## Facts

- John Conboy, a corrugated-container industry executive, testified before a federal grand jury investigating price-fixing under a grant of use and derivative-use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002.
- Private purchasers, including Pillsbury, later filed federal civil antitrust actions and subpoenaed Conboy for a deposition.
- During the deposition, counsel used Conboy’s immunized grand jury transcript and asked him to repeat or confirm that he had given the same testimony to the grand jury.
- Conboy refused to answer, invoking the Fifth Amendment on the ground that his deposition answers could be used against him in a future criminal case and were not covered by the prior immunity order.

## Issues

1. Whether a witness previously compelled to testify under § 6002 use immunity may be compelled in a later civil deposition to repeat or confirm that testimony without a new grant of immunity.
2. Whether § 6002 automatically immunizes later testimony in a civil deposition that repeats or closely tracks prior immunized grand jury testimony.
3. Whether a federal district court in a private civil case may confer immunity or compel testimony absent the statutory immunity procedures.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment vacating the contempt order against Conboy.
- Section 6002 did not, by its own force, immunize Conboy’s later civil deposition answers merely because they repeated or closely tracked his prior immunized testimony.
- Because no new, duly authorized immunity order had issued for the deposition, Conboy could assert the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer.
- A federal court in private civil litigation lacks authority to confer immunity outside the statutory framework that requires an Executive Branch request and approval.

## Legal Principles

- Use and derivative-use immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 protects against the criminal use of compelled testimony and evidence derived from it, but it does not automatically extend to later testimony in separate proceedings.
- A deposition answer based on a witness’s current memory is “new” testimony; compelling it without immunity can create a realistic risk of self-incrimination.
- Interpreting § 6002 to immunize any later repetition of immunized testimony would effectively convert use immunity into transactional immunity, contrary to Congress’s design.
- Immunity sufficient to overcome a Fifth Amendment claim may be granted only through the statutory procedure in 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001–6005, initiated by the Government; private litigants cannot obtain immunity through a court’s inherent powers.

## Conclusion

A witness who previously testified under a federal use-immunity order may invoke the Fifth Amendment in a later civil deposition when asked to repeat or confirm that testimony, unless the Government obtains a new immunity order under the statutory scheme; § 6002 does not itself immunize the later deposition testimony, and civil courts cannot grant immunity on their own.


Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 (1983)