Grosso v. United States/Concurrence Stewart

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. For 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. But the Court long ago lost sight of that original meaning. In the absence of a fundamental re-examination of our decisions, the most relevant recent one being Albertson v. SACB, 382 U.S. 70, 86 S.Ct. 194, 15 L.Ed.2d 165, I am compelled to join the opinions and judgments of the Court.

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, dissenting in No. 2.