Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Piccirillo Vs. New York

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 25, 1971

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

62 entries 6 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Counselman Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1892
  2. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  3. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  4. Speiser Vs. Randall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  5. United States Vs. Burr US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1895
  6. United States Vs. Monia US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1943
  7. Piccirillo v. New
    Search
  8. York - 400 U.S. 548 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Piccirillo v. New
    Search
  9. York, 400 U.S. 548 (1971) Piccirillo v. New
    Search
  10. immunity, see Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  11. immunity suffices to that end, see, e.g., Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  12. Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn. v. Commissioner
    Search
  13. of the parties on this writ, we have reached the conclusion that the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Gold v. Menna
    Search
  14. below and remand the case to the New York Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of its later opinion in Gold v. Menna
    Search
  15. officer's testimony was in no way derived from anything petitioner said. 24 N.Y.2d 598, 249 N.E.2d 412. Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  16. Id. at 142 U. S. 586 . In Brown v. Walker
    Search
  17. became part of the fabric of our federal constitutional law. See Ullmann v. United
    Search
  18. U. S. 438 . Now that the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the States, Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  19. s case, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that their statute provides transactional immunity. Gold v. Menna
    Search
  20. is not complicated by the question whether State immunity must extend immunity against federal prosecution. See Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  21. Comm'n, 378 U. S. 52 . Cf. Abbate v. United
    Search
  22. Gold v. Menna
    Search
  23. the statutory grant of immunity is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination. Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  24. the witness' refusal to answer based on the privilege was unjustified, and the finding of contempt is proper. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  25. the witness properly relied upon his constitutional privilege, and any sanction imposed cannot stand. McCarthy v. Arndstein
    Search
  26. immunity. This decision, of course, must be made on the basis of federal standards under the Fifth Amendment. Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  27. Real Knitwear Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  28. Rescue Army v. Municipal
    Search
  29. related to incriminating testimony which that State has compelled the individual to give. Unlike, for example, Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  30. the reach has been the possibility of a criminal charge, not whether one is, in fact, brought. United States v. Burr
    Search
  31. not apply. And that is precisely the basis on which this Court has consistently upheld grants of immunity from Brown v. Walker
    Search
  32. U. S. 591 (1896), to Ullmann v. United
    Search
  33. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  34. Ullmann v. United
    Search
  35. Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  36. infringed by compelling an individual to testify under any circumstances. I do not seek to reopen the debate of Brown v. Walker
    Search
  37. supra, and Ullmann v. United
    Search
  38. misses half the point of the privilege, for it permits the compulsion without removing the criminality. See Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  39. of his compelled testimony. The transactional immunity standard was first articulated by this Court in Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  40. U.S. at 142 U. S. 586 (emphasis added). Four years later, the Court in Brown v. Walker
    Search
  41. privilege. 161 U.S. at 161 U. S. 610 -638 (dissenting opinions of Shiras and Field, JJ.). In Hale v. Henkel
    Search
  42. it can, as in other cases, confer the power of unrestricted examination by providing complete immunity. Compare Brown v. Walker
    Search
  43. Glickstein v. United
    Search
  44. Ensign v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  45. U. S. 34 , 266 U. S. 42 . See also United States v. Monia
    Search
  46. Smith v. United
    Search
  47. Again, the Court in Ullmann relied on the transactional immunity standard to reaffirm the holding of Brown v. Walker
    Search
  48. of the Brown dissenters that even transactional immunity did not satisfy the constitutional privilege. Ullmann v. United
    Search
  49. the States were not Page 400 U. S. 572 subject to the full effect of the Fifth Amendment until 1964. Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Piccirillo v. New
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial