Document: 445 U.S. 115 100 S.Ct. 948 63 L.Ed.2d 250 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Stanley APFELBAUM. No. 78-972. Argued Dec. 3, 1979. Decided March 1980. Syllabus After initially invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination while being questioned before a federal grand jury, respondent ultimately testified when the Government granted him immunity in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 6002, which provides that witness is compelled to testify over claim of privilege, no testimony or other information under order may be used any criminal case, "except prosecution for perjury, giving false statement, otherwise failing comply order." Respondent was later indicted and convicted 1623(a) (1976 ed., Supp. II) swearing jury regard certain statements. At trial, objected use immunized except portions charged indictment as false, but District Court admitted relevant prove he had knowingly made The Appeals reversed, holding because such did not constitute "corpus delicti " "core" false-statements offense, it could introduced. Held: Because proper invocation allows remain silent, swear falsely, neither 6002 nor precludes respondent's at subsequent making statements, so long conforms applicable rules evidence. Pp. 121-132. (a) Section 6002's language makes distinction between truthful untruthful statements during course testimony, but, rather, creates blanket exemption from bar where subsequently prosecuted And legislative history shows Congress intended perjury false-declarations exception interpreted broadly constitutionally permissible. Thus, evidence permit both if prohibited by Amendment. 121-123. (b) It analytically incorrect equate benefits remaining silent result protections conferred invoked respect matters pose substantial real hazards subjecting liability time asserts privilege. For grant provide protection "coextensive" Amendment, need treat remained silent. Here, does prevent trial because, immunity, would have protected might decide give. 123-132. 584 F.2d 1264, reversed. William C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Joel Harvey Slomsky, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Apfelbaum compulsory Eastern Pennsylvania. then answered questions propounded him. He those answers.1 reversed conviction, however, into been alleged offense. we hold statute requires admissibility governed different than violation II). We therefore reverse judgment Appeals. 2 * investigating activities connection an automobile dealership located Chestnut Hill section Philadelphia. investigation focused on robbery $175,000 cash occurred April 16, 1975, allegations two officers staged repay loan-shark debts.2 also heard were extortionate extensions credit through Lincoln-Mercury dealership. 3 In 1976, Apfelbaum, administrative assistant Attorney called thought likely aider abettor accessory after fact allegedly robbery. When first sought question about relationship officials suspected robbery, claimed refused testify. Judge entered pursuant granting compelling testify.3 complied this testify.4 4 During series served basis conviction swearing. response concerning whether attempted locate Harry Brown, one officials, "fishing trip" Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., month December 1975. "positive" who apparently Lauderdale area time. second denied told FBI agents lent $10,000 Brown. these charging knew they false. 5 introduced put context show excerpts concerned 1976 trip Florida visit discussions Brown occasion, denial financial dealings Philadelphia cosigned loan all overruled objection ground found guilty counts indictment. 6 Third Circuit "the corpus core defendant's indictment" 1265 (1978). certiorari importance issue difference approach among Courts Appeals.5 440 957, 99 1496, 59 770 (1979). 7 differing views has elicited are surprising, there considered line cases Court, actual holdings another cases, matter strict literal reading cannot wholly reconciled.6 Though most decisions turn interaction statutes enacted United States Constitution, our duty relied upon case sustain properly do so. now decision question. II 8 Did intend statute, limit witness' proceeding? contends permits declarations, establishes absolute prohibition prosecutions. But contention odds explicit finds support even its history. 9 well-established principle statutory construction absent clear contrary intention, should according plain language. Here "no (or directly indirectly derived information) (Emphasis added.) thus testimony. Rather, 10 present part Organized Crime Control Act 1970,7 re-examination broad transactional Court's Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 547, 12 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892). See Kastigar States, 406 441, 452, n. 36, 96 1653, 1660, 32 212 (1972). Its design only bring uniformity operation grants within system,8 restrict required Constitution. derives 1969 report National Commission Reform Federal Criminal Laws, proposed general confined scope Amendment."9 stated Senate House Reports legislation: 11 "This as, broader than, self-incrimination. . designed reflect use-restriction concept Murphy Waterfront Commission, 378 52, 84 1594, 678 (1964) rather [than] transaction (1892)."10 light conclusion inescapable III 13 limitation placed justified, then, inadmissible never met burden showing truthful. Appeals, noted above, concluded 14 reaching conclusion, observed must coextensive supra, 449, 92 S.Ct., 1659. reasoned entitled questions, truthfully falsely. There consequently whatsoever A committed proceeding, continued, permitted "as practical matter, constituted license lie, purpose defeated." Such "narrow exception" carved out preserve integrity truth-seeking process. impermissible introduction reconciled F.2d, 1269-1271. 15 more flaw reasoning. Initially, presumes "coextensive privilege," treated This presumption focuses effect assertion confer. doing, calls constitutionality statutes, including "transactional" well "use" 6002. full complete substitute silence example, civil proceedings. Indeed, fail cause detriment resulting prosecution. 16 held, preclude uses requirement inconsistent extend consequences noncriminal nature, threats suits, disgrace community, loss employment. See, e. g., Walker, 161 591, 605-606, 644, 650, 40 819 (1896); Smith 337 137, 147, 69 1000, 1005, 93 1264 (1949); Ullmann 350 422, 430-431, 76 497, 502-503, 511 (1956); Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn. Commissioner Sanitation, 392 280, 284-285, 88 1917, 1919-1920, 20 1089 (1968); Gardner Broderick, 273, 279, 1913, 1916 (1968). 17 repeatedly recognized validity statutes. U.S., 1658, acknowledged included many regulatory measures adopted half century, enactment brought, force 50 similar laws every State Union. 447, 1657-1658. "become constitutional fabric." 438, 506. traced least far back supra. These establish 585, 206—that "cannot abridge replace supply one, unless same extent effect"—does require sort "but for" analysis enable survive attack violative 600, 648, "[t]he danger extending announced Hitchcock forward sentimental reason, purely fanciful imaginary danger, securing some third person, interested concealing facts testify." petitioners unnecessary decision, binding authority." 454-455, 1662. expressly declined request petitioner reconsider overrule went reaffirm decisions. 19 reasoning internally logically If mere answer thereby himself possibility swearing, places position substantially All provision allowing prosecutions answering following violate ourselves held permissible answers immunity. Wong, 431 174, 97 1823, 52 231 (1977); Mandujano, 425 564, 1768, 48 (1976) (plurality opinion); id., 584-585, 1780-1781 (BRENNAN, J., concurring judgment); 609, 1792 (STEWART, joined BLACKMUN, judgment). 21 privilege—protections belied all. B 22 commission frequently cited without elaboration underlying rationale. Bryson 396 64, 72, 90 355, 360, 24 264 (1969); Knox, 77, 82, 363, 366, 275 (1969). doctrinal foundation, Wong traceable Glickstein 222 139, 142, 71, 73, 56 128 (1911). "does endow person testifies commit perjury," ibid., statement often repeated firmly established law. just read literally dicta Counselman, likewise unwilling solely epigram contained Glickstein, if, said, follow correct view us now. 23 Perjury based cases. are, limits manner peculiar them. To exercise balancing competing rights, comparison apples oranges.11 proceeding admissible prosecution, surely still regarded "narrow," once remains offenses prior invoke grant. While application various types claims changed respects past three decades, basic test reaffirmed each same. 25 "The central standard privilege's claimant confronted 'real,' merely trifling imaginary, incrimination. Rogers 340 367, 374, 71 442, 95 344; 819." Marchetti 390 39, 53, 697, 705, 889 26 Marchetti, earlier Kahriger, 345 22, 73 510, 754 (1953), Lewis 348 419, 75 415, 475 (1955), invalidated wagering Kahriger contravened petitioner's right requirements compel petitioner, professional gambler engaged ongoing gambling commenced continue, choose openly exposing acting state risking tax avoidance.12 assert circumstances. "prospective acts will doubtless ordinarily involve speculative insubstantial risks incrimination." 54, 705. although rejected rigid chronological Lewis," aid here. 27 Freed, 401 601, 91 1112, 28 356 (1971), argument registration Firearms violated disclosed transferee firearm future. stated: "Appellees' assumes existence periphery Self-Incrimination Clause protects incrimination transgressions supplies insulation career crime launched. give expansive interpretation." Id., 606-607, 1117. 29 BRENNAN added: 30 "I agree given crimes possibly future registered firearm." 611, 1119. 31 decisions, conclude Respondent's arose relating auto tend incriminate prevents derivative offenses, exchange kept bargain; kind agreed maintained, above severely limited Government's case. believe fairly said respondent, asserted "trifling imaginary" hazard com mit Bryan, 339 323, 70 724, 94 884 (1950), provided "[n]o committee either shall court, testimony," willful default her congressional committee. holding, "[t]here is, jurisprudence, doctrine 'anticipatory contempt.' 341, 735. 33 here jurisprudence "anticipatory perjury." law, culpable mens rea actus reus generally offense occur.13 Similarly, intention make itself sufficient create "substantial 'real' 344 (1951). Therefore, narrow one. having otherwise, accordingly 34 Reversed. BRENNAN, judgment. 36 guarantees free individual refuse questions; 1780-1781, (1977). compels via place victim occupied exercised words, privilege." 1659, not, though obviously worse seems sources. First, stems aforementioned and, second, flows simple reality affording lie impunity render entire futile. 37 I think follows logic exigencies introduce elements concur reversing Circuit. find adequate see reason explore terrain majority probes what sense dicta. More particularly, (1) special constraints (2) am means persuaded occurring it. 38 whom MARSHALL joins, 39 join opinion. agree, too narrowly fully subscribe "neither statements." Ante, 117. asserting unimportant factor determining protection. ante, 125. troubles me primarily reasons. contexts. concerns contemporaneous occasion determine states necessary. moment, prepared go far. 41 Second, sure usual How important honored. admission conceivably independent admissible. Again, prefer await further developments deciding 42 Perhaps fundamental reservation between, hand, afforded other, Since defined terms incriminating seem irrational weigh alternative methods protecting their well. As demonstrates, 124-125, perfectly replicating total silence, concerned. observation, me, obviate relevance latter ensures preserved. Whether logic, history, experience, analogy robbed always singly controlling imaginable circumstance. Compare (1972), 506, (1956), 127-128. O. Holmes, Common Law (1881). face touchstone 461, 1665; 596-597, 646-647, (1896). deviate course; prepared. 43 Nonetheless, convinced 1792, (opinion operates protect compulsion nature. violates assumption hence depend. Preserving "bargain," 130, proving criminally breached, integral "rational accommodation imperatives legitimate demands government" theory rests. 446, 1657. 141, (1911); Tramunti, 500 1334, 1342 (CA2), cert. denied, 419 1079, 667, 673 (1974). Prosecutions differ instances which, used. my view, "a 'narrow exception' 128. dispose juncture implications Title pertinent part: "Whoever oath [a] material declaration fined imprisoned five years, both." One collecting 894, mail fraud 1341, racketeering 1962, conspiracy 371. provides: "Whenever refuses, self-incrimination, ancillary to— "(1) court "(2) agency "(3) Congress, joint Houses, subcommittee House, presiding communicates issued part, self-incrimination; issuance order, jury. contempt 1826 six days. Seventh agrees below much essential perjury. Patrick, 542 381, 385 (1976). Second Tenth Circuits admissible, Dunn, 577 119, 125-126 (CA10 1978), rev'd grounds, 442 100, 2190, 60 743 (1979); Berardelli, 565 24, (CA2 1977); Moss, 562 155, 165 1977), 435 914, 98 1467, 55 505 (1978); Housand, 550 818, 822 Kurzer, 534 511, 518 1976). Sixth Eighth Daniels 196 F. 459, 462-463 (CA6 1912); Edelstein 149 636, 642-644 (CA8 1906). principal divergence originates 206, (1892), effect." reiterated last Term New Jersey Portash, 450, 456-457, 1292, 1295-1296, 501 discussed Part III, infra, strictly speaking say nothing conform definition: consequent dilemma faced simply Yet drawn valid country. Infra, 126-127. source difficulty recent that, taken literally, establishing 453, 1661, upheld challenge "prohibits prosecutorial authorities using respect." 1297, Fourteenth Amendments testimonial whatever trial. '. [a ]ny defendant involuntary due process law.' original.) Doubtless divergent none referred footnote 5, holds form how Pub.L. 91-452, 201(a), Stat. 926. "to seek eradication organized strengthening legal tools evidence-gathering process, new penal prohibitions, providing enhanced sanctions remedies deal unlawful crime." 923. Measures Relating Crime, Hearings S. 30, etc., Subcommittee Laws Procedures Committee Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 282-284 (1969) (remarks Representative Poff Senator McClellan). considered, separate 282. Interim Report Mar. 17, 1969, reproduced supra 8, 292. 15, 326; Working Papers 1405 (1970). S.Rep.No. 91-617, p. 145 H.R.Rep.No. 91-1549, (1970), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1970, 4007. Poff, bill's chief sponsor quoted WHITE's observation Comm'n, 107, 1618, (1964), '[i]mmunity harmfully wastefully self-incrimination.' 116 Cong.Rec. 35291 express possible intimation Appeals' basically halfway house withstand logical analysis. rule serves piece mosaic justified stare decisis, doctrinally consistent observed: "Petitioner comprehensive system prohibitions activities; required, pain reasonably suppose available prosecuting authorities, significant 'link chain' tending guilt." 48, 703. "[e]very aspect activities," "subjected prosecution," "[i]nformation obtained consequence readily assist efforts enforce penalties." 47, 702. commentator, Shakespeare's lines sound doctrine: "His o'ertake bad intent; buried intent That perish'd way: thoughts subjects, Intents thoughts." Measure Measure, V, Scene 1; G. Williams, Law, General (2d ed.1961).

Category: 0