People ex Rel. Lewisohn v. O'Brien

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Anhut

    162 App. Div. 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)   Cited 2 times

    The district attorney promised immunity from prosecution if the witness would answer and read to him section 342 of the Penal Code. The witness, however, still declined to answer, whereupon the relator was committed for contempt. The relator was brought before a justice of the Supreme Court on a writ of habeas corpus, who dismissed the writ, but on appeal to this court ( 81 App. Div. 51) that order was reversed and the relator discharged, which on appeal to the Court of Appeals was affirmed ( 176 N.Y. 253). And both in this court and in the Court of Appeals, following the case of Counselman v. Hitchcock ( 142 U.S. 547), it was held that it was not sufficient that the evidence that he should give could not be used against him, but that to justify the court in compelling him to answer, it must appear that the witness was protected from being compelled to disclose the circumstances of his offense and that the sources from which or the means by which evidence of its commission or his connection with it might be obtained or made effectual for his conviction without using his answer as direct admissions against him. Another class of cases is where the People have attempted to use admissions or statements made by a defendant in a criminal proceeding that he had been compelled to give in an investigation concerning charges against himself or others under the provision that

  2. People v. Cummins

    153 App. Div. 93 (N.Y. App. Div. 1912)   Cited 6 times

    We agree with the contention of the learned counsel, who filed a brief on the constitutional question, that the provision of section 6 of article 1 of the Constitution of the State of New York that "No person shall * * * be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is identical with the provision of the 5th amendment to the Federal Constitution, was designed, not only to protect every person against being directly compelled to testify, and the use of his testimony against himself, but also against being compelled in any judicial proceeding or action, civil or criminal, whether directed against him or another, either as a party or as a witness, to give or disclose any evidence or information by which evidence may be obtained for use against him with respect to any criminal offense, unless he has been given full and complete immunity against prosecution therefor, and this court, in People ex rel. Lewisohn v. O'Brien, which, however, arose on habeas corpus ( 81 App. Div. 51; affd., 176 N.Y. 253), following the decisions of the United States courts, construing the corresponding provision of the Federal Constitution, and decisions of the highest courts of the sister States, construing similar constitutional provisions, adopted and applied the rule, notwithstanding the decision in People ex rel. Hackley v. Kelly ( 24 N.Y. 74), which the Court of Appeals, in affirming our decision, overruled. Any testimony forced from the defendant or evidence obtained from him before the grand jury over his constitutional objection, was, therefore, inadmissible, and, if received over proper objection, it would be the duty of the appellate court to set aside the conviction.

  3. People v. Trowbridge

    84 App. Div. 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)

    May Term, 1903. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide event upon prevailing opinion in People ex rel. Lewisohn v. O'Brien ( 81 App. Div. 51; 80 N.Y. Supp. 816). All concurred.