## Facts

- William Murphy and John Moody, Sr. were subpoenaed to testify at a Waterfront Commission hearing about a work stoppage at Hoboken, New Jersey piers.
- They invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions beyond basic identifying information.
- The Commission obtained an order granting them immunity from prosecution under New Jersey and New York law under a state immunity statute.
- Petitioners still refused to testify, asserting their answers could be used to incriminate them under federal law because the immunity did not extend to federal prosecutions.
- A New Jersey trial court held them in civil and criminal contempt; the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the criminal contempt on procedural grounds but affirmed the civil contempt, concluding a state could compel testimony even if it might be used federally.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may compel a witness to give testimony that may incriminate the witness under federal law when the state grant of immunity does not protect against federal use.
2. Whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (as applicable to the states) protects against compelled disclosures that could lead to prosecution by another sovereign.
3. What minimum scope of immunity is constitutionally required to replace the privilege and permit compelled testimony in a federal system.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that one jurisdiction may not compel testimony that might incriminate the witness under the laws of another jurisdiction unless an immunity provision prevents the other jurisdiction from using the compelled testimony and its fruits.
- The Court required that compelled testimony, and evidence derived from it, be barred from use in any federal prosecution; the federal government may proceed only on independent, untainted evidence.
- The Court overruled contrary precedent permitting cross-sovereign use of compelled testimony, including *Feldman v. United States*, and rejected the approach reflected in *Murdock* and *Knapp*.
- The Court vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the constitutional rule.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects a witness against compelled testimony that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to evidence that could be so used.
- The privilege is not limited by sovereign boundaries; it applies to risks of prosecution under federal or state law, including prosecution by a different sovereign than the one compelling testimony.
- A grant of immunity is valid only if it is coextensive with the scope of the privilege; immunity limited to state prosecution is insufficient when federal prosecution remains a realistic risk.
- To compel testimony constitutionally, the government must provide at least use and derivative-use immunity that bars any use of the compelled testimony and any evidence derived from it by other sovereigns, while allowing prosecution based on independent evidence.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a state cannot force a witness to answer questions that may incriminate the witness under federal law unless the compelled testimony and its derivative fruits are immunized from federal use, ensuring immunity is as broad as the Fifth Amendment privilege itself.


Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)