Facts
- Stanley Apfelbaum was called to testify before a federal grand jury and invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- The government obtained an immunity order under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 compelling his testimony and barring use (and derivative use) against him, except in prosecutions for perjury, false statements, or failure to comply with the order.
- Apfelbaum gave compelled grand jury testimony that the government later alleged included false statements.
- He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) for making false declarations in his grand jury testimony.
- At trial, the government introduced not only the allegedly false answers charged in the indictment, but also other portions of Apfelbaum’s immunized testimony to prove knowledge and provide context.
- Apfelbaum argued that only the allegedly false statements themselves could be used and that all other immunized testimony remained protected by § 6002 and the Fifth Amendment.
Issues
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 6002 permits the government, in a prosecution for false declarations under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a), to use portions of a defendant’s immunized grand jury testimony beyond the specific statements alleged to be false.
- Whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires limiting the perjury/false-statement exception so that only the alleged false statements (and not other immunized testimony) may be admitted.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Third Circuit and upheld the use of additional portions of Apfelbaum’s immunized grand jury testimony.
- The Court held that neither § 6002 nor the Fifth Amendment bars admitting immunized testimony in a subsequent perjury/false-statement prosecution, including truthful portions, so long as it is otherwise admissible under ordinary evidentiary rules.
- The Court rejected the Third Circuit’s “corpus delicti/core” limitation as unsupported by the text and history of § 6002.
- The Court reinstated Apfelbaum’s conviction.
Legal Principles
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 6002, the exception allowing use of compelled testimony in prosecutions for perjury or false statements applies broadly to “a prosecution” for those offenses and does not distinguish between truthful and untruthful immunized statements.
- Congress intended the perjury/false-declarations exception in § 6002 to be interpreted as broadly as the Constitution permits.
- The Fifth Amendment privilege permits a witness to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions, but it does not protect a witness who testifies falsely after receiving immunity; the privilege protects silence, not perjury.
- Immunity is “coextensive” with the Fifth Amendment if it removes the risk of compelled self-incrimination; it need not place the witness in the same position as if the witness had remained silent for purposes of a later perjury/false-statement prosecution.
- In a § 1623 prosecution, truthful portions of immunized testimony may be admitted to prove elements such as knowledge or intent and to place charged statements in context, subject to the ordinary rules of evidence.
Conclusion
The Court held that § 6002 and the Fifth Amendment allow the government to use a defendant’s immunized grand jury testimony—whether truthful or not—in a later prosecution for perjury or false declarations, provided the evidence is otherwise admissible, because immunity does not confer a right to lie under oath.