Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

New Jersey Vs. Portash

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 20, 1979

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

72 entries 8 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Whitney Vs. California US Supreme Court · May 16, 1927
  2. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. Vs. Cohen US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1914
  3. Oregon Vs. Hass US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1975
  4. Lefkowitz Vs. Newsome US Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1975
  5. Counselman Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1892
  6. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  7. United States Vs. Calandra US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1974
  8. Wardius Vs. Oregon US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1973
  9. U.S. 450 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court New Jersey v. Portash
    Search
  10. U.S. 450 (1979) New Jersey v. Portash
    Search
  11. so as to take into account the interest in preventing perjury is not only unnecessary, but impermissible. Harris v. New
    Search
  12. York, 401 U. S. 222 , and Oregon v. Hass
    Search
  13. See Raley v. Ohio
    Search
  14. Jenkins v. Georgia
    Search
  15. now that the New Jersey courts have decided it. This is made clear by a case decided by this Court in 1972, Brooks v. Tennessee
    Search
  16. statutes, like the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, predate the adoption of the Constitution. Kastigar v. United
    Search
  17. U. S. 446 n. 14. This Court first considered a constitutional challenge to an immunity statute in Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  18. Id. at 142 U. S. 585 . See also Brown v. United
    Search
  19. Ullman v. United
    Search
  20. Brown v. Walker
    Search
  21. U. S. 591 . After the holding in Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  22. in the Fourteenth Amendment, this rule is necessarily applicable to state immunity statutes as well. Cf. Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  23. concerned. Indeed, the federal statutes subsequently upheld by the Court granted such transactional immunity. Brown v. United
    Search
  24. Heike v. United
    Search
  25. case, protects the witness from the use of his compelled testimony and any information derived from it. In Kastigar v. United
    Search
  26. this broad statement of the necessary constitutional scope of testimonial immunity, the State asks us to weigh Harris v. New
    Search
  27. Those cases involved the use of statements, concededly taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  28. Harris v. New
    Search
  29. Emphasis in original.) Mincey v. Arizona
    Search
  30. is commensurate in all respects with the privilege against self-incrimination which it replaces. United States v Calandra
    Search
  31. Kastigar v. United
    Search
  32. A similar situation existed in Wardius v. Oregon
    Search
  33. at least use immunity, and held that such immunity would have to be honored by the Federal Government. See Kastigar v. United
    Search
  34. See Shapiro v. United
    Search
  35. The Court in both the Harris and Hass cases relied on Walder v. United
    Search
  36. on an inconsistency between that testimony and later, nonimmunized, testimony. That question will be presented in Dunn v. United
    Search
  37. is not set out in the New Jersey Constitution. Its origins are instead to be found in the common law, see State v. Fary
    Search
  38. State v. Deatore
    Search
  39. N.J. 100, 112, 358 A.2d 163, 170 (1976). Cf. State v. Johnson
    Search
  40. It is also of no little significance that, although the State rests its case heavily on Harris v. New
    Search
  41. than that required by Harris. See State v. Deatore
    Search
  42. State v. Vinegra
    Search
  43. a defendant to be a witness against himself. See Kastigar v. United
    Search
  44. in determining whether the Fifth Amendment permits a defendant's statements to be used against him at trial. In Harris v. New
    Search
  45. the New Jersey courts decided the issue and held it to be properly presented on appeal. Citing cases such as Raley v. Ohio
    Search
  46. U. S. 423 (1959), and Jenkins v. Georgia
    Search
  47. requirement of Art. III must be met and by its citation of Brooks v. Tennessee
    Search
  48. actually present in the case properly was brought to the attention of its own courts for adjudication, e.g., Raley v. Ohio
    Search
  49. into a case or controversy capable of being adjudicated in this Court simply by deciding that federal issue. Doremus v. Board
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court New Jersey v. Portash
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial