Counselman v. Hitchcock

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]

Full case nameCounselman v. Hitchcock

Citations142 U.S. 547 (more)

12 S. Ct. 195; 35 L. Ed. 1110; 1892 U.S. LEXIS 1990; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2529

PriorAppeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois

MajorityBlatchford, joined by unanimous

Quick facts Argued December 9–10, 1891 Decided January 11, 1892, Full case name ...

Counselman v. Hitchcock
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 9–10, 1891 Decided January 11, 1892
Full case name	Counselman v. Hitchcock
Citations	142 U.S. 547 (more) 12 S. Ct. 195; 35 L. Ed. 1110; 1892 U.S. LEXIS 1990; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2529
Case history
Prior	Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois
Court membership
Chief Justice Melville Fuller Associate Justices Stephen J. Field Â· Joseph P. Bradley John M. Harlan Â· Horace Gray Samuel Blatchford Â· Lucius Q. C. Lamar II David J. Brewer Â· Henry B. Brown
Case opinion
Majority	Blatchford, joined by unanimous

Close