Document: 383 U.S. 234 86 S.Ct. 788 15 L.Ed.2d 724 James T. STEVENS, Petitioner,v.Charles MARKS, Justice of the Supreme Court New York, County York. Petitioner, v. John J. McCLOSKEY, Sheriff York City. Nos. 210 and 290. Argued Jan. 24, 1966. Decided Feb. 28, [Syllabus from pages 234-235 intentionally omitted] P. Schofield, City, N.Y., Eugene Gressman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. H. Richard Uviller, respondents. Mr. DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 a member City Police Department, was summarily discharged on July 15, 1964. On June 26 he had been subpoenaed before grand jury, known as First 1964 Grand Jury. Before appearing in jury room, an Assistant District Attorney advised him to sign waiver immunity, saying that otherwise would be subject removal public office.1 He signed waiver.2 Thereupon unsworn witness jury: 2 'Q. Lieutenant * Stevens, pointed out you earlier, this is inquiring into crimes conspiracy commit crime bribery officer officer; do understand that? 3 'A. I do. 4 Do further have called here potential defendant, not witness; 5 6 under Constitution United States right refuse answer any questions might tend incriminate you; 7 8 State Constitution, Charter, required, if desires continue hold his position, limited immunity; 9 10 means immunity which requires concerning conduct your office, what say will taken down recorded, should vote true bill against you, indictment—to indict crime, testimony give can used you. 11 12 Are prepared immunity? 13 am.' 14 That petitioner's 'all benefits, provileges, rights obtain indictment, prosecution punishment' covered both privilege self-incrimination prosecution3 evidenced by foregoing colloquy. Then petitioner sworn, asked few questions, given questionnaire fill out, return with it completed. 16 At these stages no counsel. returned different jury—the Third Now counsel refused immunity. examined, before, knowledge save job waive acknowledged knew consequences refusal excused. 17 same day, consequence Jury, police officer. 18 22 again summoned Jury put certain question basis state federal4 constitutional rights. brought judge who directed questions. 'on grounds stated Federal Constitution' found contempt. hearing held at petitioner, through counsel, contended invalid or, alternatively, effectively withdrawn. In either event Fifth Amendment claim valid Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 84 1489, 653. For agreed 'there has immunity.'5 conclusion hearing, fined $250 30 days civil jail Petitioner promptly appealed Appellate Division While appeal pending, sought denied federal habeas corpus. Application F.Supp. 25. The dismissed appeal, stating its belief Regan People 349 58, 75 585, 99 L.Ed. 883, controlling.6 A.D.2d 683, 253 N.Y.S.2d 401. Appeals leave appeal. N.Y.2d 483, 257 1025, 205 N.E.2d 315. This conviction petition No. 210. 19 Thereafter, September Once once more answer, claiming which, we said, available supra, or another question. refusal, contempt sentenced jail.7 January 11, 1965, ground incriminating. answer. days. serving term, writ corpus court relief, indicating regarded binding authority. ex rel. Stevens McCloskey, 239 419. Second Circuit affirmed. 345 F.2d 305. It last application 20 Both cases are writs certiorari. 382 809, 53, 59. 21 Not hearings told responded incriminating answers, statute preclude based such answers. contrary, made clear view waived statute: And meant required said recorded gave could you? Was explained 23 believe was, yes, sir. 24 did tell understood 25 That's right.' went say: 27 regardless lawyer may anyone else say, contention 28 Yes, sir.' 29 As read record, led invoke only pain losing employment; retain obliged waiver; answering Throughout various appearances juries courts contempt, consistently maintained valid. there never suggestion if, contended, were withdrawn, subsequent prosecution. Here lies difference between case after arose, amended statute. Instead conferring automatic all witnesses testify now conferred 'only strict compliance procedural requirements our statutes properly enacted *.' Laino, 161, 173, 218 647, 657, 176 571, 579. Section 381 Penal Law, 1953, McKinney's Consol.Laws c. 40,8 provides investigation 'the court, magistrate committee confer accordance provisions' § 2447. latter section investigating among those 'authorized immunity' proceeding relating bribery, provided steps taken: (a) must self-incrimination; (b) then 'expressly requested prosecuting attorney order person answer'; (c) answer; (d) comply (e) thereupon 'immunity shall conferred.' Under laws, automatically 'merely testifying.' 172, N.Y.S.2d, 656, N.E.2d, 578. 'Complete obtained prospective witness, virtue provisions Id., 31 present neither prosecutor nor thought They tried waiver. Yet gone ahead testified established later invalid, seems bereft law, since 'strict compliance' met.9 Accordingly, bound least until affirmative necessary taken. Whether validly assert depends whether contends, Although trial first ruled valid, considered irrelevant light 32 Since, seen, inapposite, conclude time had—as matter law—effectively withdrawn When federally secured informed failure execute result loss employment. 'a choice rock whirlpool' (Frost Trucking Co. Railroad Comm'n California, 271 583, 593, 46 605, 607, 70 1101), says that, having 'voluntarily' rights, thereafter privilege. appearance consulted attempted just that: announced intention withdraw 33 Even assume, without deciding, constitutionally exact, employment absence right, unable find justification denying it.10 We effort effective, provision clearly applicable him, stand potentially 34 One final point remains. below consider possibility, briefs suggest might, quite apart statutory 2447, operation law. interpreted constitution, defendant compelled appear jury; during him. Steuding, 214, 189 166, 160 468; 571. Thus 'automatic' resulting makes precisely identical Regan. cannot agree. need stop determine here—which merely prevents use defendant's fruits but, apparently, does 'independent' evidence (People supra; Ryan, 155, 204 1)—constitutes 'absolute prosecution' about spoke Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 586, 195, 35 1110, supplanted. see Albertson Subversive Activities Control Board, 70, 79 81, 194, 199—200, 165. even Steuding-Laino believe—as already seen—that case. sense very close Raley Ohio, 360 423, 1257, 1344, where existence suggested witnesses, advice agency necessary. But reversed judgments doing 'convicting citizen exercising him' (id., 438, 1266), 36 'A issue commands citizens, criminal sanctions, language so vague undefined afford fair warning transgress them. Lanzetta Jersey, 306 451, 59 618, 83 888. Inexplicably contradictory ordaining penalties have, fashion, judicially force sanctions. Cardiff, 344 174, 73 189, 97 200. than simply contradictory. There active misleading. Cf. Johnson States, 318 197, 63 549, 553, 87 704. statements Commission legally erroneous, but fact remains inquiry they voice most presently speaking appellants. Due Process Clause permits convictions circumstances.' 438—439, 1266—1267. 37 demonstrates substitute intricate scheme fail fully perceive subtleties. A has, think, fairly demonstrated broad scope replaces, him.11 This, us, teaching Raley, accordingly immunity—if applicable—cannot invoked validate convictions. 38 Reversed. 39 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, concurring part dissenting part. 40 Proper disposition rendered difficult because seeming confusion attended them along line. significance important amendment apparently overlooked. granted certiorari my view, record answer.1 set forth With background, good dismissing improvidently granted. However, briefing argument fore errors sufficiently plain warrant setting aside judgments, although analysis differs Court's remand, outright reversal, for. 41 common jailed refusing himself unless self-incrimination, adequate offset upon Taking up possibility—waiver self-incrimination—it me evident sign, What Charter explicitly require signed, terms prosecution, is, circumvent privilege.2 often lead reason blur two legal concepts. exacting turn square corners; ask instance, justifying other replace 42 turning issue, noted purported ineffective If ever constitution relied hardly decide never-conferred adequately privilege, stage lost benefits event. Adequacy withdrawal sometimes relevant stage, instance above. phase case, demur statement 'we withdraw' (pp. 243-244, ante). deepest interest uprooting punishing misconduct officials; also narrower investigation, commenced premise waiver, suddenly balked witness' change heart. why voluntary it. 43 Turning conferral offsetting convictions, agree pertinent plainly longer play instance. consideration score foreclosed remand reasons indicated take place here, persuasive literal construction accurate.3 Disregarding then, flowed misled reliance forth, decided courts. 44 construed gives fruits, N.Y.2d, 579 today leaves undecided sufficient supplant reference 206, toward negative ought necessarily presented full parties. perhaps enough postponement perforce invalidate one protect testimony.4 addition, recently extended 653, abolished 'two sovereignties' rule, Murphy Water-front Comm'n, 52, 1594, 678, expansive reading far serious impact Counselman.5 event, reached governs instant 45 holds believing when their supplanted believes think applied contingently; so, rely matter, findings how certainly susceptible interpretation. well meant, convey believed irrevocable attempt prosecute gave. reading, possible generally extent supplanting shielded proved wrong views waiver.6 assuming law provide relevantly misled.7 formulated regard problem, briefed form, remand. vacate courts8 try establish conferred, show score. Article I, 6, part: 'No twice jeopardy offense; himself, providing, who, being office within five years prior call testify, performance official duties offices, refuses matters disqualified holding period date removed appropriate authority forfeit suit attorney-general.' '* privileges, punishment account of, regarding transaction thing, duties, property, government affairs county included territorial limits, city county, matters, transactions things produce evidence, documentary otherwise, 1st, conducted Jury.' affirming conviction, said: '(I)f still testify.' 684, 401, 402. Fourteenth guaranteed protection Amendment's Petitioner's following statement: 'May clarified, Your Honor. understanding, Honor, it, Honor guilty right?' replied, 'That covers situation.' arose earlier version jury. had, like executed repudiate Unclear though ordered so. affirmed raised validity efficacy efforts theory him: binding, course thus self-incrimination. sentence served. See 59, note 2, accompanying text, discussion section. recognized court. 5, text. mid-hearing poses administrative inconvenience, inconvenience here. answered perfunctory asserted desire immediately returning finding wide mark. affirmatively demonstrate met burden measured alleged declaration uttered come too late. Certiorari unconstitutional discharge bars rehiring claims N.Y.Const., Art. 1123, 'waive prosecution.' document N.Y. Law 2446 states prosecuted file waiving privilege.' Laino acquired 'by governing procedure requested' order; appears request 'estop' circumstances deliberate, assured grant requires. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. (1964 ed.) Waterfront 104, 1616, n. (concurring White). number greater implied Constitution. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13—384; Conn.Gen.Stat. 12—2. nothing indicates lower courts, cited petitions footnote, announce new distinct principle '(a) his' overriding (p. 246, Reading words 'valid literally, inconsistent instead albeit contingent invalidity waiver—must 'affirmatively demonstrated,' disagree proposition supported Raley. remanded 210; 290, originated await outcome proceedings.

Category: 0