DOJ-OGR-00004878.jpg
815 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
0
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion exhibit
File Size:
815 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (*Commonwealth v. Taylor*) discussing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents to argue that the privilege applies broadly in both criminal and civil/administrative proceedings. The document emphasizes that the right accompanies a person regardless of the legal proceeding type.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Douglas, J. | Justice (Supreme Court) |
Quoted in dissenting opinion in Ullmann v. United States regarding the Fifth Amendment.
|
| Black, J. | Justice (Supreme Court) |
Quoted in concurring opinion in Grunewald v. United States regarding penalties for relying on constitutional privileges.
|
| Taylor | Defendant (Case Law) |
Refers to Commonwealth v. Taylor, a case used as precedent regarding self-incrimination.
|
| Garrity | Party (Case Law) |
Refers to Garrity v. New Jersey.
|
| Boyd | Party (Case Law) |
Refers to Boyd v. United States.
|
| Counselman | Party (Case Law) |
Refers to Counselman v. Hitchcock.
|
| Hitchcock | Party (Case Law) |
Refers to Counselman v. Hitchcock.
|
| Quinn | Party (Case Law) |
Refers to Quinn v. United States.
|
| Grunewald | Party (Case Law) |
Refers to Grunewald v. United States.
|
| Gault | Party (Case Law) |
Refers to Application of Gault.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (SDNY)
|
|
| Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Implied author of the text citing Commonwealth v. Taylor (Pa. 2020) as 'We recently discussed...'
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00004878
|
|
| U.S. Supreme Court |
Cited via case laws (U.S. Reports citations)
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the cited case Commonwealth v. Taylor
|
|
|
Mentioned in case citation Garrity v. New Jersey
|
Relationships (2)
Douglas wrote the dissent in Ullmann v. United States.
Key Quotes (4)
"Amendment’s self-incrimination clause 'is not only a protection against conviction and prosecution but a safeguard of conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression as well.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004878.jpg
Quote #1
"certain rights, such as those enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, are among those privileges 'whose exercise a State may not condition by the exaction of a price.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004878.jpg
Quote #2
"The right against compulsory self-incrimination accompanies a person wherever he goes, no matter the legal proceeding in which he participates, unless and until 'the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exists.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004878.jpg
Quote #3
"The privilege may, for example, be claimed in a civil or administrative proceeding, if the statement is or may be inculpatory."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004878.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,443 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 66 of 80
Amendment’s self-incrimination clause “is not only a protection against conviction and
prosecution but a safeguard of conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression
as well.” Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 445 (1956) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
prosecution but a safeguard of conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression
as well.” Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 445 (1956) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
We recently discussed the centrality of the privilege against compulsory self-
incrimination in the American concept of ordered liberty in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 230
A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2020). There, we noted that certain rights, such as those enshrined in
the Fifth Amendment, are among those privileges “whose exercise a State may not
condition by the exaction of a price.” Id. at 1064 (quoting Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S.
493, 500 (1967)). To ensure that these fundamental freedoms are “scrupulously
observed,” we emphasized that “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional
rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon,” id. at 1063-64
(quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)), and that “the Fifth Amendment
is to be “broad[ly] constru[ed] in favor of the right which it was intended to secure.” Id. at
1064 (quoting Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 (1892), Boyd, 116 U.S. at
635, and Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 162 (1955)). We stressed that “[t]he value
of constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on
them.” Id. at 1064 (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 425 (1957) (Black,
J., concurring)).26
incrimination in the American concept of ordered liberty in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 230
A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2020). There, we noted that certain rights, such as those enshrined in
the Fifth Amendment, are among those privileges “whose exercise a State may not
condition by the exaction of a price.” Id. at 1064 (quoting Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S.
493, 500 (1967)). To ensure that these fundamental freedoms are “scrupulously
observed,” we emphasized that “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional
rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon,” id. at 1063-64
(quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)), and that “the Fifth Amendment
is to be “broad[ly] constru[ed] in favor of the right which it was intended to secure.” Id. at
1064 (quoting Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 (1892), Boyd, 116 U.S. at
635, and Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 162 (1955)). We stressed that “[t]he value
of constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on
them.” Id. at 1064 (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 425 (1957) (Black,
J., concurring)).26
The right against compulsory self-incrimination accompanies a person wherever
he goes, no matter the legal proceeding in which he participates, unless and until “the
potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exists.” Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1065. It
he goes, no matter the legal proceeding in which he participates, unless and until “the
potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exists.” Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1065. It
________________________________________________________________
26 To that end, the application of the privilege against self-incrimination is not limited
to criminal matters. Its availability “does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its
protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure
which it invites.” Id. (quoting Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 (1967)). “The privilege
may, for example, be claimed in a civil or administrative proceeding, if the statement is or
may be inculpatory.” Gault, 387 U.S. at 49.
26 To that end, the application of the privilege against self-incrimination is not limited
to criminal matters. Its availability “does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its
protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure
which it invites.” Id. (quoting Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 (1967)). “The privilege
may, for example, be claimed in a civil or administrative proceeding, if the statement is or
may be inculpatory.” Gault, 387 U.S. at 49.
[J-100-2020] - 65
DOJ-OGR-00004878
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document