The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 157

[37] Pinkerton _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946); United States _v._ Bayer, 331 U.S. 532 (1947).

[38] Pinkerton _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).

[39] American Tobacco Co. _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946).

[40] 339 U.S. 485 (1950).

[41] Coffey _v._ United States, 116 U.S. 436 (1886).

[42] United States _v._ La Franca, 282 U.S. 568 (1931).

[43] Helvering _v._ Mitch.e.l.l, 303 U.S. 391 (1938).

[44] Waterloo Distilling Corp. _v._ United States, 282 U.S. 577 (1931).

[45] United States _v._ Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184, 197 (1820).

[46] United States _v._ Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922); Jerome _v._ United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943).

[47] In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 672 (1897).

[48] See generally J.H. Wigmore, 4 Evidence in Trials at Common Law, -- 2250 (2nd ed., 1923); also Edward S. Corwin, The Supreme Court's Construction of the Self-Incrimination Clause, 29 Michigan Law Review, 1-27, 195-207 (1930).

[49] McCarthy _v._ Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 (1924). _See also_ Boyd _v._ United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886); Counselman _v._ Hitchc.o.c.k, 142 U.S. 547 (1892); Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896).

[50] Rogers _v._ United States, 340 U.S. 367, 370 (1951); United States _v._ Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 (1943).

[51] Hoffman _v._ United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Mason _v._ United States, 244 U.S. 362, 363 (1917).

[52] Rogers _v._ United States, 340 U.S. 367, 371 (1951); United States _v._ Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 148 (1931).

[53] Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598-599 (1896).

[54] _Cf._ Burd.i.c.k _v._ United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915); and Biddle _v._ Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927).

[55] United States _v._ Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 149 (1931).

[56] Feldman _v._ United States, 322 U.S. 487 (1944).

[57] Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896); Johnson _v._ United States, 318 U.S. 189 (1943).

[58] _Cf._ Twining _v._ New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908). However, a defendant in a prosecution by the United States enjoys a statutory right to have the jury instructed that his failure to testify creates no presumption against him. 28 U.S.C. 632; Bruno _v._ U.S., 308 U.S. 287 (1939). _See also_ 318 U.S. at 196.

[59] Pierce _v._ United States, 160 U.S. 355 (1896); Wilson _v._ United States, 162 U.S. 613 (1896); United States _v._ Mitch.e.l.l, 322 U.S. 65 (1944).

[60] 318 U.S. 332 (1943).

[61] _Ibid._, 340. In Upshaw _v._ United States, 335 U.S. 410 (1948), a sharply divided Court found the McNabb case inapplicable to a case in which respondent, while under arrest for a.s.sault with intent to rape, was brought, by extended questioning, to confess having previously committed murder in an attempt to rape.

[62] Sullivan _v._ United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263 264 (1927).

[63] Blau _v._ United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950). _See also_ Blau _v._ United States, 340 U.S. 332 (1951); Rogers _v._ United States, 340 U.S.

367 (1951); Dennis _v._ United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

[64] Holt _v._ United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910).

[65] Rochin _v._ California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

[66] Re Harris, 221 U.S. 274, 279 (1911).

[67] Dier _v._ Banton, 262 U.S. 147 (1923).

[68] Re Fuller, 262 U.S. 91 (1923).

[69] Arndstein _v._ McCarthy, 254 U.S. 71 (1920).

[70] McCarthy _v._ Arndstein, 262 U.S. 355 (1923).

[71] McCarthy _v._ Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924).

[72] Hale _v._ Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906); Wilson _v._ United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. _v._ Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946).

[73] United States _v._ White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944).

[74] Rogers _v._ United States, 340 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).

[75] _See_ pp. 825-828 _ante_.

[76] 335 U.S. 1 (1948).

[77] Ibid. 33. In a dissenting opinion Justice Frankfurter argued: "The underlying a.s.sumption of the Court's opinion is that all records which Congress in the exercise of its const.i.tutional powers may require individuals to keep in the conduct of their affairs, because those affairs also have aspects of public interest, become 'public' records in the sense that they fall outside the const.i.tutional protection of the Fifth Amendment. The validity of such a doctrine lies in the scope of its implications. The claim touches records that may be required to be kept by federal regulatory laws, revenue measures, labor and census legislation in the conduct of business which the understanding and feeling of our people still treat as private enterprise, even though its relations to the public may call for governmental regulation, including the duty to keep designated records.... If Congress by the easy device of requiring a man to keep the private papers that he has customarily kept can render such papers 'public' and nonprivileged, there is little left to either the right of privacy or the const.i.tutional privilege."

Ibid. 70.

[78] The Inst.i.tutes, Part 2, 50-51 (1669).

[79] On the above _see_ especially Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion in Hurtado _v._ California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 (1884); _also_ Den ex dem.

Murray _v._ Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 280 (1856); Twining _v._ New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908); _also_ Corwin, Liberty Against Government (Louisiana State University Press), chap. III.

[80] Scott _v._ Sandford, 10 How. 393, 450 (1857).

[81] Adkins _v._ Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923). _See also_ Adair _v._ United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908); and Lochner _v._ New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

[82] Den ex dem. Murray _v._ Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How.

272, 276 (1856).

[83] Union P.R. Co. _v._ United States (Sinking Fund Cases), 99 U.S.

700, 719 (1879).

[84] Wong Wing _v._ United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896).