion from labor unions, ... passport eligibility, and general public opprobrium”
- acknowledging that "[t]oo many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of a crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege"
- explaining that the danger “to a witness forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of penalties affixed to the 2 criminal acts” is displaced by immunity, and “[o]nce the reason for a privilege ceases, the privilege ceases.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Reed
concurs in the opinion and judgment of the Court except as to the statement that no consti *440 tutional guarantee enjoys preference. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 115 ; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 530 ; cf. Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77, 88 .