Document: 364 U.S. 507 81 S.Ct. 260 5 L.Ed.2d 249 Giacomo REINA, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 29. Argued Nov. 7, 8, 1960. Dec. 19, Mr. Allen S. Stim, New York City, for petitioner. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Narcotic Control Act 1956,1 18 U.S.C. § 1406, U.S.C.A. legislates immunity from prosecution a witness compelled under section by court order to testify before federal grand jury investigating alleged violations narcotics laws. questions presented are, primarily, whether grants state, as well federal, prosecution, and, if state immunity, is constitutional. 2 petitioner was serving five-year sentence offense2 when, on December 5, 1958, he subpoenaed sitting in Southern District York. A number were asked him concerning his crime, particularly persons involved with and their activities smuggling into this country Europe. invoked provision Fifth Amendment against being be himself3 refused answer any questions. United States Attorney approval General obtained pursuant 1406 directing answer. When returned again testify. Proceedings criminal contempt resulted judgment review adjudging guilty charged. 170 F.Supp. 592. Court Appeals Second Circuit affirmed. 273 F.2d 234. Because importance construction constitutionality raised case, we granted certiorari, 362 939, 80 805, 4 769. 3 Petitioner's main argument both courts below here challenges granting only not either because Congress meant statute thus limited, or statute, construed also grant would unconstitutional. Both passed question because, assuming granted, they held that v. Murdock, 284 141, 52 63, 76 L.Ed. 210, settled does protect answering which might incriminate law. at page 595; Cir., 235. Petitioner contends Murdock should re-examined overruled. We have no occasion consider contention, since our view constitutionally prosecutions. first provided cover doubt both. relevant words appeared other statutes been immunity. In Adams State Maryland, 347 179, 74 442, 98 608, like 3486, testimony shall 'be used evidence proceeding court' courts. (Emphasis supplied.) 'Language could plainer,' 181, 445. Ullmann States, 350 422, 434—435, 497, 504—505, 100 511, 3486(c), added Immunity 1954, virtually carbon copy, given same construction. Moreover, adoption followed close upon decision. That decision came down March 26, 1956. Section reported out House Ways Means Committee three months later June 1956, H.R.Rep.No.2388, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. It became law July 18, 70 Stat. 574. cannot believe very prosecutions without giving meaning. turn then petitioner's that, so construed, encroaches police powers reserved Tenth Amendment. recognizes upheld authority 'necessary proper' carry power provide national defense; Maryland preclude using former 3486 congressional committee. He insists, however, enact laws—rested Commerce Clause, Brolan 236 216, 218, 35 285, 59 544; Yee Hem 268 178, 45 470, 69 904; taxing power, Doremus, 86, 39 214, 63 493; Alston 274 289, 47 634, 71 1052; Nigro 276 332, 351—354, 48 388, 394—395, 72 600; Sanchez, 340 42, 108, 95 47—is broad enough encompass legislation laws, 'a subject has traditionally within state.' But misconceives reach principle applied Maryland. may legislate restricting exercise extent necessary proper more effective distinctions based particular concerned support Constitution. See Brown Walker, 161 591, 16 644, 40 819, name Clause apply inquiry simply legislated enforcement undoubted 6 can hardly questioned had rational basis supposing aid detection hence evinced serious continuing concern over alarming proportions illicit traffic grown. far-reaching international roots. S.Rep.No.1997, Sess., pp. 3—6. discovery apprehension those engaged it present difficult problems enforcement. whole array aids adopted but one, especially designed 'permit officers operate effectively.' p. 10. appropriate conducive end, enough. Even viewed absolutely execution design, '(T)o undertake inquire degree * necessity, pass line circumscribes judicial department, tread legislative ground.' McCulloch Wheat. 316, 423, 579. And supersession less valid regulated narcotics, although fact troubled one court. Tedesco 255 35. Madison said, 'Interference constitutional criterion Congress. If given, it; it, interfere even Constitutions States.' II Annals Cong. 1897 (1791). Or said statutes, '* legitimate its enacts 'the supreme Law Land,' are bound (§ 1406), though affects rules practice.' supra, 183, 446. 7 urges event ordered jury's unless received 'general pardon amnesty' covering unserved portion fine. This surprising light traditional purpose witnesses future. suggests who convicted entitled ask Government than reveal conduct which, future prosecution. Yet brief says ordinary rule once person longer privilege self-incrimination incriminated about crime *.' There indeed weighty proposition. Romero, 371; 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), 2279; cf. 597—600, 647—648. Under least need offered all. argue remission penalty due quid pro quo further exposing himself personal disgrace opprobrium. reason tenable rejected validity an depend shields opprobrium attaching exposure crime.' 605, 650. Nor contention prison imposed disobedience actually additional punishment crime. His single 'said bottom face claim self incrimination did coextensive sought replace complete safeguarding 'for account transaction, matter, thing compelled' testify, fully privilege. Some language 601, 648, refers, compares declarations amnesty pardon. neither nor elsewhere suggested escape invalidity Amendment, do does. 9 complains finally excessive. sentenced two years' imprisonment commence expiration serving. However, allowed 60 days date purge appearing period so, herein vacated.' took action found effect asserted legal position good faith contumaciously disrespectful court's obstinately flouting it. 596. us excessiveness sentence, companion conviction invalid advise conferred 1406. construe 60-day running Court's mandate avoid answering. Now fears groundless, knows gave claiming substance. No admixture civil having here, issues present. 10 Affirmed. 11 BLACK, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs, dissenting. 12 affirms years answers propounded days. strange kind apparently combining elements contempt. alone sufficient arouse grave doubts my mind judgment, procedures quite different call powers. analysis makes clear rests notion yet committed sole coercing compliance demand testimony, fails comply specified period, will Thus seems represent adjudication guilt challenged specific ground not, view, bar consideration Ordinarily, time. I find unnecessary, definite conclusion result hybrid nature, still think reversed. 13 reversed two-year bring issue length open attack. Cf. Boynton Com. Virginia, 454, 457, 182, 184, 206. imposition beyond summary proceedings conducted case. dissenting Green 356 165, 193, 78 632, 672, stated full reasons led me conclude where object impose rather merely coerce compliance, 'there justification history, most important Constitution trying charged violating decree manner wholly accused disobeying Id., 661. adhere reiterate belief solely 'judges lawyers told each contrary often come accept gospel truth.' 219, Thus, join upholding trial denied protections indictment determination petit jury. regard case another ominous step incredible transformation growth consequent erosion safeguards protection liberty. see why tried accordance land—including Bill Rights—and conclude, therefore, such trial. 572 et seq.; 1401 seq., seq. portions follows: witnesses. 'Whenever attorney involving violation (certain statutes) public interest, he, General, make application instructed *. prosecuted subjected forfeiture compelled, after claimed self-incrimination, *' Reina, 242 302. served eight term. completed November 21, 1959. 'No

Category: 0