Search JTA's historical archive dating back to 1923

Judge Rifkind Outlines Stand on Use of Fifth Amendment

April 26, 1954
See Original Daily Bulletin From This Date
Advertisement

The American people should either make up their minds “that the Fifth Amendment means what it says, that it is a shield and it may be freely used without legal consequences, or it is not, in which case it has lost all significance, ” Simon H. Rifkind of New York, former U.S. District Court judge, declared here tonight. However, he cautioned that “though the use of the Fifth Amendment does not warrant an inference of guilt, it may nevertheless, warrant further inquiry. “

Speaking to the annual dinner meeting of the Boston chapter of the American Jewish Committee at the Hotel Somerset, Judge Rifkind, who is chairman of AJC’s National Administrative Committee, pointed out that “to say, as some do, that the assertion of this high privilege is in itself an admission of guilt, is a startling innovation. “

Judge Rifkind deplored both the “ostrich approach” to Communism, which insists there is no danger, and the “hysterical approach,” which makes people “incapable of estimating the actual danger or knowing what to do about it. ” He urged instead “the manly approach that soberly faces up to the fact that there is a danger. ” As part of this approach he stated that we should recognize that a person who pleads the Fifth Amendment “may owe it to those with whom he is in a confidential relationship, to explain why he is using the shield. “

He noted that where there is a relationship between a person and an institution–a social service agency, college, university, or hospital, which asks for public financial support–“and if the public has reached the point where it will regard with grave suspicion any person who pleads the Fifth Amendment, then the one who pleads it must be aware of the fact that he is subjecting his institution to very grave injury. “

“He may well be under the obligation to sever his relations with that institution,” Judge Rifkind added. “Therefore, while he may want to enjoy his Constitutional rights and privileges, he has not the freedom to impose the burden upon the institution which engages him “

Recommended from JTA

Advertisement