In re Baldinger
Decision Date | 14 March 1973 |
Docket Number | Crim. Misc. No. 3016 (WF). |
Citation | 356 F. Supp. 153 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Parties | In re Grand Jury Witness Sara BALDINGER. |
Stark H. King, Sp. Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Wm. D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Michael J. Lightfoot, Deputy Public Defender, Barrett S. Litt, Los Angeles, Cal., H. Peter Young, Venice, Cal., for respondent.
In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the use immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001-6005, on its face does not violate the Fifth Amendment. This action presents the issue of whether, under the factual context of this case, the granting of an immunity order under the statute would violate the Fifth Amendment rights of a witness called to testify before a grand jury. The court finds that it does.
The relevant facts presented are as follows:
1. On January 5, 1971, a fire bombing was committed at Claremont Men's College.
2. The Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed jurisdiction and began an investigation.
3. On at least five occasions, Sara Baldinger made statements to special agents of the FBI concerning the fire.
4. Based upon that information provided to the special agents, a federal grand jury was convened to investigate the matter.
5. Miss Baldinger was served with a subpoena to appear before the grand jury.
6. When she appeared, she asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
7. The government applied to the court to grant her transactional immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 2514.
8. The government then withdrew that application and petitioned for a grant of use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 (see Appendix).
Miss Baldinger has raised a number of issues relating to the subpoena, the composition of the grand jury, and electronic surveillance. The court does not reach those issues in light of its determination regarding the constitutionality of the use immunity order requested by the government.
The use immunity statute was enacted as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, § 201, 84 Stat. 922, 926. 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides:
The Act repealed or made a conforming amendment to over 50 federal immunity statutes, although retaining in effect for four years one of them, 18 U.S.C. § 2514. Those statutes provided transactional, as opposed to use, immunity in an attempt to conform to the Supreme Court's statement in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 585-586, 12 S. Ct. 195, 206, 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892):
Section 6002 was "designed to reflect the use-restriction immunity concept of Murphy . . . rather than the transaction immunity concept of Counselman . . . ." H.R. Rep. No. 91-1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., in 1970 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 4007, 4018; S. Rep. No. 91-617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 145 (1969). Among the congressional motivations in enacting the use immunity statute was to preclude a "gratuity to crime," Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 15, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948), or an "immunity bath," United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 63 S.Ct. 409, 87 L.Ed. 376 (1943), by drafting a statute that would provide narrower immunity against prosecution than that afforded by existing statutes but would still satisfy constitutional requirements.
In Kastigar the Court held that on its face the use immunity provided by 18 U.S.C. § 6002 is coextensive with the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege:
Kastigar does not foreclose the inquiry presented in this case: may the granting of an immunity order pursuant to the use immunity statute fail to provide immunity coextensive with the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege in a particular instance? Kastigar was directed solely to the issue of the statute on its face and did not reach the issue presented here. This case is squarely within the admonition contained in Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35, 52, 86 S.Ct. 1254, 16 L.Ed.2d 336 (1966), and reaffirmed in California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 119 n. 5, 93 S.Ct. 390, 397 n. 5, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972):
The operative clause in § 6002 which is the cornerstone of the litigation here, paralleled by similar language in the proposed immunity order which the government has submitted to the court, is that which states that when immunity is conferred, no testimony or information may be used against the witness in any criminal case, "except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order." (Emphasis added.) Miss Baldinger contends that if she is required to testify pursuant to the proposed order, her Fifth Amendment rights will be violated, because her testimony before the grand jury could be used to incriminate her in a prosecution for making false statements to the FBI agents under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The government, by contrast, contends that the phrase "giving a false statement" was intended by Congress to mean only "false statements made during the course of one's testifying before a grand jury," and that it would not apply to Miss Baldinger's prior statements to FBI agents.
In determining whether the proposed immunity order in this case violates the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Director of Int. Rev.
...L.Ed. 1325 (1952), on retrial, 208 F.2d 567 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 913, 74 S.Ct. 476, 98 L.Ed. 1069 (1954); cf. In re Baldinger, 356 F.Supp. 153 (C.D.Cal.1973). Interference with attorney-client relationship: In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Duffy), 473 F.2d 840 (8th Cir. 1973); In re ......
-
Tuso, Matter of
...(E.D.Mich.1976); Application of U. S. Senate Select Com. on Pres. Cam. Act, 361 F.Supp. 1270, 1279 (D.D.C.1973); In re Baldinger, 356 F.Supp. 153, 169-70 (C.D.Calif.1973). As the court in Baldinger, supra, Congress cannot compel the courts to issue orders which violate the constitutional pr......
-
United States v. Huss
...U.S.C. § 6002 and § 6003, was not coextensive with his privilege against self-incrimination, citing a recent case, In re Baldinger, 356 F.Supp. 153 (C.D.Cal. March 14, 1973), 13 Crim.L. Rep. 2029, and Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); but see Kastigar v. U......
-
United States v. Mahler
...it still may deny an immunity order "in the face of a violation of a witness' constitutional rights." Id. at 1165; see In Re Baldinger, 356 F.Supp. 153, 170 (C.D.Cal.1973). Even assuming such discretionary review power exists, we find no infringement of the Defendant's constitutional rights......