Document: 406 U.S. 441 92 S.Ct. 1653 32 L.Ed.2d 212 Charles Joseph KASTIGAR and Michael Gorean Stewart, Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. No. 70—117. Argued Jan. 11, 1972. Decided May 22, Rehearing Denied June 26, See 408 931, 2478. Syllabus The United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as provided 18 U.S.C. § 6002, use of compelled evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings, such immunity derivative is coextensive with scope sufficient to over a claim privilege. Transactional would afford broader protection than privilege, not constitutionally required. In prosecution, prosecution has burden proving affirmatively that proposed be used legitimate source wholly independent testimony. Pp. 443—462. 440 F.2d 954, affirmed. Hugh R. Manes, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners. Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents question whether Government may witness, self-incrimination, on well 2 Petitioners were subpoenaed appear before grand jury Central District California February 4, 1971. believed petitioners likely assert their Prior scheduled appearances, applied Court order directing answer questions produce under grant conferred pursuant §§ 6003. opposed issuance order, contending primarily statute was therefore supplant rejected this contention, ordered its immunity. 3 appeared but refused questions, asserting self-incrimination. They brought Court, each persisted his refusal jury's notwithstanding court found both contempt, committed them custody Attorney General until either they answered or term expired.1 Appeals Ninth Circuit Stewart v. States, 954 (CA9 1971). granted certiorari resolve important granting ('use use' immunity), it necessary offenses which relates ('transactional' immunity). 402 971, 91 1668, 29 135 (1971). 4 * power government persons testify juries other governmental agencies firmly established Anglo-American jurisprudence.2 respect courts England early 1562,3 Lord Bacon observed 1612 all subjects owed King 'knowledge discovery.'4 While clear when first resorted process secure attendance witnesses, general common-law principle 'the public right every man's evidence' considered 'indubitable certainty' 'cannot denied' 1742.5 testimony, corresponding duty testify, are recognized Sixth requirements accused confronted witnesses him, have obtaining favor. Congress testimonial Judiciary Act 1789, federal courts.6 White noted importance essential concurring Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 378 52, 93 94, 84 1594, 1611, 12 678 (1964): 5 'Among most powers Federal assure effective functioning society broad residents agencies. Blair 250 273, 39 468, 63 L.Ed. 979. Such constitutes one Government's primary sources information.' 6 But absolute. There number exemptions duty,7 reflects complex our fundamental values aspirations,8 marks advance development liberty.9 It asserted any proceeding, civil criminal, administrative judicial, investigatory adjudicatory;10 Stat. 73, 88—89. 7 supra, U.S., at 281, S.Ct., 471; 8 Wigmore, n. 2, 2192, 2197. 55, 1596, (1964). 9 Ullmann 350 426, 76 500; E. Today (1955). 10 1611 (White, J., concurring); McCarthy Arndstein, 266 34, 40, 45 16, 17, 69 158 (1924); Saline Bank, Pet. 100, (1828); cf. Gardner Broderick, 392 88 1913, 20 1082 (1968). protects disclosures reasonably believes could lead might so used.11 been zealous safeguard underlie privilege.12 Immunity statutes, historical roots deep jurisprudence,13 incompatible these values. Rather, seek rational accommodation between imperatives demands citizens testify. existence statutes fact many character only capable giving useful those implicated crime. Indeed, origins context offenses,14 investigate offenses.15 included regulatory measures adopted half century.16 prior enactment consideration case, there force 50 statutes.17 addition, State Union, Columbia Puerto Rico, more statutes.18 commentators,19 several occasions,20 characterized enforcement various statutes. As Frankfurter observed, speaking 422, 497, 100 511 (1956), 'become part constitutional fabric.'21 Id., 438, 506. II contend, first, Amendment's '(n)o person .. . shall himself,' deprives enact laws even if complete compulsion incriminatory words, no statute, however drawn, lawful basis compelling ask us reconsider overrule Brown Walker, 161 591, 16 644, 40 819 (1896), decisions uphold constitutionality statutes.22 We find merit contention reaffirm Ullmann. III Petitioners' second provides district privilege: 11 refuse comply self-incrimination; information (or directly indirectly information) except perjury, false statement, otherwise failing order.'23 6002. inquiry, rooted logic history, privilege.24 If so, petitioners' refusals based unjustified, judgments contempt proper, removed dangers protects. supra. If, hand, comprehensive afforded justified refusing answer, must vacated. 42, (1924). 13 draw distinction provide transactional provide, does us, use.25 contend minimum full support rely Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 35 1110 (1892), challenge statute. reenactment 1868,26 'evidence obtained party means judicial proceeding given evidence, manner him .'27 Notwithstanding revised 1868 Act, jury. He consequently adjudged court.28 On appeal, construed affording specific construction meant 'could not, prevent search out him.'29 Since permit immunized did protect same extent him. Accordingly, cannot unless privilege,30 witness' held proper. course opinion, made following heavily rely: 14 'We clearly leaves subject after he answers criminating put effect supplanting Constitution States. (The consideration) supply perils prohibition designed guard, substitute prohibition. view provision, statutory enactment, valid, absolute future offence relates.' 585 586, 206. 15 Sixteen days decision, new bill introduced Senator Cullom,31 urged Interstate Commerce impossible absence statute.32 bill, became Compulsory Testimony 1893,33 drafted specifically meet language set forth above.34 hearings Commission that: 'no prosecuted subjected penalty forfeiture account transaction, matter thing, concerning documentary .' Feb. 1893, 27 444. 17 basic form numerous statutes35 1970, when, re-examining applicable principles adequacy existing law, enacted here consideration.36 'afford (the) prosecution' referred Counselman, what judged conceptual elaborated namely, privilege.37 statute's explicit proscription 'testimony information)' consonant standards. hold commensurate need broader. accords offense relates, affords considerably never mean subsequently prosecuted. Its sole concern being 'forced give leading infliction 'penalties affixed acts."38 therefrom, protection. prohibits prosecutorial authorities using respect, insures penalties witness. 19 Our holding consistent Counselman. plainly deficient failure prohibit repeatedly emphasized deficiency, noting statute: property, 564, 198—199; 21 it: 22 should attributable convicted, otherwise, had possibly convicted,' ibid.; 23 24 'affords consists gaining knowledge details crime, convicting party.' 25 Court's decision reiterated insufficient: 26 'because incomplete, merely forbade failed testimony.' 437, (Emphasis supplied.) also Arndstein McCarthy, 254 71, 41 27, 65 138 (1920). relied upon unnecessary binding authority.39 28 (1964), carefully therefrom. hearing conducted New York Harbor. After certain ground tend incriminate them, Jersey York.40 continued however, purport extend. judgment affirmed Supreme Court.41 issue whom laws, then convict purported confer faced limitations imposed Government, nonimmunizing sovereign. undertaking examination policies purposes overturned rule jurisdiction within structure crime another jurisdiction.42 state incrimination law. Applying legislation it, 30 '(A) incriminating law fruits officials connection conclude, moreover, implement accommodate interests investigating prosecuting Governments prohibited making fruits.'43 79, 1609. 31 left 'in substantially position claimed immunity.' 1610. true presented precise seeking do derivative-use heretofore squarely question,44 because post-Counselman reaching followed pattern 1893 providing immunity,45 testimony.46 reasoning result reached conclusion fully invoked jurisdiction,47 secures infringement demonstrates noted, 'leaves privilege'48 concerned solely danger displace danger. degree requires, requires immunity.49 IV 33 Although analysis purpose indicates we consider additional arguments advanced sufficiency start premise, appropriately compatible Constitution. 34 argue will adequately possible uses testimony: example, prosecutor obtain leads, names available prosecution. difficult perhaps impossible, argument goes, identify, cross-examination, subtle ways disadvantage especially presupposes prove enforce. sweeping use, direct indirect, therefrom: 36 '(N)o 37 total safeguard, barring 'investigatory lead,'50 focusing investigation disclosures. 38 A accorded prosecuted, dependent preservation rights integrity good faith authorities. stated Murphy: 'Once defendant testified, matters related showing tainted establishing independent, disputed evidence.' 79 18, proof, appropriate, limited negation taint; rather, imposes affirmative proposes very substantial protection,51 resulting invoking itself. assures citizen himself own usually operates allow remain silent asked requiring answer. testiony, assuring way penalties. like Amendment, grants neither pardon nor amnesty. Both prosecute sources. 42 analogous requirement cases coerced confessions.52 confession, revealing leads exchange immunity,53 inadmissible trial, bar prosecution.54 Moreover, through stronger trial asserts coerced-confession claim. One raising show testified shift heavy sources.55 prevail voluntariness confession become inadmissible.56 43 justification reason policy amnesty where, acting accompanying safeguards, required where government, without colorable right, coerces into himself. 44 conclude 6002 suffices it. accordingly Affirmed. 46 BRENNAN REHNQUIST took case. 47 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 48 Self-Incrimination Clause says: 'No himself.' I see proposition 'use' granted. 49 My views up guarantee contained known, 440, 507, 51 (dissenting), Piccirillo York, 400 548, 549, 520, 521, 596 write length. 206, 1110, test: 'In 819, involving protected 'on transaction testify.' 594, 645. offered coterminous ruling 'transactional immunity' fabric 50. apparently progeny overruled sub silentio 678, involved fear compelled, barred fruits, 52 overruled, Feldman 322 487, 64 1082, 1408, 'that jurisdiction.' 77, 1608. recognized, 'said nothing about problem sovereign.' 72, 1606. That federalism, require jurisdictions 53 'deprive violation state's (a which) gravely derogation sovereignty obstructive administration justice.' ex rel. Catena Elias, 449 (CA3 54 Brennan pointed out, threat 55 'substantial single compels brings later fade bringing differs Concern informal undetected correspondingly less two different involved.' 568, 531 (dissenting). 56 None factors apply situation face today. irrelevance Albertson Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 70, 86 194, 165, struck down measure standards Inasmuch interjurisdictional problems themselves, cited. further proof thought significantly undercut Counselman.1 Stevens Marks, 383 234, 244—245, 788, 793—794, 724; id., 249—250, 796—797 (Harlan, dissenting); Mansfield, Case: Conflict Between Privilege Against Need Information, 1966 Sup.Ct.Rev. 103, 164. 57 some thought, Bill Rights 'counsels moderation' legislatures deviate according conscience discretion, today's contraction understandable. true, starting Chief Marshall's Burr, F.Cas. p. (No. 14,692e) (CC Va.), ruled reach make mere possibility charge made. 58 said Hale Henkel, 201 43, 67, 370, 376, 652 'if criminality already taken away, ceases apply.' adequate offense. 595, 646. Clause. stated: '(U)se literally misses point permits removing criminality.' 567, 530 said: 59 'Transactional individual assurance testifying No arises tracing non-use gleaned substance know precisely stand. Respect furthered knows suspicious actually fruit 568—569, 60 When offer far away. For while used, pursued witness.2 framers beyond anyone confess crimes. creates, before, federally silence,' unconstitutional 'to pry open one's lips 446, indeed chief procedural guarantees accusatorial system. acts ignoble stoops end authorize 61 adhere Hitchcock attempt dilute unconstitutional. 62 MARSHALL, holds crimes relates. believe result. 552, 522, (1971) (Brennan, dissenting dismissal certiorari). gives resist interrogation, sought strip enough eliminate operate position, vis-a-vis testimony,* remained reliance (1956); (1906); (1896); (1892). recognizes tested standard, relevant inquiry privilege.' Ante, 462. assume, theory test met ban including derivative, remote indirect. agree practice total, remains source. imposing establish light inevitable uncertainties fact-finding process, Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525, 78 1332, 1341, 1460 (1958), greater margin reliable exactly testified. i.e., 66 how suffice government. First, contrary assertion, leave 'dependent authorities.' 460. taint iniquely alone trace chains suspects develop hard pressed ferret And say though puts difficulty meeting assertion produces evidence. thus rights. Second, safeguard. paths investigative bureaucracy long winding, best somewhere depths apparatus, often hundreds employees, Cf. Giglio 405 150, 763, 104 (1972); Santobello 404 257, 495, 427 today sets loose net trap accepts intolerably great risk slip net. 67 my turns head compares 'immunity' inadvertently interrogation. exclusionary applies whatever Evidence coercive illegal search, excluded methods gathering rules partial inadequate remedy victims police conduct, similarly deterrent officers. An much ambitious rule. past misconduct, occurred. event, authorizes—even encourages interrogation Amendment. least critical respects. 68 approval obligation remove completely absolutely, whereas shield manner. conduct occurred, exclusion purge character. remains, relief, action damages (see 1983 Bivens Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 388, 1999, 619 (1971)), responsible officers 241, 242). coerce confessions invade privacy cause, obtain. potentially Before seal absolutely aid room imperiling large numbers valid convictions. comes play occurred; haste, pressure, officer lawyer. create regarded excessively high price pay 'constable's blunder.' creates framework attorney calm reasoned suffer forgo 70 reasons me standard demanding appropriate fashioned deal violations. Measured approved fails miserably. respectfully dissent. issued 1826. concise history adoption Constitution, J. 2190 (J. McNaughton rev. 1961). 439 15, 979 (1919). Statute Elizabeth, Eliz. 1, c. 9, (1562). Countess Shrewsbury's Case, How.St.Tr. 769, 778 (1612). parliamentary debate Indemnify Evidence, particularly remarks Duke Argyle Chancellor Hardwicke, reported T. Hansard, Parliamentary History 675, 693 (1812). Piemonte 367 556, 559 81 1720, 1722, 1028 (1961); 507; 600, 648, (1896). Hoffman 341 479, 486, 71 814, 818, 95 1118 (1951); Blau 340 159, 223, 170 (1950); Mason 244 362, 365, 621, 622, 1198 (1917). See, e.g., Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 443—444, 1602, 1611—1612, 694 (1966); Boyd 116 616, 635, 524, 534, 746 (1886). Soon 'indemnity,' English usage, L. Levy, Origins 328, 495 Parliament 1710 directed gambling, Anne, 14, 3—4, model identical 1774 Colonial Legislature York. Law Mar. 1774, 1651, Laws 623 (1894). These loser sue winner, loser's charges. winner responded returned illgotten gains, 'acquitted, indemnified (immunized) discharged Punishment, Forfeiture Penalty, incurred playing for, winning Money ..' (1710); 623. Another notable instance 1725 impeachment Macclesfield. House Commons sale offices appointments. Masters Chancery allegedly purchased Chancellor, themselves testifying. office Chancery. Macclesfield's Trial, 767, 1147 (1725). 2281, 492. Bishop Atterbury's 323, 604 605 (1723). colonial Pennsylvania 18th century. Resolution 6, 1758, Votes Proceedings Representatives Province (1682—1776), Archives (8th series) 4679 (C. Hoban ed. 1935); 24, 1772, 1542, 351, 353 354; 623; 1655, 639, 641—642. generally 359, 384—385, 389, 402—403 existed since 1857. 1857, 155. Comment, Witness Acts Theory Practice: Treading Constitutional Tightrope, 72 Yale L.J. 1568 (1963); Wendel, Legislation Privilege: Developments Confusion, St. louis U.L.Rev. 327 National Reform Criminal Laws, Working Papers, 1406—1411 (1970). 13, 642. passed legislation, treasonable conspiracy. 604—605; 492 2. political bribery 1147. facilitate charges corruption vote buying Representatives. L.J., 1571. 92, 1610, 'have century offenses, chiefly whose punishment impracticable, bribery, extortion, consumer frauds, liquor violations, commercial larceny, forms racketeering.' 94 95, 1611. 1576. listing 1444—1445 11. 501 (3d 1940); 496. 377, 610, 652. statement reference 443, almost concurring). Accord, 276, 1915; supra; (Brandeis, J.); Heike 227 131, 142, 226, 228, 450 (1913) (Holmes, J.). provisions 1970 relative 6001—6005. 54, 78, 1609, 678; 585, 37. 560, 197. re F. 268 (CCND Ill. 1890). 198—199. Precisely, abridge replace (sic) one, effect.' decided 1892. Cullom Cong.Rec. 573. 6333. repealed Organized Crime Pub.L.No. 91—452, 245, 931. Cullom, 573, 6333, Congressman Wise, House. 503. Shapiro 335 28—29 36, 1375, 1389—1390, 1787 (1948). 506; 1378. minor exception. 571 532 product careful study Congress. recommended reform laws. recommendation served commenting proposal special report President, satisfied substitution meets overcoming consequence flowing individual's unreasonable searches seizures, counsel, confessing. frequently, unintentionally, violations officers.' Second Interim Report 1969, Papers Commission, 1446 Commission's prepared Prof. Robert G. Dixon, Jr., George Washington University Center, transmitted President recommendations Commission. 1405—1444 S.Rep.No.91—617, pp. 51—56, 145 (1969); H.R.Rep.No.91 1549, 438—439, quoting 634, 534. Knapp Schweitzer, 371, 380, 1302, 1308, 1393 (1958). 1963 Term, Harv.L.Rev. 179, 230 Language similar dictum 594—595, 645—646, 376. Hale, 'for thing 645; 66, 375. Smith 337 137, 141, 146, 1000, 1002, 1005, 1264 (1949), Monia, 317 424, 425, 428, 409, 410, 411, 87 376 (1943). 165 (1965), again quoted. Albertson, insufficient admissions lead.' 80, 199. Adams Maryland, 347 182, 74 442, 445, 98 608 (1954), Murdock, 284 149, 63, 64, 210 (1931), references ancillary points note, self-incriminatory 181, 445. 436—437, 505—506, rationale 27. Harbor bistate body interstate compact 541. Application Comm'n Y. Harbor, N.J. 189 A.2d (1963). Reconsideration Malloy Hogan, 1489, 653 Fourteenth 57, 1597. At added note: deemed 'constitutional rule' prosecution.' Byers, 3, 1535, 1545, judgment); Freed, 401 601, 606 1112, 1116, 356 (1971); 793—794 (1966). E.g., (1949); (1943); Jack Kansas, 199 372, 234 (1905); 35, 199; 10—11, 1494 1495 determine substantive involved. proceedings. 1609 Ibid. 1915, '(a)nswers regardless testifying.' 102—104, 1615—1617 444; Bram 168 532, 542, 183, 186, 568 (1897). White, Murphy, out: 'A Hogan (378 7—8, 1493—1494, 653); Spano 360 315, 1202, 1265; 568.' 1616. Jackson Denno, 368, 908 460; Brief 37; Chapman California, 386 824, 705 (1967). Communist registration provision 1950, 987. violated prospective registrant's saved so-called 'immunity statute' (§ 4(f)) introduction Act. rested Counselman: 1892, (immunity) .,' supplies 'a guard 'absolute 585—586, standards, 4(f) complete.' added.) Thus, employing today, went beyond, measured restrictive Marshall post, 269, futile expect enforced. adverse impact justice rather promote enforcement. believe, reason, 'immunized' inevitably felony conviction. Under circumstances, investigation, decide better off remaining jailed contempt. course, involve considerations come

Category: 0