Glickstein v. United States

Background

A man named Glickstein, who had been declared bankrupt, was indicted for perjury for allegedly lying while examined at a creditors’ meeting under a referee as required by the Bankruptcy Act. He argued the law’s immunity clause barred any criminal use of his testimony and raised typical objections about self-incrimination. A lower court certified the question whether the Act’s subsection 9 immunity applied to prosecutions for perjury during such compelled testimony.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the statute’s promise that a bankrupt’s testimony “shall not be offered in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding” meant that a witness could not be prosecuted for lying. The opinion explained that the Constitution allows Congress to compel testimony when full immunity is given, but that immunity does not include a license to commit perjury. Because the statute commands truthful testimony, construing its immunity to prevent perjury prosecutions would defeat that purpose. The Court rejected the argument that the absence of a specific reservation for perjury meant Congress intended to permit false swearing, and it noted and approved prior decisions reaching the opposite view in related circuits.

Real world impact

The Court answered the certified question “No.” Practically, this means a bankrupt who is compelled to testify at creditor examinations still may face criminal charges if he knowingly lies under oath. The ruling narrows statutory protection and keeps perjury penalties available to enforce truthful testimony in bankruptcy proceedings.