Document: 400 U.S. 548 91 S.Ct. 520 27 L.Ed.2d 596 Ralph PICCIRILLO, Petitioner,v.State of NEW YORK. No. 97. Argued Nov. 9, 1970. Decided Jan. 25, 1971. Malvine Nathanson, New York City, for petitioner. Stanley M. Meyer, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The occasion granting the writ in this case was to resolve important question whether it is necessary accord 'transactional' immunity, see Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 547, 12 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892), compel a witness give testimony before state grand jury over his claim privilege against self-incrimination, or mere 'use' immunity suffices that end, see, e.g., Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 378 52, 84 1594, 678 (1964); Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. Commissioner City York, 426 F.2d 619 (CA2 1970). 2 After considering briefs and oral arguments parties on writ, we have reached conclusion decision Court Appeals Gold Menna, 25 N.Y.2d 475, 307 N.Y.S.2d 33, 225 N.E.2d 235 (1969), which makes clear transactional required also indicates such court's earlier us, People La Bello, 24 598, 301 544, 249 412 may rested premise, an inappropriate vehicle deciding far-reaching importance. 3 With intervening Gold, no controversy any longer exists between as impelled us grant writ: whether, circumstances involved case, Piccirillo entitled immunity. While true that, technically speaking, issues remain concerning kind by federal law and, if be rather than this, proper scope both arise only sterile background agreement under law. Thus, our determination upon fundamental constitutional underlying would sense its resolution instance. 4 In posture affairs, conclude certiorari should dismissed improvidently granted. 5 It so ordered. 6 Writ dismissed. 7 Mr. Justice BLACK dissents from dismissal He vacate judgment below remand reconsideration light later opinion 255 235. 8 DOUGLAS, with whom MARSHALL concurs, dissenting. 9 I do not approve 10 Petitioner indicted assault committed use tire irons. pleaded guilty sentenced imprisonment. Shortly thereafter impaneled investigate victim conspiracies arising connection it. Petitioner, while still serving sentence conviction, called testify jury. 11 refusing testify, petitioner granted then testified he had perpetrated Four days police officer after chase, arrested another, thereupon taken irons them. following petitioner's arrest offered bribe change testimony. subsequently bribery, unsuccessful motion dismiss based attempted bribery. held four-to-three statute prohibited fruits subsequent criminal proceeding officer's way derived anything said. 412. 1110, once granted, protected prosecution crime relates precise given but Id., at 564—565, S.Ct., 198—199. But went further: 'In view provision, statutory enactment, valid, must afford absolute future offence relates.' 586, 206. Brown Walker, 161 591, 16 644, 40 819, another prosecution, provided 'on account transaction * testify.' 594, 645. coterminous could therefore compelled testify. 'transactional immunity' became part fabric See Ullmann United States, 350 422, 438, 76 497, 506, 100 511. 13 Now Self-Incrimination Clause Fifth Amendment applicable Malloy Hogan, 1, 1489, 653, same prosecutions States Federal Government prosecutions. 10—11*, 1494 1495. 14 Subsequent unanimously concluded their provides Nevertheless, court benefited because gave related offense prosecuted. 481 n. N.Y.S.2d, 38, 238. That approach problem keeping generous interpretations has heretofore received Court. 15 just facts basis bribery charge. knew assaulted man himself told them so. were 'evidence' according tried him 'to get rid of.' They used convicted sentenced, commit assault. Moreover, charge grew out conversations day arraignment seems obvious test honored, one clearest instances Accordingly, reverse below. 17 BRENNAN, joins, 18 This presents limitations Amendment's individual State answer incriminating questions. Since, my view, record compels decide question, cannot agree reach merits conviction directions indictment. 19 codefendant March 19, 1964, officer, William Sewell, assaulting Graham, housing contractor. Patrolman Sewell recovered time arrest. day, two defendants arraigned released bond. leaving courthouse, they approached $1,000 $1,500 dispose seized weapons. honest refused offer immediately notified district attorney attempt. At request prosecutor, attended meeting confirm offer. relevant narrative skips year during assault, guilty, jail. On 18, 1965, attempt, summoned jail appear investigating possibility Graham. informing purpose investigation, going vote explained meaning follows: 20 'I am ask giving you Penal Law Section 2447 will means answers questions connects prosecuted That's understand that?' App. 33. 21 When voted said prosecutor's questions, like consult lawyer. prosecutor permission, stating: 22 'Under these are defendant, witness, been Your rights fully there reason your conferring attorney, 34.1 23 answered all admitting, inter alia, hired fact Graham; possession instruments assault; surprised midst run away caught police. attempt mentioned. later, appeared about Several months thereafter, offering bribe. moved indictment ground charged subject matter Constitution. trial denied motion, guilty. affirmed three judges (1969). interpreted prevent 'the witness' evidence therefrom.' N.Y.2d, 604, 549, N.E.2d, 416. holding satisfied requirements Amendment, findings '(w)hatever might revealed appellants' wholly insubstantial' product testimony.' 605, 550, Seven December 4, 1969, unrelated petitioner's, reversed itself interpretation statute, 'immunity Grand Jury.' 481, 37, 235, footnote stated even new interpretation, correctly 'gave pertained convicted.' 238, 1. We certiorari, 397 933, 90 957, 114 (1970). II 26 changed merely when dismissing best tangentially presented case. here, being '(Y)ou prosecuted,' proceeded put Graham Subsequently, arose courts did bar present conviction. point, relevance afforded ended. applied Fourteenth permits stand substance nature does depend statute. Court's wrong focus particular statute2 results failure distinguish different procedural postures can raised. First, rely refuse pursuant ordered respond. If contempt (or otherwise penalized) refusal answer, reviewing other sanction) coextensive self-incrimination. 653 (1892). found co-extensive privilege, unjustified, finding proper. 819 (1896). If, hand, falls short requirement, properly relied sanction imposed stand. McCarthy Arndstein, 266 34, 42, 45 16, 17, 69 158 (1924). cases, analysis necessarily focuses provisions nuances nothing else court. No yet compelled, Most cases considered fall into category,3 cited per curiam opinion. 28 second class represented one, involves proceeds Once upheld becomes, grants adequate but, rather, involved, testimony, within constitutionally decision, course, made standards Amendment. supra. 29 Since group uncertainty little bearing Court, having agreed hear ought merits. What comes complete factual raising privilege. worth noting falling first bare record, consisting more text question. Without 'abstract controvers(ies) words,' Regal Knitwear Co. N.L.R.B., 324 15, 65 478, 482, 89 661 (1945), though long recognized decided records tender 'underlying clean-cut concrete form.' Rescue Army Municipal 331 584, 67 1409, 1427, 1666 (1947). absence particularly unfortunate issue posed depends how broad protection serve values, purposes, policies A showing, example, individual's ultimately prosecuted, considerations anchor inform judgment. 30 Unlike most offers background. 31 confession avoidance, concedes 'concerning (transactional) statements support dismissal. states 'no immunity.' As recognizes, Constitution requires those terms defined always disagreed continue disagree question,4 thus statement (that) question' simply contrary fact. 32 suggests 'agreement law' (emphasis added) somehow renders phrase that—a shorthand symbol. Something labeled coincide decisions Indeed, vigorously argues far standards. Thus fair describe 'agreement' refers, Appeals, describing label since finally formulation not, event, consideration validity conviction.5 reference what relevant—the 33 Finally, asserts 'our instance.' resolves make 'determination question.' already conceded that. why hence withheld. judgment, articulate 34 sum, attempts, none too successfully create smokescreen focusing Petitioner's without more, squarely raises concrete, excellent adjudication. Under circumstances, justify turn III Only sovereignty, State, involved. basic restrictions power government prosecute matters give. Unlike, (1964), here jurisdictions York's act compelling himself. And 'where federal, danger imminent indeed likely investigation facilitate authority choice exchanging needed 98, 1614 (White, J., concurring). 36 believe self-incrimination jurisdiction incriminate laws testimony.6 Such steers well-conceived middle path between, position supplant other, affords altogether narrow very broader finds some language history Amendment,7 today's society governmental economic regulation combined existence alternative convince me require sweeping completely invalidate technique. Mere protects actual fruits, satisfies neither nor historically designed free country. course past century consistently read requiring less, 37 guarantee 'No person shall himself'—has occupied central place jurisprudence Nation's birth: 38 'By 1776 principle nemo tenetur maxim deeply accepted expression mechanical quality ritualistic gesture favor self-evident truth needing explanation.' L. Levy, Origins 430 (1968). 39 Not Constitution, every guarantees save provision constitution.8 repeatedly emphasized role guardian inadvertent gradual erosion guarantee. 'This construction right intended secure.' U.S., 562, 198. 'is abridgment States,' 6, 1492, modern affirmation 'essential mainstay' American accusatorial system id., 7, 1493; privilege's Government. words terms, suggest men themselves promises crimes revealed. clause prohibit conviction; prohibits application vel non compulsion force incriminates him, regardless actually Historically, major evils sought allayed development torture extract confession,9 trial. recognize distinction; permit voluntary confessions prosecutions.10 object much convicting own mouth, practice himself, prosecution. 41 Implicitly, 'in case' limitation although ever Chief Marshall's Aaron Burr charge, brought. Burr, Fed.Cas. p. 14,692e (C.C.D.Va.1807). apply. precisely (1896), 511 (1956): 42 '(I)f (a man's) operate(s) pardon relates,—a absolutely securing satisfy demands 595, 646. 43 Or, succintly years 44 'if criminality away, ceases apply.' Hale Henkel, 201 43, 67, 370, 376, 50 652 (1906). clear, 'operate offence,' take promised convict (a) case,' contradiction command. forced admit conduct punished, albeit 46 purposes serves promoted standard. Frankfurter's oft-quoted remark '(t)he specific peculiarly 'a page volume logic," reflects safeguards many interrelated values: 'It do, therefore, assign isolated policy privilege,' 56 5, 1597, argue 'the' identified. Murphy, identified complex values serves: 47 '(O)ur unwillingness suspected cruel trilemma self-accusation, perjury contempt; preference inquisitorial justice; fear self-incriminating elicited inhumane treatment abuses; play dictates state-individual balance leave alone until good cause shown disturbing contest shoulder entire load'; respect inviolability human personality each private enclave where lead life'; distrust self-deprecatory statements; realization sometimes shelter guilty,' often innocent." 55, 1596 (citations omitted). 48 quote summary served length think noteworthy many, most, severely infringed circumstances. seek reopen debate supra, compatible statutes nature, foreclose inquiry, competing opinions Brother White's concurring 93—96, 1610—1612, well result required. is, however, appreciate breadth significance protect. 49 insufficient argued using information obtained compulsion, testified. shows, standpoint (which Amendment) true. Even clearly obviously information, help pursue general others. Whether enable generate enough steam produce 'independent' originally open short, literally misses half point removing criminality. uncertainties factfinding process strongly '(t)here litigation margin error, representing error factfinding, account.' Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525, 78 1332, 1342, 1460 (1958). dealing single jurisdiction, enormous difficulty attempting ascertain individual, who previously regard derives 'independent source.' For thing, hands government—the whose included argument assumptions misconduct collusion among officers. assumes normal fallibility. working office department exchange recording carefully certain information; impossible remember retrospect obtained. By hypothesis, situation presumably various enforcement subtle inferences drawn action non-action fellow personnel difficult prove disprove. danger, substantial brings fade bringing differs Concern informal undetected correspondingly less 51 Transactional problems. assurance testifying arises tracing non-use gleaned sole Both know Respect furthered knows left suspicious fruit 52 standard articulated 1892; reaffirmed reiterated dicta since, never seriously questioned involving actions jurisdiction. Counselman, 1868 inadequate privilege: 206 added). 1893 enacted decision. provided, 53 '(N)o subjected penalty forfeiture transaction, Act February 11, 1893, Stat. 443, U.S.C. § 46. 54 Finding 'operate(s) pardon' relates, 'fully accomplished' objective. 610, 652. relying full sustain dissent four Justices thought statute's 610—638, 652—663 (dissenting Shiras Field, JJ.). 55 sustained citation resting proposition 376. 1924, Brandeis, speaking unanimous available bankrupt subpoenaed special commissioner examination 'because fails Congress hereafter disclosure estate witnesses greater importance punishing past, can, confer unrestricted providing Compare 819; Glickstein 222 139, 142, 71, 128; Ensign Pennsylvania, 227 592, 221, 57 658.' 158. Monia, 317 424, 428, 63 409, 411, 87 376 (1943) (Counselman 'indicated claimed privilege'); Smith 337 137, 147, 1000, 1005, 93 1264 (1949) (transactional 'met 'absolute' self-incrimination'). 58 1956, Frankfurter, writing assert shortly adopting standard, 'become fabric.' Again, reaffirm Walker repeated dissenters 440 455, 507—515. 59 Ullmann's assertion become 'constitutional fabric' announced written time, minor unexplained exception 1898 exceptions 1970,11 immunity.12 reflected appendix brief, majority provide effect 1964. 60 wisdom consistent illustrated supported prison cell jury, Sewell. influence Nonetheless, District Attorney decision: elected call associated Before threat contempt, connected complied, relinquishing guaranteed face official utilize processes 61 guard against: 62 accused asked explain apparent ease assume character, temptation press unduly, browbeat timid reluctant, push corner, entrap fatal contradictions, painfully evident trials odious rise demand total abolition. So iniquities ancient impress minds colonists states, accord, denial law.' 596—597, case: position, attendant temptations pressures prosecutor. questioning occurred secrecy affect notice incident relieve liability substantially character removed, allow IV 64 Holmes, Heike 131, 226, 450 (1913), interpreting render 'coterminous concerned,' 228, '(w)hen speaks way.' 144, 228. attaches used. police, station house, booked bail next day. His carried up bribe; concerned events established motive These connection' 143—144, 228—229; contrary, quite pertinent Consequently, 66 instructions complicated extend 678. Cf. Abbate 359 187, 79 666, 729. counsel invalid Amendments, pass Sixth argument. doubts supervening law, appropriate reconsideration, suggests. Bell Maryland, 1814, 1816, 822 (1964). rests stating regarded final reasons text. E.g., Gardner Broderick, 392 273, 88 1913, 1082 (1968); Assn. Sanitation, 280, 1917, 1089 (1956); Hoffman 341 479, 71 814, 95 1118 (1951); Murdock, 284 141, 63, 210 (1931); (1924); (1906); Ballmann Fagin, 200 186, 212, 433 Jack Kansas, 199 372, 73, 234 (1905); (1896); Adams 347 179, 74 442, 98 608 (1954); (1949); Feldman 322 487, 1082, 1408 (1944); (1913). extent protection, sharply disputed Counsel respondent: (I)f wasn't thing specified importance, uniform 'On plus crime, things becomes strictly 'And Now, relies great deal vs. Hitchcock. Hitchcock overruled, hasn't, *.' Tr. Oral Arg. petitioner: transaction(al) rule *. enunciated abrogation constantly numerous sound rule. 'So feel relationship (between conviction) test, contend covered entitled.' 15. 555—558. 'Transactional' presupposes '(C)ompelled manner (the witness).' 79, 1609, Historians noted viewed allowing revealed: 'The 'self-incrimination,' origins development. 'right self-incrimination' short-hand gloss origin implies restriction clause. oneself imports wider reach, applicable, least self-production adverse evidence, including herald infamy, thereby publicly disgracing him. framers' generation followed extension cover self-infamy eventually fell disuse.' 427, 429 J. Wigmore, Evidence 2252 (McNaughton rev. 1961). 646—647, passim. Talmudic admission self-incriminatory statement, voluntarily given. 433—441. 25(a)(10). Bankruptcy July 1898, 7(a)(9), 548, six Counselman. Professor Wigmore speculated drafters hostile purposely drafted imperfect 2283 528 (3d ed. 1940). (1924), section remove Title 6002 (1970 ed.) codifies Organized Crime Control 1970, 927; 884 514(a) Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention 1278. J.Wigmore, 2281, 495 1961), 1970 Supp., 51.

Category: 0