## Facts

- David Swinehart was murdered on January 15, 1982; the investigation led to charges against Patricia Ann Swinehart and David’s nephew, Thomas DeBlase.
- While DeBlase’s own murder prosecution was pending, the Commonwealth tried Swinehart for conspiracy in her husband’s murder.
- The Commonwealth subpoenaed DeBlase as a witness at Swinehart’s trial and sought to compel testimony by granting use and derivative-use immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947.
- DeBlase moved to quash the subpoena, arguing § 5947 immunity was not coextensive with the Article I, § 9 privilege against self-incrimination under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- The trial court denied the motion, approved the immunity grant, and ordered DeBlase to testify; DeBlase refused.
- Swinehart was acquitted; the trial court then held DeBlase in civil and criminal contempt for refusing to testify.
- DeBlase appealed the criminal contempt judgment, challenging the constitutional adequacy of § 5947 immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether use and derivative-use immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947 is coextensive with Article I, § 9’s privilege against compelled self-incrimination, permitting compelled testimony.
2. Whether a witness who refuses to testify after receiving constitutionally sufficient immunity may be convicted of criminal contempt.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court and upheld DeBlase’s criminal contempt conviction.
- The Court held that § 5947’s use and derivative-use immunity fully protects the Article I, § 9 privilege and therefore can replace the privilege for purposes of compelled testimony.
- Because the immunity was constitutionally sufficient, DeBlase had no valid basis to refuse to testify; refusal supported contempt.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, § 9 prohibits compelling a person to give evidence against oneself; it does not, by its text, require transactional immunity.
- Use and derivative-use immunity is constitutionally adequate if it bars (1) use of compelled testimony and (2) use of evidence derived from that testimony in criminal proceedings against the witness.
- In any later prosecution of an immunized witness, the Commonwealth bears the burden to prove its evidence comes from sources wholly independent of the compelled testimony; otherwise, the evidence must be excluded.
- Once immunity coextensive with the self-incrimination privilege is granted, the witness may be compelled to testify; refusal may be punished as contempt.

## Conclusion

The court held that Pennsylvania’s statutory use and derivative-use immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947 is sufficient to displace Article I, § 9’s privilege against self-incrimination, so a witness ordered to testify after such a grant may be compelled and sanctioned for contempt if the witness refuses.


Commonwealth v. Swinehart, 664 A.2d 957 (Pa. 1995)