Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Balsys

Supreme Court of the United States · 1998 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentSelf-Incrimination Clauseforeign prosecutionsame-sovereign principleresident alien

Facts

Aloyzas Balsys, a resident alien admitted to the United States in 1961, had stated in his visa application that he served in the Lithuanian army from 1934 to 1940 and lived in hiding in Lithuania from 1940 to 1944. The Office of Special Investigations investigated whether those statements were false and whether he had participated in Nazi persecution, which could support deportation and charges based on false statements in his visa application. When subpoenaed to testify about his wartime activities and immigration, Balsys refused to answer and invoked the Fifth Amendment. He did not claim fear of prosecution under United States or state law, but asserted a real and substantial fear of prosecution by Lithuania, Israel, and Germany.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination allow a witness in a domestic proceeding to refuse to testify solely because his answers may incriminate him under foreign law and expose him to criminal prosecution by a foreign government? More specifically, is a foreign prosecution a "criminal case" within the meaning of the Self-Incrimination Clause?

Rule

The Self-Incrimination Clause protects against compelled testimony when the witness reasonably fears prosecution by a government bound by the Clause. A fear of prosecution solely by a foreign nation is outside the scope of the Clause, because a foreign prosecution is not a "criminal case" for Fifth Amendment purposes in this context.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal administrative inquiry in Chicago, investigators subpoena Niko Petrov, a lawful permanent resident, to answer questions about financial transfers he made years earlier in Serbia. Niko concedes he faces no realistic risk of prosecution under federal or state law, but he shows a real and substantial fear that Serbia would use his answers in a criminal case there.

May Niko refuse to answer on Fifth Amendment self-incrimination grounds?

Explanation. The majority held that the Self-Incrimination Clause does not permit refusal to testify solely because of fear of prosecution by a foreign country. The privilege applies in any type of proceeding only when the witness reasonably fears use of the testimony in a later federal or state criminal case. The fact that Niko is a resident alien does not expand the Clause beyond prosecutions by sovereigns bound by it.