This guaranty is not one of those which has been
siphoned into the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment--so that it is not binding on the states. ¹
But, as we have already noted, where indictment is the
state approved method, discrimination in the selection of
the grand jury becomes a federal question under the
equal protection clause.

This guaranty not only protects a person from giving
testimony which might incriminate him, but also protects
him from producing documents of such character.

The privilege is a personal one and available only to
individuals. Therefore it cannot be claimed to shield
others. ¹² And an officer of a corporation or a member
of an association such as a labor union cannot claim
the privilege when an attempt is made to compel the
production of records of the organization. ⁷ But, he may
claim the privilege when he has refused to produce them
and is questioned about their whereabouts. ²⁸

The Court, in a group of cases decided in 1955, ²³ ruled
that the claim of privilege need not be raised in any
particular way; it was enough if the Fifth Amendment
was referred to.

Where the questions asked, in the light of the back-
ground of the witness, might form a link in a chain of
incriminating evidence; the privilege is properly asserted
even though answers to the questions might not, by them-
selves, incriminate. This rule has at earlier Terms been
applied to questioning about possible Communist con-
nections, ¹¹, ¹⁴, ²⁸ to persons reputed to be gamblers or
racketeers ¹³, ¹⁵, ¹⁶ and in 1956 was applied where the back-
ground indicated possible other criminal connections. ²⁶

The privilege protects only against compulsion by the
federal government. So testimony given under compulsion
in a state court can be used in a federal court. ⁶ Justice

-106-