Document: 406 U.S. 472 92 S.Ct. 1670 32 L.Ed.2d 234 Joseph Arthur ZICARELLI, Appellant,v.The NEW JERSEY STATE COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION. No. 69—4. Argued Jan. 11, 1972. Decided May 22, Syllabus After appellant invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions concerning organized crime, racketeering, political corruption in Long Branch, New Jersey, appellee Commission granted him statutory immunity 'from having such responsive given by or evidence produced derived therefrom used expose criminal prosecution penalty a forfeiture of his estate . ..' Appellant still answer, contending that full transactional was required, ban on use derivative 'responsive' answers is unconstitutionally vague, would not protect from foreign prosecution, which he has real substantial fear. adjudged be contempt judgment upheld appeal. The Jersey Supreme Court, construing responsiveness limitation, held 'the statute protects witness against good faith believed were demanded.' procedure provides for an advance statement subject matter questioning permits have counsel present at hearing. Held: 1. coextensive with scope privilege self-incrimination, sufficient compel testimony. Kastigar v. United States, 441, 1653, 212. p. 441. Pp. 474—476. 2. In light State Court's construction context operates, limitation violative due process. 476—478. 3. self-incrimination dangers, remote speculative possibilities, here there no showing danger being compelled disclose information might incriminate under law. 478—481. 55 N.J. 249, 261 A.2d 129, affirmed. Michael A. Querques, Orange, N.J., appellant. Andrew F. Phelan, Trenton, appellee. George Kugler, Jr., amicus curiae. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case, like 212, raises conditions testimony can unwilling who invokes compulsory self-incrimination. 2 Investigation1 subpoenaed appear July 8, 1969, testify Jersey.2 course several appearances before Commission, series 100 questions. pursuant N.J.Rev.Stat. § 52:9M—17(a) (1970), ordered Notwithstanding grant immunity, persisted refusal answer. then petitioned Superior Court Mercer County order directing show cause why should committed jail until time as purged himself testifying ordered. At hearing cause, challenged grounds, one insufficient respects over claim privilege. rejected this contention, incarcerated testified certified appellant's appeal argument Appellate Division, affirmed re Zicarelli, 129 (1970). noted probable jurisdiction set case consider challenges sufficiency authorized statute. 401 933, 91 916, 28 213 (1971). 3 * A majority members authority confer self-incrimination.3 testifies that: 4 'he shall immune him, estate, except person may nevertheless prosecuted any perjury producing evidence, failing give produce accordance commission .' 52:9M—17(b) 5 comprehensive prohibition immunity.4 contends only affords protection commensurate afforded suffices We today Kastigar, where we privilege, therefore perceive difference between degree federal sustained Kastigar. 6 also while suffice secure invasion jurisdictions other than seeking testimony, must greater immunity. notion our system supplant Our holding controlling here. II 7 provided vague because it immunizes without providing guidelines determining what does come us devoid interpretation, construed follows: 8 'The intended prevent undue volunteering already knows will likely upon witness's aid. purpose trap. Fairly construed, 270—271, A.2d, 140. 9 technical legal evidentiary sense fears,5 but, rather, cast terms ordinary English usage6 good-faith understanding average man. term usage well-recognized meaning. It not, argues, 'so men common intelligence necessarily guess its meaning differ application.' Connally General Construction Co., 269 385, 391, 46 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). 10 Moreover, contention ambiguity poses hazards considered operates. penal requires uncounseled decision layman action lawful pursue. entitled intends examine him.7 notice inquiry provide background aid seek. further during hearing,8 clarification ambiguous response witness.9 trap unwary; rather barrier those intentionally tender sought effort frustrate prosecution.10 operates11 reaffirms conclusion violate Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. III 11 asserts cannot prosecution. He argues fear follows, insists, testify, irrespective receives, neither nor either sovereign. respect individual concluded, however, unnecessary reach constitutional question case. 12 well established possibilities.12 County, introduced numerous newspaper magazine articles bearing claim. called number these court's attention demonstrate basis prosecution.13 These labeled 'foremost internationalist' crime,14 detailed alleged participation unlawful ventures growing out interests activities Canada15 Dominican Republic.16 13 While lend support abstract, they do asked Commission. Of cites specific question17 posing risk incrimination That is: 'In geographical area you Cosa Nostra responsibilities?' 14 think plain areas Jersey. law enforcement, city located Monmouth Eleven preceding consideration related specifically Branch County.18 course, fact outside designed elicit information, dispositive When considering whether sustained, court focuses truthful disclose, expected questioner.19 But imparts additional question, clarifies sought. interposed 'in setting asked.' Hoffman 341 479, 486, 71 814, 818, 95 1118 (1951). 15 Considering circumstances asked, agree never Even if international responsibilities, could answered truthfully disclosing them. Should found necessary qualify confining domestic responsibilities avoid law, done so. To divulged been volunteer sought, apparently relevant Commission's investigation. clear counsel. 16 free purge answering inquire into matters pose relevancy objection,20 squarely presented. believe record presents question. 17 accordingly 18 Affirmed. 19 BRENNAN REHNQUIST took part 20 DOUGLAS dissents reasons stated dissenting 462, 1666, 227. 21 MARSHALL 467, 1668, 230. legislature created primarily investigate §§ 52:9M—1 52:9M—2 (1970 Supp. 1971—1972). Code Fair Procedure persons summoned served prior are required 52:13E—2 subpoena contained statement. App. 3a. See 270, 140 J. Wigmore, Evidence 785, pp. 200—202 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1970). Cf. Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 12, 84 1489, 1496, 653 (1964); 487, 52:13E—3 contend counsel, although present, so limited role obtain understand fully. Counsel states even object ground inquiry, ruling Appellee's Brief 81—82. generally Comment, Federal Witness Immunity Acts Theory Practice: Treading Constitutional Tightrope, 72 Yale L.J. 1568, 1572 (1963). None pointed example man determine seeks. E.g., Mason 244 362, 37 621, 61 1198 (1917); Heike 227 131, 144, 33 226, 228, 57 450 (1913); Brown Walker, 161 591, 599—600, 644, 647—648, 40 819 (1896); Queen Boyes, B. & S. 311, 329—331, 121 Eng.Rep. 730, 738 (Q.B.1861). U.S., 489, S.Ct., 819. Life, Sept. 1967, 101. Aug. 9, 1968, 24. alleges Venezuela. reference Venezuela, 'has holdings Venezuela.' 45. objection grounds five questions: 'Q. Are member secret organization dedicated whose principle pursue crime commit crime?' 8a. Do know name Nostra?' 17a. known 18a. family member? Bonanno?' 20a. seek involvements activity. Indeed, relate acts. Nor remotely their afford 'a link chain evidence' needed prosecute jurisdiction. Blau 340 159, 161, 223, 224, 170 (1950). For identified 'family' Bonanno, confirm assumption widely enforcement authorities. See, e.g., S.Rep.No.91—617, 38 (1969). operating authorities hardly new 'link' followed question: 'Is within area?' n. supra.

Category: 0