|
In response to
"this is a myth, fwiw. -- nm"
by
Reagen
|
I don't think this can be dismissed as myth considering the Supreme Court stated as much. -- (edited)
Posted by
Max
Dec 23 '20, 17:33
|
BURDICK
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 471.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued December 16, 1914.
Decided January 25, 1915.
...
"This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is non-committal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law giving protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it."
|