SCOTUS Case

Counselman v. Hitchcock

Primary source

Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). Edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.

Background

1892 United States Supreme Court case

Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that not incriminating an individual for testimony was not the same as not requiring them to testify at all. The court reasoned that as long as evidence arising from the compelled testimony could incriminate the individual in any way, the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination was not satisfied. The court then adopted the broader "transactional immunity " rule.

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counselman_v._Hitchcock&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: References")
]

↑ William Cohen; John Kaplan (1981). Constitutional law: civil liberty and individual rights . Foundation Press. ISBN .
↑ Counselman v. Hitchcock, U.S.

(1892).

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counselman_v._Hitchcock&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of Counselman v. Hitchcock, U.S. 547 (1892) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress

hide

United States Fourth Amendment case law

hide

Scope of the Fourth Amendment

Definition of search

_Boyd v. United States _ (1886)
_United States v. Lee _ (1927)
_Olmstead v. United States _ (1928)
_Abel v. United States _ (1960)
_Silverman v. United States _ (1961)
_Katz v. United States _ (1967)
_United States v. Knotts _ (1983)
_United States v. Place _ (1983)
_United States v. Karo _ (1984)
_California v. Greenwood _ (1988)
_Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n _ (1989)
_United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez _ (1990)
_Bond v. United States _ (2000)
_Kyllo v. United States _ (2001)
_Illinois v. Caballes _ (2005)
_United States v. Jones _ (2012)
_Florida v. Jardines _ (2013)
_Klayman v. Obama _ (D.D.C. 2013)
_American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper _ (D.D.C. 2013)

Definition of seizure

Third-party entry

_Wilson v. Layne _ (1999)

Fourth Amendment standing

_Rakas v. Illinois _ (1978)
_Byrd v. United States _ (2018)

show

Warrant requirement

_Johnson v. United States _ (1948)
_Franks v. Delaware _ (1978)
_Ybarra v. Illinois _ (1979)
_Maryland v. Garrison _ (1987)
_United States v. Grubbs _ (2006)
_Los Angeles County v. Rettelle _ (2006)

show

Exceptions to warrant requirement

show

Seizures

show

Remedies

Exclusionary rule

Civil suit

show

Incorporation against States

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counselman_v._Hitchcock&oldid=1311188137 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Counselman v. Hitchcock

Add languages Add topic

[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

…

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination “must have a broad construction in favor of the right which it was intended to secure”
holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings
holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings
listing a sample of cases, including preframing cases, in which the privilege was asserted, none of which involve fear of foreign prosecution
listing a sample of cases, including preframing eases, in which the privilege was asserted, none of which involve fear of foreign prosecution
reviewing federal provision and various state provisions and stating that “however differently worded, [the provisions] should have as far as possible the same interpretation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read the full Wikipedia article

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.