holding that the "crucial question in determining whether the statute of limitations has run is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, for it is that which determines both the duration of the conspiracy, and whether the act relied on as an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy” and ordering a new trial so that the jury could determine the scope of the conspiracy
How later courts described this case
- holding that the "crucial question in determining whether the statute of limitations has run is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, for it is that which determines both the duration of the conspiracy, and whether the act relied on as an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy” and ordering a new trial so that the jury could determine the scope of the conspiracy
- explaining that Raffel *289 should not be read “as establishing as a matter of law that... a prior claim of privilege with reference to a question later answered at the trial is always to be deemed to be a prior inconsistent statement, irrespective of the circumstances under which the claim of privilege was made”
- explaining that Raffel should not be read “as establishing as a matter of law that . . . a prior claim of privilege with reference to a question later answered at the trial is always to be deemed to be a prior inconsistent statement, irrespective of the circumstances under which the claim of privilege was made”
- holding that a person's silence during interrogation is not inconsistent with his exculpatory testimony at trial in light of repeated assertions of innocence during interrogation, the secretive nature of the interrogation, and the focus on the defendant during the interrogation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*425 Mr. Justice Black,
with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan join,
concurring.
I concur in the reversal of these cases for the reasons given in the Court’s opinion with one exception.
In No. 184, the petitioner, Halperin, appeared before a grand jury in response to a subpoena. There he declined to answer certain questions relying on the provision of the Fifth Amendment that “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Later, at his trial, Halperin took the stand to testify in his own behalf. On cross-examination the prosecuting attorney asked him the same questions that he had refused to answer before the grand jury. This time Halperin answered the questions; his answers tended to show that he was innocent of any wrong-doing. The Government was then permitted over objection to draw from him the fact that he had previously refused to answer these questions before the grand jury on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him.
At the conclusion of the trial the judge instructed the jury that Halperin’s claim of his constitutional privilege not to be a witness against himself could be considered in determining what weight should be given to his testimony — in other words, whether Halperin was a truthful and trustworthy witness. I agree with the Court that use of this claim of constitutional privilege to reflect upon Halperin’s credibility was error, but I do not, like the Court, rest my conclusion on the special circumstances of this case. I can think of no special circumstances that would justify use of a constitutional privilege to discredit or convict a person who asserts it. The value of constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on them. It seems peculiarly *426 incongruous and indefensible for courts which exist and act only under the Constitution to draw inferences of lack of honesty from invocation of a privilege deemed worthy of enshrinement in the Constitution. To the extent that approval of such a rule in Raffel v. United States, 271 U. S. 494 , has vitality after Johnson v. United States, 318 U. S. 189, 196-199 , I think the Raffel case should be explicitly overruled.