Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/445/115/case.html
Timestamp: 2020-06-07 04:14:09
Document Index: 94772061

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6002', '§ 6002', '§ 6002', '§ 6002', '§ 6002', '§ 6002', '§ 6002', '§ 6002']

UNITED STATES V. APFELBAUM, 445 U. S. 115 - Volume 445 - 1980 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 445 > UNITED STATES V. APFELBAUM, 445 U. S. 115 (1980) > Full Text
UNITED STATES V. APFELBAUM, 445 U. S. 115 (1980)
Held: Because proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination allows a witness to remain silent, but not to swear falsely, neither § 6002 nor the Fifth Amendment precludes the use of respondent's immunized grand jury testimony at a subsequent prosecution for making false statements, so long as that testimony conforms to otherwise applicable rules of evidence. Pp. 445 U. S. 121-132.
(a) Section 6002's language makes no distinction between truthful and untruthful statements made during the course of immunized testimony, but, rather, creates a blanket exemption from the bar against the use of such testimony where the witness is subsequently prosecuted for making false statements. And § 6002's legislative history shows that Congress intended the perjury and false-declarations exception to be interpreted as broadly as constitutionally permissible. Thus, it is evident that Congress intended to permit the use of both truthful and false statements made during the course of immunized testimony if such use was not prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 445 U. S. 121-123.
(b) It is analytically incorrect to equate the benefits of remaining silent as a result of invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege with the protections conferred by the privilege -- protections that may be invoked with respect to matters that pose substantial and real hazards of subjecting a witness to criminal liability at the time he asserts the privilege. For a grant of immunity to provide protection "coextensive" with that of the Fifth Amendment, it need not treat the witness as if he had remained silent. Here, the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the use of respondent's immunized testimony at his trial for false swearing because, at the time he was granted immunity, the privilege would not have protected him against false testimony that he later might decide to give. Pp. 445 U. S. 123-132.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 445 U. S. 132. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 445 U. S. 133.
Respondent Apfelbaum invoked his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination while being questioned before a grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Government then granted him immunity in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 6002, and he answered the questions propounded to him. He was then charged with and convicted of making false statements in the course of those answers. [Footnote 1] The Court
The grand jury had been investigating alleged criminal activities in connection with an automobile dealership located in the Chestnut Hill section of Philadelphia. The investigation focused on a robbery of $175,000 in cash that occurred at the dealership on April 16, 1975, and on allegations that two officers of the dealership staged the robbery in order to repay loan-shark debts. [Footnote 2] The grand jury also heard testimony that the officers were making extortionate extensions of credit through the Chestnut Hill Lincoln-Mercury dealership.
of the staged robbery, he claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and refused to testify. The District Judge entered an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 granting him immunity and compelling him to testify. [Footnote 3] Respondent ultimately complied with this order to testify. [Footnote 4]
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that, because the immunized testimony did not constitute "the corpus delicti or core of a defendant's false swearing indictment," it could not be introduced. 584 F.2d 1264, 1265 (1978). We granted certiorari because of the importance of the issue and because of a difference in approach to it among the Courts of Appeals. [Footnote 5] 440 U.S. 957 (1979).
The differing views that this question has elicited from the Courts of Appeals are not surprising, because there are considered statements in one line of cases from this Court, and both statements and actual holdings in another line of cases, that, as a matter of strict and literal reading, cannot be wholly reconciled. [Footnote 6] Though most of the decisions of the Courts of
such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order."
The legislative history of § 6002 shows that Congress intended the perjury and false declarations exception to be interpreted as broadly as constitutionally permissible. The present statute was enacted as a part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, [Footnote 7] after a reexamination of the broad transactional immunity statute enacted in response to this Court's decision in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892). See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 406 U. S. 452, and n. 36 (1972). Its design was not only to bring about uniformity in the operation of immunity grants within the federal system, [Footnote 8] but also to restrict the grant of immunity to that required by the United States Constitution. Thus, the statute derives from a 1969 report of the National Commission on the Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws which proposed a general use immunity statute under which "the immunity conferred would
be confined to the scope required by the Fifth Amendment." [Footnote 9] And as stated in both the Senate and House Reports on the proposed legislation:
"This statutory immunity is intended to be as broad as, but no broader than, the privilege against self-incrimination. . . . It is designed to reflect the use-restriction immunity concept of Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S. 52 (1964), rather [than] the transaction immunity concept of Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892). [Footnote 10]"
In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals initially observed that a grant of immunity must be coextensive with the Fifth Amendment. Kastigar v. United States, supra at 406 U. S. 449. It then reasoned that, had respondent not been granted immunity, he would have been entitled under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent. And if he had remained silent, he would not have answered any questions, truthfully or falsely. There consequently would have been no testimony whatsoever to use against him. A prosecution for perjury committed at the immunized proceeding, the Court of Appeals continued, must be permitted, because "as a practical matter, if immunity constituted a license to lie, the purpose of immunity would be defeated." Such a prosecution is but a "narrow exception" carved out to preserve the integrity of the truth-seeking process. But the subsequent use of statements made at the immunized proceeding, other than those alleged in the indictment to be false, is impermissible because the introduction of such statements cannot be reconciled with the privilege against self-incrimination. 584 F.2d at 1269-1271.
This Court has never held, however, that the Fifth Amendment requires immunity statutes to preclude all uses of immunized testimony. Such a requirement would be inconsistent with the principle that the privilege does not extend to consequences of a noncriminal nature, such as threats of liability in civil suits, disgrace in the community, or the loss of employment. See, e.g., Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 161 U. S. 605-606 (1896); Smith v. United States, 337 U. S. 137, 337 U. S. 147 (1949); Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 350 U. S. 430-431 (1956); Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 392 U. S. 280, 392 U. S. 284-285 (1968); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273, 392 U. S. 279 (1968).
And this Court has repeatedly recognized the validity of immunity statutes. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. at 406 U. S. 449, acknowledged that Congress included immunity statutes in many of the regulatory measures adopted in the first half of this century, and that, at the time of the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 6002, the statute under which this prosecution was brought, there were in force over 50 federal immunity statutes, as well as similar laws in every State of the Union. 406 U.S. at 406 U. S. 447. This Court, in Ullmann v. United States, supra, stated that such statutes have "become part of our constitutional fabric." 350 U.S. at 350 U. S. 438. And the validity of such statutes may be traced in our decisions at least as far back as Brown v. Walker, supra.
attack as being violative of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Indeed, in Brown v. Walker, supra at 161 U. S. 600, this Court stated that
406 U.S. at 406 U. S. 454-455. Kastigar also expressly declined a request by the petitioner to reconsider and overrule Brown v. Walker, supra, and Ullmann v. United States, supra, and went on to expressly reaffirm the validity of those decisions.
All of the Courts of Appeals, however, have recognized that the provision in 18 U.S.C. § 6002 allowing prosecutions for perjury in answering questions following a grant of immunity does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. And we ourselves have repeatedly held that perjury prosecutions are permissible for false answers to questions following the grant of immunity. See, e.g., United States v. Wong, 431 U. S. 174 (1977); United States v. Mandujano, 425 U. S. 564 (1976) (plurality opinion); id. at 425 U. S. 584-585 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment);
The principle that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination provides no protection for the commission of perjury has frequently been cited without any elaboration as to its underlying rationale. See, e.g., Bryson v. United States, 396 U. S. 64, 396 U. S. 72 (1969); United States v. Knox, 396 U. S. 77, 396 U. S. 82 (1969). Its doctrinal foundation, as relied on in both Wong and Mandujano, is traceable to Glickstein v. United States, 222 U. S. 139, 222 U. S. 142 (1911). Glickstein stated that the Fifth Amendment "does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury," ibid., and that statement has been so often repeated in our cases as to be firmly established constitutional law. But just as we have refused to read literally the broad dicta of Counselman, supra, we are likewise unwilling to decide this case solely upon an epigram contained in Glickstein, supra. Thus, even if, as the Court of Appeals said, a perjury prosecution is but a "narrow exception" to the principle that a witness should be treated as if he had remained silent, it does not follow that the Court of Appeals was correct in its view of the question before us now.
Perjury prosecutions based on immunized testimony, even if they be but a "narrow exception" to the principle that a witness should be treated as if he had remained silent after invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege, are permitted by our cases. And so long as they are, there is no principle or decision that limits the admissibility of evidence in a manner peculiar only to them. To so hold would not be an exercise in the balancing of competing constitutional rights, but in a comparison of apples and oranges. [Footnote 11] For even if both truthful and untruthful testimony from the immunized proceeding are admissible in a subsequent perjury prosecution, the exception surely would still be properly regarded as "narrow," once it is recognized that the testimony remains inadmissible in all prosecutions for offenses committed prior to the grant of immunity that would have permitted the witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege absent the grant.
"The central standard for the privilege's application has been whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination. Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 340 U. S. 374; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 161 U. S. 600."
Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, 390 U. S. 53 (1968).
wagering statutes at issue in Kahriger and Lewis on the ground that they contravened the petitioner's Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination. The practical effect of the requirements of those statutes was to compel petitioner, a professional gambler engaged in ongoing gambling activities that he had commenced and was likely to continue, to choose between openly exposing himself as acting in violation of state and federal gambling laws and risking federal prosecution for tax avoidance. [Footnote 12] The Court held that petitioner was entitled to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in these circumstances. But it also observed that "prospective acts will doubtless ordinarily involve only speculative and insubstantial risks of incrimination." 390 U.S. at 390 U. S. 54. Thus, although Marchetti rejected "the rigid chronological distinction adopted in Kahriger and Lewis," id. at 390 U. S. 53, that distinction does not aid respondent here.
Id. at 401 U. S. 606-607.
Id. at 401 U. S. 611.
did not bar the use at respondent's trial for willful default of the testimony given by her before a congressional committee. In so holding, we stated that "[t]here is, in our jurisprudence, no doctrine of anticipatory contempt.'" Id. at 339 U. S. 341.
We hold here that in our jurisprudence there likewise is no doctrine of "anticipatory perjury." In the criminal law, both a culpable mens rea and a criminal actus reus are generally required for an offense to occur. [Footnote 13] Similarly, a future intention to commit perjury or to make false statements if granted immunity because of a claim of compulsory self-incrimination is not, by itself, sufficient to create a "substantial and real'" hazard that permits invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 (1896); Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367 (1951). Therefore, neither the immunity statute nor the Fifth Amendment precludes the use of respondent's immunized testimony at a subsequent prosecution for making false statements, so long as that testimony conforms to otherwise applicable rules of evidence. The exception of a perjury prosecution from the prohibition against the use of immunized testimony may be a narrow
A principal reason for this divergence in approach originates in the statement in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 142 U. S. 585 (1892), that an immunity statute
This language was reiterated only last Term in New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 440 U. S. 456-457 (1979).
As discussed in 445 U. S. infra, strictly speaking, even a "transactional" immunity statute, to say nothing of a "use" immunity statute, does not conform to this definition: the mere grant of immunity and consequent compulsion to testify places a witness asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege in the dilemma of having to decide whether to answer the questions truthfully or falsely, a dilemma he never would have faced had he simply been permitted to remain silent upon the invocation of his privilege. Yet properly drawn immunity statutes have long been recognized as valid in this country. Infra at 445 U. S. 125. And it is likewise well established that one may be prosecuted for making false statements while giving immunized testimony. Infra at 445 U. S. 126-127.
A source of further difficulty for the Courts of Appeals is language from our recent decisions that, if taken literally, would preclude the introduction of immunized testimony even for the purpose of establishing the "corpus delicti" or core of the perjury offense. In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 408 U. S. 453 (1972), in which we upheld the constitutionality of this immunity statute against a challenge that it did not provide protection coextensive with the Fifth Amendment, we said that it "prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the compelled testimony in any respect." And in New Jersey v. Portash, supra at 440 U. S. 459, we stated that, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,
S.Rep. No. 91-617, p. 145 (1969); H.R.Rep. No. 91-1549 p. 42 (1970). Representative Poff, the bill's chief sponsor in the House, quoted MR. JUSTICE WHITE's observation in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U. S. 52, 378 U. S. 107 (1964), that "[i]mmunity must be as broad as, but not harmfully and wastefully broader than, the privilege against self-incrimination.'" 116 Cong.Rec. 35291 (1970). We express no opinion as to the possible intimation in the Reports that the Fifth Amendment would have prohibited an immunity statute any broader than § 6002.
390 U.S. at 390 U. S. 48. And "[e]very aspect of petitioner's wagering activities," the Court continued, "subjected him to possible state or federal prosecution," and the
Id. at 390 U. S. 47.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination. It permits an individual to refuse to answer questions; but it does not give him the right to answer falsely. United States v. Mandujano, 425 U. S. 564, 425 U. S. 584-585 (1976) (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Wong, 431 U. S. 174 (1977). When the Government compels testimony via a grant of immunity, it is constitutionally required to place the victim in a position similar to the one he would have occupied had he exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege. The scope of immunity, in other words, must be "coextensive with the scope of the privilege." Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 406 U. S. 449 (1972). This does not, however, bar a prosecution for perjury committed in the course of immunized testimony, even though such a prosecution will obviously place the witness in a worse position than he would have been in had he invoked the privilege. The perjury exception seems to have two sources. First, it stems from the aforementioned fact that, prior to the immunity grant, the witness had no Fifth Amendment right to answer falsely, and, second, it flows from the simple reality that affording the witness a right to lie with impunity would render the entire immunity transaction futile.
Ante at 445 U. S. 117. And I do not fully agree with the Court's conclusion that the practical effect of asserting the privilege against self-incrimination is an unimportant factor in determining whether a grant of immunity is coextensive with Fifth Amendment protection. See ante at 445 U. S. 125. I therefore concur only in the judgment.
Perhaps a more fundamental reservation about the Court's opinion concerns its attempted distinction between, on the one hand, the protection afforded by the privilege against self-incrimination and, on the other, the effect of the invocation of the privilege. Since the privilege itself is defined in terms of the incriminating effect of truthful testimony, it does not seem irrational to weigh alternative methods for protecting this constitutional right in terms of their effect as well. As the Court demonstrates, ante at 445 U. S. 124-125, a grant of immunity may be a constitutionally adequate response to invocation of the privilege without perfectly replicating the effect of total silence, at least where a civil use of the testimony is concerned. But that observation, for me, does not obviate the relevance of a comparison between silence and immunity in determining whether the protection afforded by the latter ensures that the privilege against self-incrimination has been properly preserved. Whether as a matter of logic, history, or experience, it does not follow that an analogy is robbed of all force merely because it is not always or singly controlling in every imaginable circumstance. Compare Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 406 U. S. 449 (1972), and Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 350 U. S. 438 (1956), with ante at 445 U. S. 127-128. See also O. Holmes, The Common Law 1 (1881). The Court's cases long have regarded the right to remain silent in the face of compelled incrimination as a touchstone for Fifth Amendment protection. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. at 406 U. S. 461; Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S.
591, 161 U. S. 596-597 (1896). The Court may be prepared now to deviate from that course; I am not so prepared.
Nonetheless, I remain convinced that "[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination provides no protection for the commission of perjury." United States v. Mandujano, 425 U. S. 564, 425 U. S. 609 (1976) (opinion concurring in judgment). The privilege operates only to protect the witness from compulsion of truthful testimony of an incriminating nature. Perjury or the making of false statements under a grant of immunity thus violates a basic assumption upon which the privilege, and hence the immunity, depend. Preserving the integrity of the immunity "bargain," ante at 445 U. S. 130, by allowing the use of immunized testimony for the limited purpose of proving that the terms of immunity have been criminally breached, is an integral part of the "rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government" upon which the entire theory of immunity rests. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. at 406 U. S. 446. See Glickstein v. United States, 222 U. S. 139, 222 U. S. 141 (1911); United States v. Tramunti, 500 F.2d 1334, 1342 (CA2), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1079 (1974). Prosecutions for perjury or making false statements differ in this respect from all other instances in which, but for the grant of immunity, the witness' testimony might be used. It is for this reason, in my view, that they have been regarded as
Ante at 445 U. S. 128. Since I find this ground sufficient to dispose of the present case, I need not decide at this juncture whether I fully agree with what seem to be the broader implications of the Court's analysis and opinion.
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: UNITED STATES V. APFELBAUM, 445 U. S. 115 (1980)