Document: 459 U.S. 248 103 S.Ct. 608 74 L.Ed.2d 430 The PILLSBURY COMPANY, et al., Petitionersv.John CONBOY. No. 81-825. Argued Oct. 6, 1982. Decided Jan. 11, 1983. Syllabus Title 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides that "no testimony or other information compelled under the order [of a federal court] (or any directly indirectly derived from such information) may be used against witness in criminal case." When respondent appeared before grand jury investigating price-fixing activities corrugated container industry, he was granted use immunity pursuant to for his testimony. Subsequently, civil antitrust actions brought Federal District Court by petitioner purchasers of containers, appeared, subpoena, deposition. At deposition, questions were read transcript immunized and rephrased include answer, then asked if had "so testified" jury. He refused answer each question, asserting Fifth Amendment privilege self-incrimination. Granting petitioners' motion compel held him contempt when continued claim privilege. Appeals reversed, holding entitled assert privilege, since deposition not protected but could subsequent action. Held: A deponent's testimony, as question this case, repeating verbatim closely tracking prior is not, without duly authorized assurance at time, within meaning 6002, therefore over valid assertion Pp. 252-264. (a) To construe petitioners urge, so hold grant give repeats tracks sweeps further than Congress intended hinder Government's enforcement its laws turning into form transactional subjects examined proceeding. Use immunize exclude trial only which Government expressly has surrendered future use. purpose limit scope constitutionally required level, well those cases determines gaining witness' outweighs loss opportunity prosecution witness. 255-261. (b) Petitioners' proposed construction also put deponent some risk unless receives an exclusion courts cannot properly give. Silence, on hand, preserves rights interests, judicial resources otherwise would make many difficult judgments interpretation require. 261-263. 661 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir.1981), affirmed. Francis J. McConnell, Chicago, Ill., petitioners. Michael W. Coffield, respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 Pursuant provisions, §§ 6001-6005 (1976), United States Attorney request court compelling testify even though asserted Section provides, however, case. . ." issue presented case whether "testimony" can 2 * Respondent John Conboy former executive defendant In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. 310 (S.D.Tex.). January 1978, Department attorneys interviewed following promise immunity. subsequently and, formal 3 Following indictment several companies, numerous filed various district courts. Those consolidated discovery Southern Texas. Petitioners here are containers who elected opt out class-action proceedings pursue their own causes action manufacturers. ordered portions government interview grand-jury certain witnesses, including Conboy, made available lawyers class opt-outs.1 4 subpoena issued Northern Illinois, Chicago he, counsel, counsel copies transcripts marked exhibits all follow examination. questioning fell pattern: transcript; it (i.e., "Is fact that. ."); finally, examination.2 5 questions.3 contempt, stayed pending appeal. panel Seventh Circuit affirmed order, that, "[b]ecause taken tracked Conboy's we believe answers 'derived from' [testimony] unavailable prosecution." Appeal 655 748, 751 (CA7), rev'd en banc, (1981). 6 On rehearing reversed It first determined alleged fear more "fanciful," F.2d, 1152, action, see id., 1153.4 absent separate independent immunity,5 protected. While acknowledging "of course [would be] derived" reasoned "are current, memory events" thus "necessarily create new source evidence" Conboy. Id., 1155 (emphasis original). 7 We certiorari resolve conflict Courts Appeals,6 now affirm. II 8 settled must have power "to secure necessary effective law enforcement." Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 52, 79, 84 1594, 1609, 12 678 (1964).7 For years, person governmental prosecuted conduct about testified. See New Jersey Portash, 440 450, 457, 99 1292, 1296, 59 501 (1979). Prosecutors reluctant "transactional" potential targets investigations. S.Rep. 91-617, p. 53 (1969). 9 "major purpose" Organized Crime Control Act 1970, Pub.L. 91-452, Stat. 927, key provision, provide justice system with legal tools strengthe[n] evidence gathering process insur[e] will admissible trial." 116 Cong.Rec. 35,200 (1970) (statement Rep. St. Germain). sought useful officers through two specific changes. First, less expansive8 repealing authority providing comprehensive 6002.9 Second, gave officials Justice10 exclusive immunities.11 10 upheld constitutionality statute Kastigar States, 406 441, 92 1653, 32 212 (1972). limited Amendment, co-extensive satisfied, provided measure protection "removed dangers protects." 449, S.Ct., 1659. rejecting argument derivative-use adequately protect incriminating uses emphasized "[t]he sweeping proscription use, direct indirect, therefrom. 460, 1664. added once establishes testified immunity, "the [has] affirmative duty prove proposes legitimate wholly testimony." Ibid. Thus, "immunity derivative 'leaves substantially same position claimed privilege' absence immunity." Kastigar, U.S., 458-459, 1663-1664 (quoting Murphy, 1610). III 11 With foregoing statutory history relevant principles mind, turn disputed us causal connection between should excluded based language common understanding words "derived from." formulated basis clearly from" repeat track necessarily "tainted by" find no distinction responsive questions. An very nature evoked responds contained question. 13 straightforward: Questions do incriminate; do. Unlike questions, transcripts, events. Even identical jury, oath tell truth, told knows now. Each statement creates "source." sum, initial does prevent prosecutor prosecuting; merely limits sources evidence. 14 Although parties arguments terms statute—whether testimony—it clear crux dispute earlier itself talk.12 contend already supplanted time course, "closely tracks" argued threaten need individual's interest avoiding threat, plaintiffs. But accept assumptions upon conclusion rests. our view, right, time.13 15 note outset although there practical reasons testifying,14 far right concerned indifferent afforded silence primary certain. interest, affected seriously relies due recognition evidence, inquiry met jeopardizing limiting encroaching certainty protection. 16 evoke one responses deponent: (i) adopt answer;15 (ii) affirm accurately reflects testimony; (iii) recall additional disclosed immune (iv) disclose contend, nor they, affords self-incriminating occasion after giving Rather, argue three prosecution. 17 premise designed discover information,16 obtain simply statements transcript.17 Because little sweep examination did intend immunize, fall outside later prosecution, yield carbon copy transcript. situation, desirable plaintiffs, particularly bringing private suits supplement laws, access available, probative information. transcript, remains cross examination,18 traditionally relied expansively test credibility seek truth. recognize problem, maintain defendants "would accuracy truthfulness repeated going beyond confines Regardless limitations imposed scope,19 often produce elicited direct. assume easily This assumption implicates both interests embodied 6002. B 19 If engaged ongoing investigation particular activity issue, immunizing (e.g., like one) show similar obtained sources. conclude proceeding extended effect invest matters proceedings. precisely kind prohibit. level required, General, designated him, determine witness's witness.20 C 20 places substantial risks deponent.21 Unless assures received been forced exchange. No That responsibility, noted, peculiarly one, General officer 6003. Nor court, pre-determine decision burden proving "that Yet silence, below essentially predicted obligated evidentiary seek. think predictive judgment enough. 21 imposes prosecution.22 Accordingly, Court's compulsion Attorney, justified As MARSHALL notes concurring opinion: "Whatever justification requiring aid benefit litigant chosen Post, 267. 22 result testimony—whether excluded—is witness's, suffer. Reliance nonimmunized inconsistent congressional policy leaving granting Executive Branch. 23 stated Maness Meyers, 419 95 584, 42 574 (1975), "reliance objection suppress 'let cat out' whatever putting back." 463, 593. acted maintaining face testing validity IV 24 importance means furthering goals regulatory statutes, laws. See, e.g., Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. International Parts Corp., 392 134, 139, 88 1981, 1984, 982 (1968); Borden Co., 347 514, 518-519, 703, 706, 98 L.Ed. 903 (1954). supplement, supplant, responsibility Government. puts danger require.23 V 25 privilege.24 accordingly 26 Affirmed. 27 MARSHALL, concurring. 28 I join given invoke response Permitting rely defeat purposes use-immunity statute, regardless whether, answered voluntarily, trial. today reach admitted dissenting opinion, STEVENS argues because agree trial, write separately explain why nevertheless retained 29 voluntarily "directly solely respondent's There suggestion 1664, 30 admission represent departure fundamental Kastigar. upholding attack self-incrimination, concluded "as privilege." "prohibits prosecutorial authorities using respect," 453, 1661 original), "provides therefrom," introduce 31 my Brother posed follow, answer. conceded never concerning subject matter barred previously judge finding proceeding.1 (1972), support compulsion. permits agency, representative thereby 6002-6005. involved conferred called constitutional attack, confer exchange 462, 1665. judge, acting overrule 33 Whatever Any served insufficient justify subjecting attend 34 Whenever significant fruits him. Further always traced back source: 35 "A suspects develop lead hard pressed indeed ferret it, proof government, difficulty meeting mere produces contrary good faith prosecuting sole safeguard rights. [E]ven sufficient safeguard. paths investigative bureaucracy long winding, best somewhere depths apparatus, hundreds employees, prohibited 469, 1669 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). 36 Piccirillo York, 400 567-568, 91 530 (BRENNAN, dismissal certiorari); Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525, 78 1332, 1341, 1460 (1958). allowed undergo depositions, elaborate original testimony,2 broadly disseminated. result, much greater tainted initially faced incomplete protection, "a [cannot] 'that testimony.' " Ante, 261 1665). Cf. 461-463, 592-593, (1975). 37 appropriate these authorization, supporting weaker here. noted advanced 443-444, 446-447, 1655-1656, 1657, open possibility "evidence sources," 461, neither expression interest.3 public forcing obtaining suit.4 served.5 38 realistic unable underlying application here, view general considered adequate substitute interests. concluding permit 39 BRENNAN, judgment. holds: 40 "We 263-264 (footnote omitted). 41 BLACKMUN's likewise states: "In decide 6001-6005, events despite testify." 272. 43 understand rule,* completely them. reason, concur 44 am entire agreement everything majority opinion. My differences them, small approach, go substance conclusions. Moreover, arises rather specialized setting statutes require broad-ranging analysis problem presented. considerations worthwhile file lengthy forth detail. 45 BLACKMUN, 46 testify. different route, views. 47 authorizing grants case" (with exceptions). "make 256. talk." seems me characterizing way, begs us. itself, obviously Whether certainly ultimate decide. rephrasing bring closer 48 is, black-letter "if possibly for, of, witness." Brown Walker, 161 591, 597, 644, 647, 819 (1896); Mason 244 362, 365-366, 621, 622, 61 1198 (1917). concludes "irrespective [deposition] 257, n. 13. explains conclusion, plainly wrong. used. informs granted, "information [the immunized] real 49 finds irrelevant analysis. asserts "need evidence," "interest grant," [his Amendment] certain." 258, 257. seeks adjust arrive solution satisfactory all. policy,1 method interpretation. 50 every involving "our starting point employed Congress." Reiter Sonotone 442 330, 337, 2326, 2330, 60 931 examine reference background legislative history, might sufficiently ambiguous resort concerns addressed "regard culminated solid ground meaning." Universal C.I.T. Credit 344 218, 222, 73 227, 230, 97 260 (1952). A. 51 Nation's passed 1868. pleading party, discovery, party ., shall manner respect crime." Feb. 25, 1868, ch. 13, 1, 37. Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 195, 1110 (1892), type himself, coextensive Amendment. "protected witness] 52 proceeding, States. effect. search witnesses attributable compulsion, convicted, otherwise, convicted." 564, 198. concluding, leaves criminating supplanting Constitution States." 585, 206. 54 Due latter lower assumed broad "transaction" satisfy requirements beginning 1893, enacted series complete crime divulged reliance transaction until part 927. 55 meantime, decided suggesting forms permissible. Comm'n, (1964), state "unless him." 1609. footnote, showing establishing they independent, evidence." Ibid., 18. Several years later, Gardner Broderick, 273, 276, 1913, 1915, 1082 (1968), "[a]nswers [Fifth testifying." And shortly thereafter, People La Bello, N.Y.2d 598, 602, 301 N.Y.S.2d 544, 249 N.E.2d 412, 414 (1969), York interpreted bar "from thereof." 56 context 1969 began considering statute. House Senate reports accompanying 1970 persuaded reasoning cases. After quoting Bello discussing length, pp. 52-55 (1969); H.R.Rep. 91-1188, 8-11 (1970), "is as, broader than, reflect use-restriction concept [than] Counselman." 145; 12; 91-1549, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4017. 57 6002's prohibition "any testimony" reflected Congress' extent According reports, phrase conform "present law" derivatively obtained." cite Wong Sun 371 471, 83 407, 441 (1963), seminal what commonly known "fruits" doctrine, representing law." 42. Gardner, relied, term describe References doctrine scattered throughout whenever boundaries discussed.2 1665, recognized "analogous requirement coerced confessions." modeled recommendation National Commission Reform Criminal Laws, quoted approval report stating: 'The frequently, unintentionally, violations officers.' 452, 36, 1660, Second Interim Report Mar. 17, 1969, Working Papers 1446 (1970)). 58 light intent, regarded lacking meaning. intent clear. minimum Constitution. believed illegally obtained. narrower offered petitioners; interpretation, Conboy's. narrow possible, consistent us, then, violated covered coercion, prohibits "fruits." understood demonstrates, incorporate derived." ascertain consequently constitutional, Fourth Amendments.3 supra, illegal arrest suppressed results "an intervening act free will," "sufficiently purge taint unlawful invasion." 486, 416. Harrison 219, 222-224, 2008, 2010-2011, 1047 applied standard confession. Our recent adhered test. Rawlings Kentucky, 448 98, 107-110, 100 2556, 2562-2564, 65 633 (1980); 422 590, 600-604, 2254, 2260-2262, 416 determining met, range factors speaker's knowledge rights; temporal proximity violation statement; involvement; voluntariness statement. 603-604, 2261-2262. brief, speaker statement, uninfluenced compelled.4 62 during previous testimony.5 attended accompanied lawyer. aware rights, them vigor. misapprehension relationship took place remain impression being Department. From past experience knew fresh Under circumstances, inadvertently incriminate himself lingering authorities. will. Consequently, 63 well-informed engages signal supervising grant.6 inadmissible trial,7 uncertainties suppress. ' "let out" back.' 262 593, (1975)). 64 mean suggest, testifies automatically sort, statements. reasonably standards set above. If, truly will, STEVENS, whom O'CONNOR joins, dissenting. 66 proper cannot, himself. believes truthful silent. made, evaluate risk. appears have, speak. refusal 67 holds existence depend incriminating. discovered answers, Nevertheless, empowers refuse stresses interests: effort prosecute respondent, self-incrimination." threats 68 frankly puzzled supposed desire forsworn And, self-incrimination concerned, "he immunity," ante, analyzed witness, answered: attached precludes Government, prosecutor, requires "immunized 'testimony,' 250, jury] derived, respectfully dissent. 69 subpoenaed Sherman Act. participant arrangements review, himself.1 invoked 1970,2 70 May appear second proceeding.3 Everyone agrees disputes confirmed recorded transcript.4 logical inquire, did, ratification 71 plain protects provides: 72 "[N]o ) added). true, quite obvious interrogator's natural endorsed immediately memorandum explaining Attorneys, Assistant charge Division explained established standing alone contemplated Dept. Memo 595, Supp. Sept. 2, 1971, 5. "Although independently rare where develops, derivation, especially 5, Solicitor defend Act's constitutionality, proposition "extended immunity" construed broadly.5 75 accepted General's argument. construing commensurate resulting invocation itself:6 76 "The therefrom [The] proof, reaffirm appropriate, negation taint; rather, 77 successfully demonstrates 1663-1664; 678. propounded presumptively presumption shown Nothing record suggests entirely testimony.7 79 ruled introduced been. link chain led information, "derived" itself. 80 grant, great deal 258. commits triple error most affect erroneous misunderstands how third, overlooks costs elaboration; 81 offer suspected expects important available. realizes almost cases, immunity—even sacrificing chance role enterprise.8 return society get prosecutor's investment Once pays price, normally wish probe deeply implicate associates thoroughly possible. maximize amount provides. serves purpose; motivate unresponsive possible.9 82 prosecutors take attitude towards witnesses. promoted Court,10 immunizes harbors indict afterwards prefer peril immunized.11 defies human presume just cooperative 24-hour truce, knowing hostilities resume signing peace treaty. applying written "in 260. Transactional forfeit open-and-shut built independently. allows retain case.12 found absolutely cites none today, implicit substituted "use "transactional allow advantage repetitions testimony.13 ordering somehow jeopardize efforts Consideration facts apparent baseless. respondent—and nothing exists—the agreed engaging price discussions Fred Renshaw Dick Herman Alton Box Board. confirm place, confirmation liability? demonstrably participation discussions, independent.14 participated identify persons discussions. 85 Furthermore, overlook societal costs—law costs—of expansion full candid inner workings conspiracy significant.15 Conceivably, relatively brief account basic structure persuade plead guilty enter settlement Government.16 confined description pricefixing arrangement, example, allowing injured inquire details arrangement.17 86 assumes expanded serve society's mode theoretical hamper outweighed forward. significantly, slight 87 makes curious extend "predicting" 261-262. "risk" troubles chair things: "at risk" adopted him.18 company, reacting faces 89 uphold Court's. reject disagrees, analytically distinct reasons. 90 mistake deciding derived. Judge Singleton able "pre-determine 261. sort "wholly independent;" indeed, conceive exist More importantly, situation exists asserted. honor lacks merit, guard wrong later.19 suggests, unfair '[f]urther source.' 262, 22, 268 applies equal force rests squarely source. 468-471, 1668-1670 prepared retreat proposition, surely vehicle. ratify known. record, investigation, testimony.20 summary, perfectly immunity; proceeding; (c) have. concern correctly incorrect disposition 93 propriety release materials example three-question pattern follows: Q. Who you communications Board? Is .? Did your 10, 1978? Joint Appendix 29-31. Chief V. Singleton, Jr. Texas exercised powers Illinois 1407(b). hearing conducted telephone chambers Houston. correctness Appeals' declined authorize depositions Compare Fleischacker, 644 70, (CA2 1981) (deposition immunized), Little Rock School Borden, Inc., 632 700, 705 (CA8 1980) (same), Anti-Trust Franey, 620 1086, 1095 (CA5 (answers cert. denied, 449 1102, 101 897, 827 Calandra, 338, 345, 94 613, 618, 561 (1974); Mara, 410 19, 41, 774, 785, (1973) dissenting); (1973); 93-94, 1610-1611 (WHITE, concurring); Blackmer 284 421, 438, 252, 255, 375 (1932); Blair 250 281, 468, 979 (1919); 600, 648, (1896). WHITE "[i]mmunity harmfully wastefully 107, 1618 (concurring opinion) (quoted 35,291 Poff)). committee report, bath," than" H.R. 4007. refuses, ancillary to— (1) (2) agency (3) either Congress, joint Houses, subcommittee presiding communicates part, comply self-incrimination; except perjury, false failing order. 6001(2) defines "other information" book, paper, document, recording, material." 6003 individual accordance subsection section, attorney district, refuses become section part. may, Deputy judgment— interest; likely foresaw playing minor process: court's predicated." supra 8, 43, 4018; (1970). Rep.Poff). President's Law Enforcement Administration Justice, Challenge Free Society 141 (1967) (recommending jurisdiction's chief officer."). Brief ("Conboy statute."); Reply ("[R]equiring grant."). judgment, silent definition discusses will" "had grant. 280. address hypothetical. testify—i.e., compels deposition—over conclude, irrespective freely position, BLACKMUN'S factual leave outcome record. concludes, we, Besides testifying close associates, increases committing perjury talks. (perjured immunized). extreme ask "Yes." Direct assume. "were directly" define exactly ask. Other permitted restatements (compelling "concerning actually touched appearing testimony"); 'the geographical substantive frame work [witness' testimony' ") Starkey, 600 1043, 1048 1979)). apparently attempt indicate exceed limits. Fed.R.Evid. 803(8) (hearsay exception records); 804(a)(1) (witness exempted privilege); 804(b)(1) (former examination). Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (stating calculated evidence"); 30(c) (allowing depositions); 32(a) "admissible rules present testifying"); Cardillo, 316 606, 611 1963) (in invokes defendant, draws collateral bear prevents direct). presently served. None tests deponents guidance talk not. 16, supra. post, concurring) ("Further source[.]"); 14, (increasing harm perjury); 23, infra exposure liability). dissent minimizes protects, 288-290, contending "misunderstood interest," 288. note, conceding 293, concedes least somewhat intended. possible securing cooperation individuals know increase liability. Finally, dissent's [is] forward." 289. This, reserved courts, case-by-case basis. precluding omission. generally way convict crime. probable prosecution; forbids admissible, development Hoffman 341 479, 814, 818, 1118 (1951). inapplicable admits involvement act, charges Double Jeopardy Clause, see, Reina 364 507, 260, 264, (1960) (dictum), applicable limitations, Goodman, 289 256, 259 (CA4 1961), pardon, 599-600, 647-648, BRENNAN indicated 548, 564-565, 520, 528-529, 596 (1971) (dissenting certiorari), limitation Amendment: "Implicitly, 'in case' [I]f apply. consistently (1896), Ullman 350 422, 497, 511 (1956)." conduct. (1951); Heicke 227 131, 142-145, 226, 227-229, 450 (1913). limitation, too, guarantee, meaningful sense "compelled himself." fully applicable. tend went again true expected "only known," 295 (STEVENS, dissenting), current recollection events, observes, supported undermined preserving "legitimate independent" compromised creation 260-261. consented judge's improper. notes, served." authorization doubt. Garrity Jersey, 385 493, 496, 616, 562 (declining consider forfeiture-of-office which, effect, officer, threat removal office, proceeding). Indeed, yet spoken circumstances defense Praetorius, 622 1054, 1064 1980); Morrison, 535 223, 229 (CA3 1976); Alessio, 528 1079 (CA9 Earl 361 531, 534, (CADC 1966) (Burger, J.). questionable placed cross-examination litigants. 259-260. help majority's formally track[s] testimony," 263, difference formulation BLACKMUN. STEVENS' 282 clear, tracking" strongest Hence, BLACKMUN states explicitly. asserts. inappropriate speculate enforcement. 108 (§ restriction disclosures fruits"); Hearings S. 30, al. Subcommittee Laws Procedures Committee Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 216 (1969) (report County Lawyers' Association) (under witness"); 281 Poff) (rule "similar exclusionary rule assembled rights"); 506 Sen. McClellan) (use "through fruit poisonous tree suppression, analogy borrowed fourth amendment cases"). context. 459, progeny establish requires. framed standards, choices facing or, words, 287, 7. mind inquiry, (1968). strong mind; demonstrated feels "fruits"), wrongfully excluded. 474, 599, (1975) concurring). "No Const.Amdt. 6002-6003, Court, 253-254, nn. 10. happens pretrial co-conspirators, coroner's inquest. represented lawyer propounded. availability privilege—a dependent content His reluctance willingness waive nonexistence One insignificant nonincriminating added. remembered still remembers communications. reads: "MR. GRISWOLD: heavy clue uncovered conclusive demonstrate comes mail, day postmarked France week before. "Q. Well, Mr. induces launch means, unrelated given, out, independently— consequence something given. Would you— So 'but for,' for' it? Almost, Justice. hate conclusions purely hypothetical situations arise look differently, I'm say wants Tr. Oral Arg. O.T. 70-117, 30-32. infra. broad, 1110; Ullmann 436-438, 505-506, 511. focuses historical derivation "elects" choice matter. hypothesis, repeat. speak vests does. assured provision enabling routine matters." 32-33. provision. that: "As matter, unusual circumstance around 11157 12041 Judiciary Representatives, Will Wilson). member Law, stated: "I thing probably ought pointed instances willing isn't aspect whole protecting regard be. fears willingly cooperated are, think, fanciful real." 53-54 George Edwards). October 1976, predictions proven true. date, Attorney-in-Charge Freedom Information Privacy Unit wrote letter research scholar. reported while Immunity statistics number times exist, rare." Note, Am.Crim.L.Rev. 275, 282, (1976). slightly brief: reason refraining vital assuring unimpeded flow activities, furthered prosecuted." 34. regularly briefs amicus curiae implicated. petitioner's describes "more fanciful, 41-42 identified prototypical valuable: induce someone prison reduction existing sentence; suspect's offers client's assistance investigating;" focused agent principal "and agent;" actor loyalty major actor, bookie's customers—"[o]bviously interested extensive 200 300 people bets, central person." occasions unexpectedly (by juror questions) crime, "with possess overwhelming 36. 'absolute immunity' testifie[d]" area," abandon Attorneys' Manual, I, Ch. (revised Dec. 15, prefers immunity: "[T]hey advantages 'transactional gratuity encourage proscribing relates, sources." seemed demonstration involve ante-dated 1978 1981. easier pre-1981 pre-1978 described text supplements accurate fact-finding, hindered holding. Lord Chancellor Hardwicke's oft-quoted phrase, "[T]he man's T. Hansard, Parliamentary History England 675, 693 (1812), 443, 1655. consent decree modest penalty 295-260, poses unique problems inhibit credibility. 19. allowed; direct, restrict having "danger areas" demeans competence bar. raised exploited uncover doubt, prudent authoritative ruling misleading erroneously paragraph borne Such "wrongfully compelled" judge. 500, 620, (government office). reveal perjured exposed liability misdeeds. 22. 430-431, 502, 511; 605-606, 650, suggested avoid perjury; evaluated

Category: 0