Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Ullmann v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1956 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSelf-IncriminationImmunityFifth Amendmentself-incriminationimmunity statutetransactional immunitygrand jury

Facts

A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York was investigating attempts to endanger national security by espionage and conspiracy to commit espionage. Petitioner appeared pursuant to subpoena and refused, on Fifth Amendment grounds, to answer questions about such activities, participation by himself and others, and Communist Party membership. The United States Attorney, with the Attorney General's approval, applied under 18 U.S.C. § 3486(c) for an order compelling testimony and asserted that the testimony was necessary to the public interest. The district court upheld the statute's constitutionality, ordered petitioner to testify, and after he again refused, convicted him of contempt.

Issue

Whether the Immunity Act of 1954 provided immunity broad enough to supplant the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, whether § 3486(c) gave the district judge discretion to deny the application, and whether Congress could provide immunity against state prosecution. The Court also considered whether the Fifth Amendment forbids compelled testimony regardless of the scope of immunity.

Rule

An immunity statute is constitutionally sufficient if it protects the witness to the full extent of the Fifth Amendment privilege by removing the danger of criminal prosecution that justifies invocation of the privilege. Under § 3486(c), the district court has no discretion to deny an application on its own assessment of the public interest; its role is only to determine whether the statutory requirements have been met. Congress may, in this national security context, provide immunity broad enough to bar state prosecution and forbid use of compelled testimony in any court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal grand jury in Seattle is investigating sabotage of a naval research facility. Maya Ortiz refuses to answer questions that would admit her role in arranging equipment shipments. The United States Attorney, with written approval from the Attorney General, obtains an order under the federal immunity statute compelling her testimony and granting immunity for any transaction, matter, or thing about which she is compelled to testify, while preserving prosecution for perjury or contempt.

After the order issues, Maya still refuses to answer solely on Fifth Amendment self-incrimination grounds. Which is the strongest argument for holding her in contempt?

Explanation. The majority reaffirmed that immunity is constitutionally sufficient when it protects the witness to the full extent of the Fifth Amendment privilege by removing the danger of criminal prosecution. Once the criminality is taken away, the reason for the privilege ceases. The Court rejected the view that the Fifth Amendment bars compelled testimony regardless of adequate immunity, and it did not require elimination of all noncriminal consequences.