Counselman v. Hitchcock
142 U.S. 547 (1892)
Rule of Law:
A statute that grants a witness immunity from the direct use of their compelled testimony in a subsequent criminal proceeding, but does not grant immunity from prosecution for the offense to which the testimony relates, is not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.
Facts:
- Charles Counselman was a commission merchant and a dealer in grain.
- A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois was investigating alleged violations of the Interstate Commerce Act.
- The investigation focused on whether certain railroad companies were giving shippers rates lower than the published tariffs, which was a criminal offense.
- Counselman was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.
- When questioned about whether he had received such discounted rates from railroads, Counselman refused to answer.
- Counselman asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, believing his answers could subject him to criminal prosecution.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Counselman was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Counselman refused to answer certain questions, asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege.
- The government petitioned the Circuit Court for an order compelling Counselman to testify, arguing that § 860 of the Revised Statutes provided sufficient immunity.
- The Circuit Court granted the order to compel testimony.
- Counselman persisted in his refusal, and the Circuit Court held him in contempt, ordering him into custody of the U.S. Marshal.
- Counselman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the same Circuit Court, which was denied.
- Counselman then appealed the denial of his habeas corpus writ to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal statute that prevents a witness's compelled testimony from being used against them in a subsequent criminal proceeding, but does not grant absolute immunity from future prosecution for the offense to which the testimony relates, provide protection coextensive with the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Blatchford
No. The federal statute, § 860 of the Revised Statutes, fails to provide protection that is coextensive with the privilege afforded by the Fifth Amendment. The privilege against self-incrimination is not limited to preventing a witness's own compelled testimony from being used against them in a criminal prosecution. Rather, the privilege protects a witness from being compelled to disclose any information that might furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute them for a crime. A statute that merely prevents the direct use of the testimony (use immunity) is insufficient because it does not prevent the government from using the compelled testimony to discover other evidence or witnesses that could then be used to secure a conviction. To supplant the constitutional privilege, a statute must afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offense to which the question relates.
Analysis:
This landmark decision broadly interpreted the scope of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, extending its protection to witnesses in grand jury proceedings, not just defendants in their own criminal trials. By rejecting mere 'use immunity' as insufficient, the Court established a high standard for immunity statutes, holding that only 'transactional immunity'—absolute protection from prosecution for the matter testified about—could compel a witness to testify. While the Supreme Court later modified this standard in Kastigar v. United States (1972) to allow for 'use and derivative use immunity,' Counselman remains a foundational case for its expansive reading of the privilege and its application beyond the context of a criminal defendant's trial.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"