SUMMARY: The concept of a pardon COMPELLING testimony that can be considered admission of a crime was not tested in Burdick.
It was hinted at but not decided.
That question remains.
I contend that the 5th Amendment right still stands in the face of a pardon, accepted or not.
No citizen of the United States shall “be compelled—
in a criminal case
—to be a witness against himself...”
Not a lawyer but how about this as a counter:
Since to accept a pardon is a admission of guilt, any further witness of guilt is moot, therefore testimony can be compelled unless preempted by privilege such as spousal or clergy.
that’s interesting. I wasn’t going down that part of it. Definitely no caveats about it even when there is no jeopardy attached to testifying. Scalia would have probably agreed with that.
What triggered my interest was the missive that Burdick was used to justify pre-emptive pardons, when it doesn’t.
What this post https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4287546/posts?page=4790#4790
pointed to was #1 in post #4627