¶ … Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) Title and Citation: Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)

Type of Action: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a ruling made by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, which held that petitioners subpoenaed to testify at a hearing on the state level -- petitioners who had been immunized against prosecution on the state level -- were indeed in contempt of court for refusing to testify on the grounds that doing so would provide self-incriminating evidence which could be used against them on the federal level.

Facts of the Case: The petitioners had been subpoenaed to testify during a hearing overseen by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, one which focused on a work stoppage at the piers in Hoboken, New Jersey. Petitioners refused to answer several questions during this hearing on the grounds that doing so may tend to incriminate them, citing the protections against self-incrimination granted by the 5th Amendment. Petitioners were then immunized from prosecution under state law within the jurisdictions of New Jersey and New York. Despite having been granted immunity, petitioners maintained their refusal to respond to these questions on the ground doing so may tend to incriminate them under federal law, as the immunization from prosecution did not extend to that jurisdiction.

Upon consideration of the facts, the higher court reversed the conviction for criminal contempt based on procedural grounds, while affirming the civil contempt judgments based on their individual and collective merits. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a State maintains the right to constitutionally compel any witness to provide testimony which may later be used against them in subsequent federal prosecution proceedings.
d. Contentions of the Parties:

• Murphy argues that: The Fifth Amendment's explicitly stated guarantee that "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," allows for a refusal to testify on the state level -- despite any grants of immunity from prosecution within that jurisdiction -- whenever said testimony may be used later during federal prosecution proceedings in which the previous immunity does not extend.

• Waterfront Commission and New Jersey State Supreme Courts argue that: Petitioner can be compelled to provide testimony which could potentially be self-incriminating whenever the state has already granted immunity to quell such concerns.

e. Issue(s): Whether an individual jurisdiction…