This was copied from the case of Burdick vs United States. There is a mile of stuff to read if you want. I figure it takes up to much space to post.
After President
Gerald Ford left the
White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified
his pardon of
Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the
Burdick decision,
which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt.[6] Ford made reference to the
Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.
[7] However, the reference related only to the portion of
Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.
[7][8]
Justice Joseph McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court in favor of Burdick. The Court ruled Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon for a number of reasons, including the implicit admission of guilt and possibly objectionable terms contained in a conditional pardon. As Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon, he was also entitled to assert his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
Although theIn
Loranc Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[2] this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[4] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. e v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the
10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion."
[5]