Various elected officials possess the power to pardon – governors, presidents. The topic has been in the news.

A pardon is a release from criminal penalties for a person proven or suspected of criminal behavior. There are two parts to a pardon. The principles were established by the Supreme Court in Burdick vs. United States (1915): 1. A pardon is a personal property right. It can be rejected; it does not have to be accepted. 2. If accepted, a pardon is an admission of guilt. A pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.”

Why would someone reject a pardon? In the Burdick case, the pardon was issued to a newspaper editor convicted of contempt of court. The crime arose when Burdick refused to reveal his source for various news articles. Speculation was that a government official – a whistleblower – was the source.

A too-clever prosecutor secured a pardon from President Woodrow Wilson, and then called Burdick to testify a second time as to his source. The prosecutor reasoned that because Burdick was now pardoned, he could force Burdick to disclose his source. Burdick refused to accept the pardon and remained silent.

The law of pardons is full of other interesting nuances. A pardon generally identifies the acts or behavior to which the pardon applies. Also, a pardon can be given to someone who has not been found guilty, or even charged, with a crime.

Following Burdick, does someone who accepts a pardon admit they are guilty of the criminal conduct identified in the pardon, even if they are never formally charged? Does their admission of guilt apply if they are sued in a civil action for their actions identified in the pardon?

Is any of this relevant to current events? Time will tell.