Burdick v. United States
236 U.S. 79, 35 S. Ct. 267, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1799 (1915)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A presidential pardon must be accepted by the recipient to be legally effective; an unaccepted pardon does not eliminate the recipient's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Facts:
- A federal grand jury was investigating customs frauds that were the subject of an article in the New York Tribune.
- George Burdick, the City Editor of the Tribune, was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury about his sources for the article.
- Burdick refused to answer, asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, claiming his answers might tend to incriminate him.
- In an effort to compel his testimony, President Woodrow Wilson issued a full and unconditional pardon to Burdick for any offenses he may have committed related to the article.
- Burdick was presented with the pardon but formally refused to accept it.
- When questioned again by the grand jury, Burdick continued to refuse to answer on the same Fifth Amendment grounds.
Procedural Posture:
- George Burdick was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York.
- After Burdick refused to accept a presidential pardon and continued to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, the grand jury presented him to the U.S. District Court for contempt.
- The District Court adjudged Burdick guilty of contempt, fined him $500, and ruled that the unaccepted pardon was sufficient to remove his privilege against self-incrimination.
- When Burdick still refused to testify, the District Court issued a final order of commitment, and he was taken into the custody of the United States Marshal.
- Burdick then sought a writ of error from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the District Court's judgment of contempt.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a presidential pardon, granted before any conviction and without acceptance by the recipient, remove the recipient's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, thereby compelling the recipient to testify?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McKenna
No, a presidential pardon that is not accepted by the recipient has no legal effect and does not destroy the recipient's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court's reasoning, based heavily on the precedent set in United States v. Wilson, is that a pardon is a 'deed' whose validity requires both delivery and acceptance. A court cannot force an individual to accept a pardon, as it is a private act of grace that the intended recipient has the right to reject. The court distinguished a pardon from legislative immunity, noting that accepting a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and amounts to a confession. An individual has the right to reject this implied confession, even if it means facing potential legal consequences, rather than accept an 'escape' that brands them as a transgressor. Because Burdick rejected the pardon, it was not effective, and his constitutional privilege to refuse to testify remained intact.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a pardon is a bilateral act requiring acceptance, not a unilateral executive command. It establishes that the Fifth Amendment privilege is a personal right that cannot be involuntarily waived by an unsolicited act of the executive branch. The case creates a crucial distinction between a pardon, which implies guilt and can be refused, and legislative immunity, which is an act of law that compels testimony without requiring a confession. This precedent ensures that the government cannot use an unwanted pardon as a tool to circumvent the Fifth Amendment and force a witness to incriminate themselves.
