United States v. Monia

Summary

Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion affirming the judgment sustaining the defendants' immunity pleas. The Court held that a natural person who appears pursuant to a subpoena and gives sworn testimony substantially connected with an alleged Sherman Act offense receives statutory immunity from prosecution for that offense without asserting the privilege against self-incrimination. The statutory text and legislative history did not permit adding a privilege-assertion requirement that Congress expressly included in other immunity statutes. Justice Frankfurter dissented, joined by Justice Douglas, arguing that immunity was intended only as an exchange for surrendering the constitutional privilege, not as an automatic consequence of responding to a subpoena. He would have sustained the Government's demurrers and remanded.