Case research for murphy v lake shore commission

Supreme Courtroom Case, Legal Brief, Legal Briefs, Tendu

Excerpt via Research Conventional paper:

Murphy v. Lake shore Commission, 378 U. T. 52 (1964)

Title and Citation: Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U. S i9000. 52 (1964)

Type of Actions: Review by the U. S i9000. Supreme The courtroom of a lording it over made by the New Jersey Condition Supreme Courtroom, which kept that petitioners subpoenaed to testify by a reading on the state level – petitioners who was simply immunized against prosecution around the state level – were indeed in contempt of court to get refusing to testify on the grounds that doing so would provide self-incriminating facts which could be taken against all of them on the national level.

Information of the Case: The petitioners have been subpoenaed to testify within a hearing overseen by the Waterfront Commission of recent York Harbor, one which centered on a work stoppage at the piers in Hoboken, New Jersey. Petitioners refused to resolve several queries during this hearing on the grounds that accomplishing this may tend to incriminate all of them, citing the protections against self-incrimination granted by the sixth Amendment. Petitioners were after that immunized coming from prosecution beneath state rules within the jurisdictions of New Hat and Ny. Despite he was granted defenses, petitioners preserved their refusal to respond to these questions on the floor doing so may tend to incriminate them beneath federal rules, as the immunization from prosecution did not extend to that particular jurisdiction.

Depending on their refusal to answer petitioners were in that case held in detrimental and criminal contempt of court, a ruling which has been appealed for the New Jersey Substantial Court. After consideration of the facts, the greater court reversed the certainty for felony contempt depending on procedural argument, while affirming the civil contempt judgments based on their very own individual and collective merits. The New Jersey Supreme Court docket held which a State keeps the right to constitutionally compel any witness to provide testimony which may later provide against all of them in subsequent federal criminal prosecution proceedings.

g. Contentions of the Parties:

Murphy argues that: The 6th Amendment’s explicitly stated guarantee that “No person… shall be required in any criminal case to become witness against himself, ” allows for a refusal to testify on the state level – inspite of any grants or loans of defenses from criminal prosecution within that jurisdiction – whenever stated testimony can be utilized later during federal criminal prosecution proceedings in which the previous defenses does not expand.

Waterfront Commission and New Jersey State Substantial Courts argue that: Petitioner can be compelled to supply testimony that could potentially always be self-incriminating when the state has recently granted immunity to quell