Document: 349 U.S. 58 75 S.Ct. 585 99 L.Ed. 883 Michael J. REGAN, Petitioner,v.The PEOPLE OF THE STATE NEW YORK. No. 54. Argued Nov. 18, 1954. Decided April 25, 1955. Mr. Emanuel Redfield, New York City, for petitioner. Aaron E. Koota, respondent. Justice REED delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner refused to testify before a grand jury which was investigating alleged association city policemen with criminals, racketeers, and gamblers in Kings County. He convicted criminal contempt sentenced one year's imprisonment. We granted certiorari, 347 1010, 74 869, 98 1134, determine whether, under circumstances here presented, petitioner deprived his liberty without due process law being punished refusal testify. Cf. Adamson v. People State California, 332 46, 54, 67 1672, 1676, 91 1903. 2 The following constitutional statutory provisions are essential an understanding case. Article I, § 6, Constitution provides, part, that no person shall 'be compelled any case be witness against himself'.1 Section 381 Penal Law, McK.Consol.Laws, c. 40, as it existed at time this case, provided testimony relating bribery could not withheld on ground self-incrimination, but conferred immunity from prosecution activity revealed such testimony.2 903 Charter City provides employee who refuses sign waiver subsequent upon matter official nature about he is asked lose job disqualified future employment city. contains provision much same effect.3 3 first called March 7, 1951. then member Police Department York. Prior sworn, signed prosecution.4 After testified had been executed voluntarily full its meaning. given financial questionnaire directed return completely filled out 28, On 27, 1951, connection police department severed. His next appearance October 22, 1952, when another instructed completed form by November 12, 1952. 12 extension request granted.5 December 21, once again occasion, question: 4 'While you were plainclothesman did ever accept or receive bribes bookmakers other gamblers?' 5 answer question might tend incriminate him. made statement claimed invalid since understood significance it, explained expressed doubt status privileges duties such. 6 taken County Court clarify status. It there held, after hearing, valid because fully it. asked. returned jury, persisted thereupon indicted contempt, tried convicted. conviction affirmed Appellate Division short memorandum opinion, 282 App.Div. 775, 122 N.Y.S.2d 478, Appeals 306 N.Y. 747, 117 N.E.2d 921. amend remittitur show whether raised passed upon. 875, 119 45. 7 contends must Fourteenth Amendment prevents imprisoning individual refusing give self-incriminatory testimony. In so doing ignores crucial statute simply hold presented rights 8 removed possible justification testifying. If immunity, clear beyond dispute would have testify;6 him matters sought, thus possibly self-incriminatory.7 although does affect possibility prosecution, alter petitioner's underlying obligation Much argument has invalid, voluntary coerced, effectual ineffectual. That irrelevant disposition either assumption requirement testify, imposed grant remains unimpaired. 9 First, assume valid. Any gave formed basis punishing provide But, we assuming validity waiver, situation result choice waive State. 10 may, hand, regarded invalid. argues some length obtained 'pattern duress lack understanding.' points attending signing waiver: size room, number simultaneously waivers, speed waivers obtained, counsel, etc.8 also requiring job.9 addition claims stale ineffective over 21 months elapsed date execution fail see where arguments lead. persists, presence self-incriminatory. remembered invalidity may defense proper disposition; 11 suggests justified uncertainty existing only prosecuted As state law, crime reaches sufficiently high point.10 But require definitive resolution collateral questions condition precedent conviction. Cobbledick United States, 309 323, 327, 60 540, 542, 84 783. knew however resolved, obliged persisting contempt. strives predictability knowing men wisely order their affairs; cannot, however, remove all doubts consequence course action. judgment below accordingly affirmed. 13 Affirmed. 14 FRANKFURTER concurs result. 15 HARLAN took part consideration decision 16 Chief WARREN, whom CLARK joins, concurring. 17 I concur Court, add substantial federal arise if concerning force while officer thereafter denied offenses related investigation. 18 This never held State, absence adequate statute, can punish questions. A involving facts here.1 Nor York, immunity. concededly Law entitled fact even claims, certainly cannot relieve duty every citizen failure therefore, placed court subject punishment accorded 19 However, appears record intention authorities both admits misconduct, eventually faced what hearing should himself claiming privilege self-incrimination. defend stemming involuntary challenging basing objection asserted right Such challenge well embrace contention coercion procurement claim use term public unreasonable interference right.2 20 Moreover, statute—like statute—must applied uniformly unless reasonable classification; otherwise, Equal Protection Clause violated.3 suffers primary sanction charter sections—namely, loss position—it used send penitentiary witnesses giving like already noted, do reach these here. 22 BLACK, DOUGLAS concurs, dissenting. 23 keep policeman paper waiving otherwise jury. Twenty-two later, long resigned policeman, brought county accepted policeman. Acceptance felony punishable ten years' For twelve prison. holds imprison 'for testimony.' agree consistently Federal Constitution. 24 reasons stated occasions believe makes Fifth applicable States. See, e.g., 68, 1683, And accords unqualified persons silent questions, answers make those themselves. Blau 340 159, 161, 71 223, 224, 95 170. Even view Amendment, States compel themselves, many times convict coerced E.g., Leyra Denno, 556, 558, 716, 717, 948; Ashcraft Tennessee, 322 143, 155, 64 921, 927, 88 1192; cf. Rochin 342 165, 72 205, 96 183. Coercing purpose equally obnoxious Amendment. However action described, seeking coerce help bring crime. throw man into jail agrees himself. 25 approves dilemma places evidence go evidence. says, 'simply State.' There how 'voluntary' 'choice' was. event novel idea device kind destroy protections. nothing more nor less than wholesale blanket agreement will reference anything done past job. So far know self-incrimination Bill Rights safeguard bargained away advance day needed protection overreaching power government. 26 Court's holding approve dangerous technique whereby Governments people themselves own mouths. Are infer Government now free millions employees permanently jobs? Surely private employers privileges. highly satisfactory compulsory place our Rights. designed continuing rigid ruthless exercise governmental power.* sometimes permits escape sufficient reason reading Those wrote bound known effect making harder accused Exactly results procedural Rights, including heard, lawyer, confronted witnesses, informed offense charged, weakens ancient safeguards me represent great landmarks never-ceasing struggle despotic powers. See dissent Feldman 487, 494—503, 1082, 1085—1089, 1408. Code Criminal Procedure, 10. To §§ 584 996 dealt crimes conspiracy gambling. These statutes amended. Laws 1953, 891. states that: '* * who, conduct office performance duties, relevant virtue refusal, period five years, appropriate authority forfeit suit attorney-general.' 'WAIVER IMMUNITY 'I, Regan, 3819 Harper Avenue, Bronx, pursuant 2446 hereby obtain indictment, punishment, penalty forfeiture account transaction, thing produce evidence, documentary Grand Jury Kings, investigation above proceeding, judge justice, tribunal, conducting inquiry legal proceeding acts said John Doe, person. 'I further produced investigation, proceeding. '(Signed) MICHAEL REGAN.' (Witnessed notarized.) questionnaires completed. Brown Walker, 161 591, 644, 40 819; Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 35 1110. sufficiency provided. room measured '10 10, approximately,' containing desk 'about 2' (sic) bench sit.' About minutes. An assistant district attorney single speech explaining Immediately executing voluntarily, him, Twenty reaffirmed raising validity. twenty-one challenged time. trial left Its verdict guilty indicates finding matter. appellate courts, sure affirmance sustained courts viewed ours. pointed that, shows, point below. Petition Certiorari. ex rel. Hofsaes Warden, 302 403, 579. Compare Twining Jersey, 211 78, 29 14, 53 97 (jury instruction authorizing draw unfavorable inference accused's take stand); 1903 (state permitting prosecutor comment Snyder Commonwealth Massachusetts, 291 97, 105, 54 330, 332, 78 674 (denial permission accompany visit scene crime); Palko Connecticut, 319, 325 326, 149, 151—152, 82 288 allowing appeal cases). Terral Burke Construction Co., 257 529, 42 188, 66 352. Dowd Cook, 206, 262, 215, Cochran Kansas, 316 255, 62 1068, 86 1453. venture suggestion man's civilized. out, establishment closely linked historically abolition torture. Now look torture abhorrence. honest conscientious servants means obtaining information disclosed. want none today, am sure. 'If wrong, punished. produced, evaluated fair trial. Neither oath threat imprisonment accuse himself.' Griswold, Today, 7—8.

Category: 0