Court Opinion

ID: 9724712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:09:54.187051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:05.093245
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring). When a witness called by the people invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege, the prosecutor can obtain the witness’ testimony by providing him with immunity from prosecution.
A defendant cannot confer immunity on and thereby obtain the testimony of a witness he wishes to call who has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege.
The prosecutor and the defendant are thus not in the same position when a witness invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege. Nevertheless, I agree with the opinion of the Court that this imbalance does not justify the defendant any more so than the people in calling a witness who he knows will claim a valid privilege not to testify for the *584purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege. No inference may properly be drawn from the claim of privilege, and thus on principle neither side may seek to place this non-evidence before the jury.
A defendant may, however, have the right to obtain the testimony of the witness who invoked the privilege, just as the prosecutor might by granting immunity. To deny the defendant the testimony, of the witness might be violative of the Due Process Clause, the Confrontation Clause, or other constitutional and statutory rights. The question whether a defendant has a right in a particular case to witness immunity has evoked a sharp division of opinion and much critical comment.1
In an appropriate case where the facts justify consideration of the question and it has been duly *585raised, preserved, and presented for review, the Court of Appeals or this Court should consider the question.
Archer, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 See Government of Virgin Islands v Smith, 615 F2d 964 (CA 3, 1980); United States v Herman, 589 F2d 1191 (CA 3, 1978), cert den 441 US 913 (1979); United States v Leonard, 161 US App DC 36, 66, n 79; 494 F2d 955 (1974) (Bazelon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Earl v United States, 124 US App DC 77, 80, n 1; 361 F2d 531 (1965), reh den 364 F2d 666 (1966), cert den 388 US 921 (1967); People v Shapiro, 50 NY2d 747; 409 NE2d 897 (1980); People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241; 423 NE2d 379 (1981); State v Broady, 41 Ohio App 2d 17; 321 NE2d 890 (1974).
See also Westen, The compulsory process clause, 73 Mich LR 71 (1974); 3 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure, pp 22-24; Note, Separation of powers and defense witness immunity, 66 Geo L J 51 (1977); Note, "The public has a claim to every man’s evidence": The defendant’s constitutional right to witness immunity, 30 Stan LR 1211 (1978); Note, The Sixth Amendment right to have use immunity granted to defense witnesses, 91 Harv L R 1266 (1978).
But see, e.g., United States v Alessio, 528 F2d 1079 (CA 9, 1976), cert den 426 US 948 (1976), reh den 429 US 873 (1976); United States v Ramsey, 503 F2d 524 (CA 7,1974), cert den 420 US 932 (1975); Note, The case against a right to defense witness immunity, 83 Colum L R 139 (1983). Cf. People v Priester, 98 AD2d 820; 470 NYS2d 478 (1983); Strachan, Self-incrimination, immunity, and Watergate, 56 Tex LR 791 (1978).