Document: 440 U.S. 450 99 S.Ct. 1292 59 L.Ed.2d 501 State of NEW JERSEY, Petitioner,v.Joseph S. PORTASH. No. 77-1489. Argued Dec. 5, 1978. Decided March 20, 1979. Syllabus Respondent municipal official testified before a state grand jury under immunity granted pursuant to New Jersey statute preventing public employee's testimony or evidence derived therefrom from being used against him in subsequent criminal proceeding. Thereafter, respondent was charged with misconduct office and extortion, at his trial the judge ruled that respondent's could be impeach credibility if he testified. As result this ruling, did not testify, ultimately convicted. The appellate court held use immunized would have violated Constitution, and, because decision testify based on court's erroneous ruling contrary, reversed conviction remanded for new trial. Held: Under Fifth Amendment privilege compulsory self-incrimination made binding States by Fourteenth Amendment, grant constitutionally later Pp. 453-460. (a) That take witness stand does render constitutional question abstract hypothetical. It appears record rule merits such question, necessarily concluded had been properly presented, it favor merits. Moreover, there is nothing federal law prohibit following procedure, nor, so long as Art. III's "case controversy" requirement met, foreclose Court's consideration issue now courts decided it. 454-456. (b) Testimony given response legislative essence coerced involves its most pristine form. Thus, any balancing interests into account interest perjury only unnecessary but impermissible. Harris v. York, 401 222, 91 643, 28 1, Oregon Hass, 420 714, 95 1215, 43 570, distinguished. 456-460. 151 N.J.Super. 200, 376 A.2d 950, affirmed. Edwin H. Stier, Princeton, N. J., petitioner. Michael E. Wilbert, Brick Town, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 This case scope self-incrimination, grounded Fourteenth. precise whether, despite privilege, prosecutor may person's legislatively testifying defendant 2 * In early 1970's, Joseph Portash Mayor Manchester Township, Executive Director Pinelands Environmental Council, member both Ocean County Board Freeholders Municipal Utilities Authority Jersey. November 1974, after lengthy investigation, subpoenaed Portash. He expressed an intention claim self-incrimination. prosecutors Portash's lawyers then agreed that, jury, neither statements nor them could, law, proceedings (except prosecutions false swearing).1 After testimony, parties tried come agreement avoid prosecution Portash, no bargain reached. April 1975, indicted extortion official.2 3 Before trial, defense counsel sought obtain permitted. refused purposes impeachment. completion State's case, renewed request testimony. There followed extended colloquy, finally gave answer direct cross-examination which materially inconsistent Defense stated advise client stand. found guilty one two counts. 4 Appellate Division conviction. 950 (1977). Constitution requires must least coextensive afforded Amendments. To confer protection, reasoned, "leave position each occupied defendant's [before jury] honored." Id., 205, A.2d, 953. Use held, meet test. Because upon trial.3 Supreme Court denied petition certification appeal. 75 N.J. 597, 384 827 (1978). We certiorari. 436 955, 98 3067, 57 1120. II 5 presents questions. First, argues cannot invoke incrimination result, never him. Second, urges Amendments do A. 6 contends presented hypothetical not, fact, become witness. taken stand, testified, objected prosecution's him, appealed Absent us hold presented. argument rejected. clear although concerned about making specific questions were asked, question: 7 "THE COURT: Well, what still I thought straightened out previously, taking something saying didn't you say such. 8 "MR. WILBERT [defense counsel]: That's problem we have. don't know whether he's going able your Honor, especially touch area examination— 9 suppose takes testifies worked Donald Safran Safran? 10 WILBERT: Inconsistency Honor's can case. 11 No doubt 12 Your submit over my objection, course. 13 You standing objection respect all testimony." (Emphasis added.) App. 223a. 14 merits.4 See Raley Ohio, 360 423, 435-437, 79 1257, 1264-1266, 1344; cf. Jenkins Georgia, 418 153, 157, 94 2750, 2753, 41 642; Coleman Alabama, 377 129, 133, 84 1152, 1154, 190; Whitney California, 274 357, 360-361, 47 641, 642-643, 71 L.Ed. 1095; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. Cohen, 234 123, 134, 34 874, 877, 58 1245. 15 or, III our substantive 1972, Brooks Tennessee, 406 605, 92 1891, 32 358. unconstitutional Tennessee statutory own first all. unconstitutionally penalized right remain silent, since silent immediately close cost defense. Although considered validity statute, imposed penalty rights infringed even though 611 n. 6, S.Ct., 1894 6. 16 because, order assert chief pay penalty. testify. Here, Brooks, insist wrong requiring raise claim.5 B 17 Great Britain became United States, statutes, like predate adoption Constitution. Kastigar 441, 445 13, 446 14, 1653, 1656 1657 212. challenge Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 35 1110. spite relevant statute. overturned contempt construed permit validly asserted "legislation abridge . replace supply one, unless broad same extent effect." 585, 206. also Brown 359 41, 539, 609; Ullmann 350 422, 76 497, 100 511; Walker, 161 591, 644, 40 819. holding Malloy Hogan, 378 1489, 653, contained applicable statutes well. Cf. Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 52, 1594, 678.6 18 Language progeny read some require immune transaction concerned. Indeed, subsequently upheld transactional immunity. supra; Heike 227 131, 33 226, 450; supra.7 Pub.L. 91-452 1970 marked change legislation provision known "use" U.S.C. §§ 6001, 6002. immunity, similar provided protects compelled information supra, 212, mere Amendment's privilege. 19 "The has mean who invokes prosecuted. Its sole concern afford protection 'forced give leading infliction "penalties affixed acts." ' Immunity well directly indirectly therefrom, affords protection. prohibits prosecutorial authorities using respect, therefore insures lead penalties witness." U.S., 453, 1661. original; footnote omitted.) 20 Against statement necessary testimonial asks weigh 570.8 Those cases involved statements, concededly violation Miranda Arizona, 436, 86 1602, 694, weighed incremental deterrence police illegality strong policy countenancing perjury. balance, incriminating impeachment prevailed. apply reasoning points just strongly involved, are reliable those defendants Hass. 21 But overlooked crucial distinction between one. Hass expressly noted "no involuntary," 224, 645; 722-723, 1220-1221. recognition central decisions cases. 22 provide person "shall himself." reaffirmed last Term, opposed Miranda, put whatever "But involuntary denial due process law." original.) Mincey 437 385, 398, 2408, 2416, 290.9 23 physical psychological pressures overrode will; told talk face government's coercive sanctions, notably, contempt. more than beaten helpless defendant, less compelled. merely unreliable Balancing when attempt deter unlawful conduct collided need prevent contrast, deal Balancing, therefore, simply unnecessary. 24 Superior Jersey, Division, correctly trial.10 Accordingly, judgment 25 ordered. 26 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 27 join affirming reservations (1977), denied, (1978), rest independent adequate grounds. set origins instead common see Fary, 431, 434-435, 117 499, 501-502 (1955), statutes. N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2A:84A-19 (West 1976). looked constructions Federal source illumination interpretation re Pillo, 8, 15-17, 93 176, 179-180 (1952), they "a matter policy, [New Jersey] impose standards strict required will control regardless final outcome sphere." Deatore, 70 100, 112, 358 163, 170 (1976). Johnson, 68 349, 353, 346 66, 67-68 (1975). 29 context Division's ground 2A:81-17.2a2 begins reciting toto, labeling "[t]he authority defendant." N.J.Super., 204, 952. states should honor promise, ., proceeding ." supplied.) 207, 954. these circumstances references interpreting seem analogies, illuminating ultimate construction 2A:81-17.2a2.1 Logically, interpretations serve guidance Jersey's statute.2 little significance rests heavily (1971), Brief Petitioner 38-39, recently "stricter" Harris. 116, 172. 30 reads resting reading possible explicit Deatore.3 However, fully agree disposition shall further press point opinion. 31 POWELL, REHNQUIST concur opinion, add comments. Court, makes arguments support reversal. insists complain preferred method raising claims appeal conviction, if—following immunity—the allowed Only way reviewing concrete factual context. real creating artificial challenges their convictions.1 however, apparently accepted procedure treated having procedural within decide.2 argues, quite apart arises, rejects argument, coercing constituted classic "compelling" himself. 1661, 212 (1972). 36 referred different determining permits emphasized trustworthiness suspect's police, noting indication "coerced involuntary." Similarly, here reason veracity today recognizes, inaccurate defendant. addition, virtue incorporation through compulsion extract truthful obtaining individual's 37 BLACKMUN, THE CHIEF JUSTICE dissenting. 38 reaches decide important dispute court. For me, facts present too remote speculative injury federally protected exercise jurisdiction examination reveals me decides considered. demonstrates how far afield range cut loose disputes believe without engage type adjudication vacuum, dissent. 39 Prior again evidence, attempted advance evidentiary Though nature dispute, related generally permitted use, during rebuttal phase supplied When failed satisfactory, refrained behalf. cross-examined. determined prior issue. seek And answer, otherwise make short, failure incriminated previously grant. Even so, free assuming, course, answers questions, chosen justifies assertion jurisdiction, hypothetical, announcing Citing 1344 (1959), 642 (1974), ante, 455, holds determination sufficient allow issue, notwithstanding "[T]here procedure," holds, "or, 'case controversy' it." understand it, goes courts, light alleged here. such, resolution turns recognized indeed latter depends sufficiently controversy 42 tacitly recognizes this, conceding, 455-456, met citation dissenters argued infringed, "bearing self-incrimination." 617, 1897. answered burden penalizing start "that constitute[d] infringement right." burdened. establish capable supporting jurisdiction. But, unlike care omit mention "ruling" says intimates case-or-controversy requirement, proceeds 44 What easy ascertain. appear burdened, suffering doing so. Nor compel incriminate himself, force subject himself behalf threatening possibility threat, deterred behalf, thereby 13. 45 theory proceeded upon, 209, 952, plausible conclude actual, invasion rights. sub silentio certain yet pass creates create adjudicated 46 claimed concerning On record, tell obtained often faces seldom factor among many. assurance vigorously argued, manner inconsistently given, determine offered material then, certainty actually materials circumstances, enable adjudicate Laird Tatum, 408 2318, 154 By finding exist reach exercises significance, renders advisory informing ever 48 find beyond unwise At minimum, Brother POWELL notes, 462, prevents manufacturing More fundamentally, disembodied decisionmaking removes legal sharpens issues, highlights areas special concern, above all, gives notion practical pronouncements. 49 suspect adjudicating academic affirmed reversal basis level pretrial hearing conceded answers, impeached prosecuted 144a. Rather, attempting rely gathered formulating cross-examination. His show discovered formed prohibited asking reliance request—but wait until asked consider objection—that 50 almost every supports example, course conceding "merely want[ed] door opened, [the testimony] cross examination, rebuttal, witnesses, limitation, think inherent, except event perjury" (emphasis added). 146a. id., 143a-148a. 51 impeachment, proscribed "use [of] fruits examine 203a.1 52 Concededly, passage quotes, 454-455, entire discussion quotation lifted seeking limitation quoted exchange, assured "the [immunized] testimony," 220a, "consistent convict man stand." Ibid. relies, waved off him.2 53 limit cross-examination, refusal prompted 243a. transmuted ability reversed. affirms theoretical setting, favorable court, form refusing assume renew original forbidden learned illustrates, think, problems encounter abandons actual operation 54 If reviewed better desire brought attention adjudication, e. g., transform deciding Doremus Education, 342 429, 72 394, 397-398, 96 475 (1952). Otherwise, State, purely where existence controversy. 55 seeks vindicate time follows: "If employee Commission Investigation, laws State; exempt punishment committed while testifying." Public Employees Statute, contended indictment disclosed "derived" move dismissal dealings established cooperated State. impermissibly forced providing employment records jury. rejected arguments; urged state-court unambiguously exclusively said: device, deemed commensurate respects replaces. Calandra, 414 338, 346, 613, 561 (1974); 459, (1972)." Both Calandra were, decisions. discussed several other nowhere indicated principles law. Lefkowitz Newsome, 283, 886, 196, another provisions review available. There, York defeat motion suppress pleaded guilty. prisoner Fourth habeas corpus proceeding, relief available A situation existed Wardius Oregon, 412 470, 2208, 82. notice-of-alibi requirements enforced reciprocal discovery notice alibi. claim, alibi discovery. claim. dealt dual sovereignty. prosecution. premise honored Government. 455-459, 1662-1664, Shapiro 335 4, 1375, 1378 1787, list relied Walder 347 62, 74 354, 503, exclusionary seized credibility. express view possibly false-declarations premised inconsistency later, nonimmunized, Dunn 439 1045, 719, 703 briefs regarding admissibility pre-indictment negotiations prosecutors. said bears 1976), "self-executing," Vinegra, 134 432, 440, 341 673, 677 (1975), "defendant's statute." Id. 439, 677. suggestion, violates guarantees "We conclusion N.J., 170. Criminal defendants, aid strategy, prefer regard arisen "Mr. Wilbert enlarge aspects They're stay totally ask that's consistent incriminates permitted, Honor? [W]hat they're utilizing 203a-204a 168a, 173a, 192a-193a, 202a-203a. Wilbert: open gained knowledge direct, absolute I'm—that's why I'm clarification, it's about." 228a. 225a, 228a, 230a-231a.

Category: 0