Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n
378 U.S. 52 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects a state witness from being compelled to give testimony that might incriminate them under federal law, and vice versa. This protection is enforced by an exclusionary rule prohibiting the prosecuting jurisdiction from using the compelled testimony or any evidence derived from it.
Facts:
- Petitioners were subpoenaed to testify before the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, a bi-state agency.
- The Commission was conducting a hearing concerning a work stoppage at piers in Hoboken, New Jersey.
- The petitioners initially refused to answer certain questions, asserting their privilege against self-incrimination.
- The states of New York and New Jersey then granted the petitioners immunity from prosecution under their respective state laws.
- Despite the grant of state immunity, the petitioners continued to refuse to testify.
- Their continued refusal was based on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them under federal law, to which the state immunity did not extend.
Procedural Posture:
- The Waterfront Commission held the petitioners in both civil and criminal contempt of court for their refusal to testify.
- The petitioners appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the criminal contempt convictions on procedural grounds but affirmed the civil contempt judgments on the merits.
- The petitioners then successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the civil contempt judgments.
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 the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protect a state witness from being compelled to testify in a state proceeding if that testimony could incriminate them under federal law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Goldberg
Yes, the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination protects a state witness against incrimination under federal as well as state law and a federal witness against incrimination under state as well as federal law. The Court rejected the 'separate sovereigns' doctrine in the context of self-incrimination, which previously allowed one jurisdiction to compel testimony that could be used for prosecution by another. The Court reasoned that the policies underlying the privilege—such as preventing the 'cruel trilemma' of self-accusation, perjury, or contempt—are defeated when a witness can be 'whipsawed' between state and federal law. Overruling prior cases like United States v. Murdock and Feldman v. United States, the Court held that in an age of 'cooperative federalism,' the privilege must apply uniformly. To enforce this, the Court established an exclusionary rule: if a state compels testimony under a grant of immunity, the federal government is prohibited from using that testimony and its fruits in any criminal prosecution against the witness, leaving the witness and the federal government in substantially the same position as if the privilege had been claimed.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Justice Harlan concurred in the judgment only. He disagreed that the Constitution required the exclusionary rule announced by the majority, believing the holding in Feldman v. United States was constitutionally correct. However, he would reach the same result by exercising the Supreme Court's supervisory power over the administration of justice in federal courts. He argued that just as the Court abolished the 'silver platter' doctrine for illegally seized evidence in Elkins v. United States, it should similarly create a supervisory rule prohibiting federal courts from using state-compelled incriminating testimony, thereby protecting the values of the federal privilege without making it a constitutional mandate.
Concurring - Justice White
Justice White concurred, agreeing that federal officials should be prohibited from using state-compelled testimony. He wrote separately to emphasize the narrowness of the Court's holding. He stressed that the Court's exclusionary rule is sufficient to protect the privilege and that the Constitution does not require a state to grant a witness absolute 'transactional' immunity from federal prosecution. He argued that requiring full immunity from prosecution by the other sovereign would cripple state law enforcement, as states lack the power to grant immunity from federal prosecution, effectively making testimony in state proceedings voluntary and enthroning the federal government as the only entity with the effective power to compel testimony.
Analysis:
This landmark decision effectively eliminated the 'separate sovereigns' doctrine for the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. By holding that the privilege protects individuals from incrimination in both state and federal jurisdictions, the Court created a unified, national standard. The establishment of an exclusionary rule as the remedy was a crucial compromise: it protects the witness's rights without completely stripping states of their power to investigate crime through immunity grants. This case fundamentally altered the balance of power in 'cooperative federalism' investigations, ensuring that one level of government cannot force a witness to provide the rope for another level of government to hang them with.
Unlock the full brief for Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n