Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation
Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation
401 U.S. 933; 91 S. Ct. 916; 28 L. Ed. 2d 213; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 2919
(United States Reports)
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States of America Ex Rel. Gerardo Catena v. Albert Elias, Superintendent of Youth Reception and Correction Center at Yardville, N. J (3d Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Lee Cropper,defendant-Appellant (5th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. (Under Seal) (4th Cir. 1986)
- Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation (Supreme Court of the United States 1979)
- In re Cardassi (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1972)
- Michael Gorean Stewart v. United States of America, Charles Joseph Kastigar v. United States (9th Cir. 1971)
- Linda McCabe v. Nassau County Medical Center (2d Cir. 1971)
- Brown v. Donielson (District Court, S.D. Iowa 1971)
- Coyote v. Roberts (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1980)
- Sarno v. Illinois Crime Investigating Commission (Supreme Court of the United States 1972)
- Pennsylvania Crime Commission v. Nacrelli (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1972)
- United States v. James Melvin Wilcox (5th Cir. 1971)
- Elias v. Catena (Supreme Court of the United States 1971)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. Probable jurisdiction noted limited to Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 as set forth in the jurisdictional statement which read as follows:
‘T. Whether a state immunity statute, and in particular N. J. S. A. 52:9M-17, which merely prevents the subsequent use of a witness’s testimony and evidence derived therefrom is sufficient to supplant the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination?
“2. Whether Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 (1892), which stated that 'absolute immunity against further prosecution’ is required before the Fifth Amendment privilege may be supplanted, is still the law of the land?
“3. Whether the immunity statute in question, N. J. S. A. 52:9M-17 is constitutionally defective due to its provision that only a ‘responsive’ answer, or evidence derived therefrom will not be used against the witness, where the statute provides no guidelines for determining what is a ‘responsive’ answer?
“4. Whether the immunity statute, N. J. S. A. 52:9M-17, can supplant the Fifth Amendment privilege when it fails to provide immunity against foreign prosecution, with respect to an individual who has a real fear of such foreign prosecution?”
As to all other questions set forth in the jurisdictional statement, the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.