United States v. Washington

Background

A man who owned a van was called to testify before a grand jury after police found a stolen motorcycle in the van driven by two friends. The owner told police and a prosecutor a story explaining how the motorcycle came to be in his van. He was subpoenaed to the grand jury, given oral warnings about the right to remain silent and to a lawyer, handed a Miranda-style card, and signed a waiver before testifying. The grand jury later indicted him, and a lower court suppressed his testimony and dismissed the indictment because he had not been told he was a likely target.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a witness’s grand jury testimony can be used at a later criminal trial when the witness was not told in advance that he might be prosecuted. The majority said the constitutional protection against being forced to incriminate yourself (the Fifth Amendment) forbids only testimony obtained by official compulsion. The test is whether the witness’s free will was overborne. Here the Court found the witness received clear warnings, understood his rights, and voluntarily testified, so there was no compulsion and his statements could be used at trial.

Real world impact

The ruling means prosecutors may use a grand jury witness’s sworn answers at trial so long as the witness was warned and voluntarily testified. It rejects a rule requiring prosecutors to tell every witness before questioning that they are a likely target. The decision leaves open that states could adopt different rules and does not decide whether any particular additional warnings are always constitutionally required.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued that when a prosecutor questions a witness specifically to obtain evidence to charge that person, the witness must be told he is a potential defendant and must knowingly waive the privilege before his answers may be used at trial.