## Facts

- A District of Columbia grand jury investigated a theft and suspected Washington’s involvement.
- Washington was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury as a witness.
- Before he entered the grand jury room, the prosecutor did not tell Washington he might be indicted.
- After Washington was sworn, the prosecutor warned him that:
  - he could remain silent,
  - anything he said could be used against him,
  - he could consult an attorney, and
  - counsel would be appointed if he could not afford one.
- Washington testified despite the warnings.
- Washington was later indicted for the theft.
- Washington moved to suppress his grand jury testimony and to quash the indictment, arguing his Fifth Amendment privilege was violated because he was effectively a “putative defendant” and lacked adequate warnings.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment requires suppression of a subpoenaed grand jury witness’s testimony when the witness is a potential defendant but received comprehensive self-incrimination warnings after being sworn.
2. Whether the Constitution requires prosecutors to give special or heightened warnings to a “putative defendant,” including advance notice of potential indictment or warnings given before entering the grand jury room.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment suppressing the testimony and quashing the indictment, and remanded.
- The Court held the testimony could be used against Washington at a subsequent trial.
- The Court concluded that the warnings given “dissipated any element of compulsion” that might otherwise have existed.
- The Court rejected a constitutional requirement that a prosecutor advise a subpoenaed witness that he is a potential defendant or give warnings before the oath.

## Legal Principles

- A subpoenaed grand jury witness who may be a “putative or potential defendant” has the same Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination as any other witness; suspect status does not expand constitutional protections.
- The Fifth Amendment is satisfied when a witness is informed of, and remains free to invoke, the privilege against self-incrimination; voluntary testimony after adequate warnings is not constitutionally compelled.
- The Constitution does not require Miranda-style or additional “target” warnings as a prerequisite to using a grand jury witness’s testimony in a later prosecution.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a subpoenaed grand jury witness’s testimony is admissible in a later prosecution when the witness received comprehensive warnings and chose to testify, and that the Fifth Amendment does not require prosecutors to provide special advance notice or heightened warnings merely because the witness is a potential defendant.


United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977)