United States v. Apfelbaum

Background

A government grand jury was investigating a suspected staged robbery at a Philadelphia car dealership. A District Attorney’s office employee, called to testify, invoked the right to avoid self-incrimination and was then given immunity under the federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 6002) and compelled to testify. After he answered, he was indicted for making false statements under the false-statements statute (18 U.S.C. § 1623(a)) about a trip and a loan involving a dealer named Harry Brown.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the immunity law or the Fifth Amendment barred use of compelled grand-jury testimony at a later trial for false statements. The Court looked to the plain language and history of § 6002 and concluded Congress allowed use of immunized testimony in prosecutions for perjury or false statements. The Fifth Amendment does not protect a witness who lies when compelled to testify. The Court therefore held that immunized testimony may be admitted under the same evidentiary rules that apply to other testimony in a trial for making false statements and reversed the appeals court.

Real world impact

The decision means prosecutors can use compelled grand-jury testimony to provide context and to prove that a witness knowingly lied while testifying under immunity. Witnesses compelled to testify remain protected from use of truthful testimony in most other prosecutions, but they risk criminal charges if they lie. The ruling focused on trials for false statements and does not resolve all questions about other uses of immunized testimony.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices wrote separately: Justice Brennan agreed with reversal but limited how far to read the majority’s broader statements; Justices Blackmun and Marshall concurred only in the judgment and warned against too-broad a rule about admissibility.