Prunus

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.^[1][2]

References

External links

• Text of Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892) is available from: CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress