Burdick v. United States

Background

George Burdick, the City Editor of the New York Tribune, was called before a federal grand jury investigating alleged customs frauds and refused to answer questions about the sources of information for a newspaper article, saying his answers might incriminate him. He was later given a presidential pardon while before the grand jury, was told the pardon had been obtained to secure his testimony, but he declined to accept the pardon and still refused to answer. A federal court held him in contempt, fined him, and ordered him committed until he testified.

Reasoning

The central question was what effect an unaccepted presidential pardon has on a person’s right not to testify against themselves. The Court relied on earlier precedent and explained that a pardon is a private act that must be accepted to take legal effect. Acceptance can imply admission or create consequences the individual might reasonably reject. Because Burdick refused to accept the pardon, it never became effective for him, and he retained the right to refuse answers that might incriminate him. The Court therefore reversed the contempt judgment and ordered his release.

Real world impact

The decision makes clear that officials cannot force a person to accept a pardon to strip away the right against self-incrimination. Witnesses, including reporters, may decline an unsolicited pardon and keep their privilege against answering questions that could lead to criminal charges. The ruling required dismissal of the contempt proceedings and discharge from custody.