# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Riela v. New York (No. 460) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0671%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1960 ## Text wu w Ba rh ia IN THE °* " aa cc Supreme Court of the United States | October Term, 1960 No. 4 { ) t } _- ANTHONY PETER RIELA, ~ Petitioner, -—V.— THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, R. Spiro i, ne. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF TIOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK Loris MaNxsporr Counsel for Petitioner S20 Broadway New York 7, New York Q Pe chetis Bela tiei= OO Woatehs Peariscdietion be Pnverkeod he Soens Presented for Review Sutates [nvelved Natement of the Case — Ce | . » ‘ . . “* . . tievys Ratsing of Perteral Cdiestrets = heasonus fer Girranting the Writ ae APPENDICES A. Opinion, Court of Appeals. People vo Rb "ONLY. 2 S01, Qo NY. S. 2832 reproddinees Cited , “ ' . 3 . ® e reer of Court of Appeals. chemical of ret reargument, July s, 1e8e Cited .. TS 2 ty I BET A Ae Order of Court of Appeals. amending rem toolmsert constitutional question, ~uly ss. 0 bE thle RN See eae oe oats o* x . . Hadement of Convietion, July D2. te i ary ee al al Sih oe ae ee — 1} ha ea *) on i) a i » PAGE k. Excerpts of Statutes Involved ................ 1a hae ES NT Te PEE Ie) Spey pear ys 3,4- (i) Penal Law ¢ 600 subd. 6 ................. "13a Baer t pity yee Wie ay ate cae eee (11) Code of Criminal Proeedure ¢ 618-a ....... Ia RES rere ree 3,45, 6, 1214 (iii) Penal Law § 2447 subd. 1,2, 3(c), 4 ....... Va MCU eecdiaieieweneaues 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 15, 14 (iv) Uneonsolidated Laws § 7052 subd. (5), (6). (7) and (9), McKinney's Vol. 65, Part 2... — Ifa Peete, ataleeaes 13, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16,17 _(v) New, Jersey Revised Statutes, Article 2, 2A :81-4 and 2A:81-5 ............ ry lia GNA ES ale ea rea a rt : 3 (vi) General Business Laws {352 subd. 5 (Vol. 19 MecKinney’s Consol. Laws) ........--. lia RN coy Mewes Ris sven deueees cue cao uta a1 . TABLE OF CASES CITED ~ In re: Amato, 204 Mise. 454, 459, 124 N. Y.-S 1 Tae 2 MURR Sa Stir i CI een a gon eae ete Santer ns SE 1h Brown v. United States, 509 U.S. 41, 49 ...6.... 10, 17 I Brown vy. Walker, 161 U. ee ere eh ee ee I Carlson ¥. United Sites (C.A. Ist), 209 F. 2d 209, Oe a a ave ce esau eas areee eis Be C ommission of Investigation v. Lombardozzi, 5 N. Y. 2d 1026, 185 N.Y. S. 2d 550, appeal dismissed, sub nom Castellano v. Commission of Inv estiga- EO os he acc scence Gi kas eu ae oy mens’ 1" Dunham vy. Ottinger, 243 N cr. £. 423, 438-499 ...:..-. 1° ili Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190, 197, 2 a Feldman v, United States, 322 U.S. 487,489,493 0.00 45 Gendron v. Burnham, 146 Me. 387, 405-4 8, SZ AL 2d 173, REAR ARSE cee Aree ania nee as ok Marais = li Herlands (Carcietta) Matter of, 204 Mine. ays ree a 124.N, Y. S. 2d 402, 405-406 2.00... Sear aae tae 16 Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. 8. 479 ....4,.15, 16; 1, Is Jack v. Kansas, 199 1.8. 372 ............ EP re 17,18 ~ Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U. Bes Santa es ate eg Levirie v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, b12 Z Me eres 10. wy Mills v. Louisiana, Se SE oh ch wkisc bdo hewn 10,11 Quinn v. United Statee, 349 U.S. 155, 167°... eens | i) Raley y. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 435 ............ ae 1os11 State of New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1,8. ' 1314.15 “liman v. United States, ts Pi Ga kk eae es 15 FEpErat Statutes INvoLver . 8U, S. C. § 1257 (3) SE AA Sg tA sty Ee OE HOG ae Unitep States Constitution Fourteenth NN or oa ee ae de * 7.1233 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1960 No. Astuony Peter Rena, - . * Petitioner, — THE PEOPLE*OF THE StaTE oF NEW-YorK, Respondent. dé. 7 PETITION F OR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF TIOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK The petitioner, Anthony Peter Riela, prays that a writ ot certiorari issue to review the judgment of the County Court of Tioga County of the State of New York, entered in the above entitled case on July 12, 1960. | | Opinions Below The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported in 7 x. Y. 2d 571, 200 N. Y. S. 2d 43, appended hereto as Appendix A’; the Appetlate Division, Third Department opinion, ° is reported in 9 App: Div. 2d 481, 195 N.Y. S. 2d 558 and is set forth in the Record at pages 456-463: the trial court, ounty Court, Tioga County opinion is reported in 14 Mise. 1 218, 178 N. Y. S. 2d 873, and is set forth in the Reeord at pages 430-446; the Court of Appeals opinion denying — =e to . the motion for reargument is dated July 8, 1960 and i: appended hereto as Appendix ‘‘B’’, and the Court of Ap peals opinien amending the remittitur to include a COn- stitutional question is cated July 8, 1960 (not yet officially ” reported), is appended héreto as a es tae Grounds On Which Jurisdiction Is iii (i) The judgment of the Tioga County. Court. was t- tered on July 12, 1960 (Appendix ‘‘D*’) hased upon th judgment of the Court of Appeals which, on April 20, 1960, reversed in. part the judgment of conviction of the. Appel- late Division, Third Department, and remitted the case to the Tioga County Court for resentence. | (ii) A motion for reargument was denied by the Court of Appeals on July 8, 1960 (Appendix **B*’). (iii) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 2s U.S.C. 1257 (3). Questions Presented for Review (1) Was the contempt conviction repugnant to the Four. teenth Amendment .where a New York grand jury confers New York State iramunity on a New Jersey resident wit ness, repeats the questions and the witness ‘reasserts his plea of privilege, but the Court fails to direct the nor resident witness.to answer the questions or to permit wit- ness to prove the existing perils pf prosecution in his-home state and the Federal government as well as the inade quacs of the immunity offered? (2) Is the joint application of Penal Law « 2447 with § 618-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the. facts - , 3 herein, repugnant to the spirit and interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and were the witness's -rights.and privileges thereunder violated; -where a New York. non- resident°grand jury witness, a target of investigation and a potential defendant, is brought into New York by desig- nating him as a material witness. and the New York im- ‘munity conferred is’ not co-extensive with the perils of prosecution existing for him in his home state, other states and the Federal governmgnt, and Tioga County grand jury minutes have, pursuant to court orders, been, transmitted ' without secrecy restrictions, to New York State agencies which are obligated by state (4° 7051-7057, MeKinney's Enconsol, Laws) to cooperate with witness's home. state, - other states and the Federal governnient and the Court fails to direct the witness to answer grand jury questions despite his pleas of privilege against self-inerimination? . (3) Was appellant denied due process by court's preelu- sion of proof as to the existence“and reality of the perils of prosecution, lack.of authority, good faith and jurisdic- tion of the grand jury and inadequate immunity conferred? ‘Statutes Involved Penal Law § 600, subd.*(6). Code of Criminal Procedure . 2 Lombardozzi, 5 N.Y, 24 1026, 185 N. Y.S. 2d 350, appeal dismissed sub nom. Cas- tellano v. Commission of Investigation, 361 U. Ss. 7, SU: S. Ct. 51, 4 L. Ed. 2d 49. [3] We come, now, to the real question in the ease, namely, whether the defendant is guilty of 17 crimes of contempt or of one. Concerning this, it is our opinion that, while there can be no doubt that Riela’s conduct before the Grand Jury constituted criminal contempt under section 500 of the Pena! Law, his conviction of 17 separate crimes of contempt, each susceptible to- punishment of a year in prison, was totally unjustified. It is quite ¢rue, as the Appellate Division observed [9 A, D. 2d 481, 195 N. Y. S. 2d 363], that “the questions [asked of the defendant} were by no means the sam ques. tion rephrased’’, but, in a case such as the present, where the refusal to answer was grounded, albeit mistakenly on the privilege against self-incrimination, the circumstance that no two questions could have been answered by a sif¢le response is beside the point. What is of significance is that it Was apparent from the very start of his interrogation that Riela, relying upon the privilege; would decline to an- sWwer any question bearirig on the “Apalachin meeting", and that the questions, different though they were from One another, aj) related to that one snbject. This being so, he is guilty of the single contempt of refusing to giye testi- mony concerning the Apalachin gathering, rather than 17 contempts for refusal to answer individual questions about it. See, e.g., Yates v. United States, 355° U.S. 66, 73, 78 S. Ct. 128, 2 L, Ed. 2d 95: United Stites v. Costello, 2 Cir. 198 F. 2d 200, 204, certiorari denied 344.U. S. 874, 73 S. Ct. da: Appendix ‘‘ A "Opinion of the Court of Appeals 166, 97 L. Ed. 677; United States v. Orman, 3 Cir., 207 F.4d 148, 160; Maxwell v. Rives, 11 Nev. 213, 221: Fawick Air. flex Co. v. United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, Ohio App. 92 N. E. 2d 431, 436, appeal dismissed 154 Obio St. 206. 0 N. E. 2d 480. {4] Any other result impresses us as offensive, for, if each separate reassertion of privilege and refusal to an-. Swer were to be treated as a distinct contempt, there wonld be no limit to the number of contempts for which Riela could have been held. The District Attorney could just as well have asked 60 questions about Apalachin—for in- stance, whether Riela knew each of the 60 individuals re. puted to have been present—as 17, and, if each could be. wome the predicate of a distinct contempt, the limit of pun. ishment would then depend only on ‘the extent of the District Attorney's ingenuity and whim. As the Supreme Court said in the somewhat similar case of Yates y. United States (355 U. S. 66, 73; 78 §. Ct. 128, 133, supra), *‘the prosecution cannot multiply contempts by repeated ques. tioning on the same subject of inquiry within which a recal- citrant witness already has refused answers.?” [5,6] Riela, under existing law, may well have been un- der the necessity, once he asserted the privilege, of repeat: ing the claim as to each and every question asked him, lest an answer to any one be deemed to effect a complete waiver of the privilege. See e.g., People v. Cassidy, 213 N. Y. 388. 394, 107 N. E. 713, 715: Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 372-374, 71 S. Ct. 438, 95 L. Ed. 344; Brown v. Walker. 161 U. S. 591, 597,16 S. Ct. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819; 8 Wigmore. - Evidence [3d ed., 1940], pp. 438-439, This being so—to par- aphrase what was said in the Costello case (198 F. 2d 200, 204, supra)—-the convempt was total when the defendant ft da Appendiz ‘‘ A’’—Opinion of the Court of Appeals made it clear that he would not answer questions about Apalachin on the ground of self-inerimination and his -re- peated refusals may not properly be considered as any- thing more than expressions of his intention to adhere to his initial assertion of the privilege; and, surely, they were not separately punishable. Tho contempt here to be pun- ished is Riela’s misguided refusal -to “ive any Yestimotiy about Apalachin, and not his reiteration of that refusal in response to the many questions which the District Attor- hey elected to put to him. People v. Saperstein (2.N, Y. 2 210, 159 N.Y. S. 2d 160, 162, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 746, 66 S. Ct, S25, 7 L. Ed. 2d 856), upon which the People strongiv-rely, does not support their contrary position; the situation with which We there dealt: was essentially different from: the one now before us. Saperstein was adjudged! suilty of tive crimes of contempt because of his eVasiveness Or, NOTE .specitic- - ally, his refusal ‘to state definitely’? who were the par- ticipants in five separate telephone conversations 1 hich had been wire tapped. Each of the contempts Was based hot upon a refusal grounded on any claim. of privilege, but, among other things, on his patently evasive testimony that he did not know; and could not tell, Whether he him- self had participated in those telephone conversations. These refusals came at different points during the course of testimony which was otherwise freely given, and each refusal was unrelated to every other: one. Under such ” circumstances, there could be ho assurance, after the wit- _ hess had refused to answer the question with respeet to the first phone eall, that he would likewise refuse to answer - the later questions about the other conversations. Et was -hot possible jn Saperstein, as it: was here, to prediet. or * : 6a | Appendix ‘‘A’’"—Opinion of the Court of Appeals — foresee the pattern of refusal which necessarily ‘attends the assertion of a claim of privilege. In short, what distinguishes this case from People v. Saperstein is that here we have a ciaim of privilege which ‘‘earved out an area of refusal’’. Yates v. United States, 355 U. S. 66, 73, 78 S. Ct. 128, 133, supra. In the present case, the District Attorney .necessarily knéw, ahead of _ time, that the claim. of privilege once asserted would be repeated, while in Saperstein the prosecutor had to con- tinue questioning to find the limits of the defendant/s re _ . fusal to answer. In Saperstein, in other words, the Di-. trict Attorney was engaged ‘in bona fide interrogation, in the sense that he could reasonably have supposed that the witness would answer each of the questions asked, whil- here the District Attorney repeated 17 questions knowing full well from Riela’s response to his first query that he would not answer any of them. The defendant commitied but a single contempt with rv. lation to’one subject; his conviction of 17 separate crimes was, therefore, impermissible and the sentences imposed may not stand. The judgma sould be reversed and the case remitte' to the County Court of Tioga County for resentenee. Desmonp C. J... and Dye, Froesser, Vax Voonntes Burke and Foster, J.J., concur. Judgment reversed, ete. 7a APPENDIX “B” Order of the Court of Appeals Denying Motion for Reargument ; STATE OF NEW YORK, I~ Court or APPEALS , At a Court of Appeals for the State of New York, held at Court of Appeals Hall in the City of Albany on the Eighth day of July A. D. 1960. Present: 7 ton. Cuares S. Drsotonn, Chief Judge, presiding. Mo. No. 414 The People &c., Respondent, vs. Anthony P. Riela, . Appellant. » vv * A motion for a reargument of the above cause having been heretofore made upon the part of the appellant herein and papers having been duly submitted thereon and due deliberation thereupon had: Ornrrep, that the said motion be and the same hereby is denied. : (Sea) GEARON IXIMBALL. Deputy Clerk 8a APPENDIX “C” Order of the Court of Appeals Amending Remittitur STATE OF NEW YORK, . In Court or APPEALS At a Court of Appeals for the State of New York, held at Court of Appeals Hall in the City of Albany on the . Eighth day of July A. D. 1960. Present: Hon. Cranes S. Desmonn, Chief Judge, presiding. a. _—_— > - Mo. No. 414 The People &., 2 Respondent. vB. Anthony P. Riela, | Appellant. & — ? A motion to amend the remittitur in the above cause hav- ing been heretofore made upon the part of the appellant . herein and papers having been submitted thereon and due deliberation having beén thereupon had: Orperep, that the said motion be and the sare hereby !s granted. Return of the remittitur requested and, when re- turned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: 9a Appendix ‘““C’__Order of the Court of Appeals Amending Remittitur Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Consti- tution of the United States as follows: The defen- dant contended that the application in his case of 62447 of the Penal Law and “618-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure violated his rights ‘under the | Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were not violated. (See People v. Riela, 7 N. Y. 2d 971.) Asp the County Court of Tioga County is hereby re- quested to direct its Clerk to return said remittitur to this Court for amendment accordingly. (Sean) @ GrARON KIMBALL Deputy Clerk ? ; Ca APPENDIX “D” Judgment of Conviction At an adjourned term of the County Court held in and for the County of Tioga at the Court House in the Village of Owego, N. Y.. on the 12th day of July, 1960. Present: - Hon. Francis J. CLOHEsSY, ; ‘ County Judge of Tioga County. Tue Propie oF THE State or New York —against— Antuony Peter Rieva »™ 7 The defendant, Anthony Peter Riela, having been in- dicted by a Grand Jury sitting in connection with the County Court held in and for the County of Tigga on the 25th day of February, 1958, which indictment sets forth seventeen counts, each of which charges the Crime of Criminal Contempt in Violation of Section 600, Subdivision 6, of the Penal Law of the Staté of New York, committed on the 25th day of February, 1958, And the defendant, Anthony Peter Riela, having ap- peared in County Court with Louis Mansdorf, Esq., his Counsel, and having been tried before the Hon. Francis J. » Clohessy, County Judge of Tioga County at a trial without lla 2 sotees ee Appendir’* D’—Judament of Conviction a jury beginning on September 30, 1958 and terminating on October 3, 1958; é ; And the Hon. Francis J. Clohessy, County Judge of Tioga County having filed his Decision onthe 15th day of October, 1958, fihding the defendant, Anthony Peter Rigla, guilty under and as charged in each of the seventeen counts of the indictment ; , And the defendant, Anthony Peter Riela, having there- after appeared in County Court with Louis Mansdorf, Esq.. his Counsel, on the 24th day of October, 1958, and having . been sentenced under the first count of the indictment to. sixty (60) days imprisonment in the Tiega County Jail and to pay a fine of $250.00, and stand committed to the Tioga County Jail until the fine be satisfied at the rate of one day for every dollar of the fine unpaid. . And it having been further Ordered that thé defendant, Anthony Peter Riela, under each of the sixteen remaining | counts be sentenced to imprisonment in the Tioga County Jail for sixty (60) days and to’ pay a fine of $250.00, and stand committed to the Tioga County Jail until the fine be satisfied at the rate of one day for every dollar of the fine - unpaid, it being the intention and Judgment that a sentence of sixty (60) days imprisonment and a fine of $250.00 should apply to anckco¥er each count; and it further being ¢ Irdered by the Court that the respective jail sentences of sixty (60) days imprisonment under each of the seventeen counts should run concurrently. ae And the defendant, Anthony Peter Riela, havi ing appeared in Court on the 20th day of «June, 1960, with Louis Mans. doef, Esq., his ‘Counsel for re-sentencing pursuant to an Order of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York filed May 11, 1960 whereby the Judgment pronounced Octo. . ber 38, 1958 was reversed and the case remitted to County L : l2a “Appendix **D’'—Judgment by Conviction Court for re-sentencing; and the defendant having made application to the Court for an adjournment of sentence pending an Appeal to the United States Supreme Court; _and the sentence having been adjourned until July 12, 1960; And the defendant, Anthony Peter Riela, having appeared in County Court on July 12, 1960 with Louis Mansdorf, Esq., his counsel, and the Court having set aside and vacated the previous sentence imposed on October 24, 1958, and the defendant, Anthony Peter Riela-having been asked by the Clerk if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not now be pronounced against him, and the defendant hav- ing answered in the negative; | And the defendant having waived the 48 hour “on period; | It is hereby Oravied by the Court that the defendant, Anthony Peter Riela, be imprisoned in the Tioga County Jail for a term of sixty (60) days and pay a fine of $250.0. La VerNE M. Bristes ‘County Clerk ! l3a APPENDIX “E” Statutes Involved Penal Law ¢ 600. CrimixaL Conteyrt. A person who commits a contempt of court, of any one o° the fol- lowing kinds is guilty of a misdemeanor: . 6. Contumacious and unlawful refusal to be sworn as a witness, or, after being: sworn, to answer any legal and proper interrogatory; ° * * (McKinney's . Consolidated Laws, Vol. 39, Part 1) L. 1989, e, 299, 61, eff. April 5, 1935. Cope or CrimivaL Procepvre. Section 618-a (MeKinney’s Consolidated Laws, Vol. 66, Part 2) Securinc ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES FROM WitHIN anp WitHowt THE STATE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. 1. ‘As used in this section the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context requires cther- wise. ‘‘Witness’’ shall include a person whose testimony is desired in any proceeding or investigation by a grand.jury or in a criminal action, prosecution or proceeding. ‘State’? shall include any territory of the United States and the District of Columbia. ‘‘Subpoena’”’ shall include a summons in any state where a summons is used in licu of a subpoena. 3. Witness from another state subpoenaed to testify in this state. .If« person ‘in any state, which by its laws has lija ° Appendix ‘* E"’—Statutes Involved made provision for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness in a prosecution pending _ in a court of record in this state, or in a grand jury in- vestigation which has commenced or is about to commence, .a judge of such court may issue a certificate under the seal” of the court stating these facts and specifying the number of days the witness will be. required. This certificate shall be presented to a judge of a court of record in the county in which the witness is found. If said certificate recommends that the witness be taken into immediate custody and delivered to an officer of this state to assure his attendance in this state, such judge may direct that such witness be forthwith brought before him: and the judge being satisfied of the desirability of such ‘custody and delivery, for which determination said certifi- cate shall be prima facie proof, may order that said wit- ness be forthwith taken into custody and delivered to an officer of this state, which order shall be sufficient author; ity to such officer to take such witness into custody and hold him uutil he may be released by bail, recognizance, oT order of the judge issuing the certificate. * * * If-such witness fails without good éause to at! end ar 1 testify as directed in the subpoena, he shail be pun ished in the manner provided for the punishment of any witness who disobeys a subpoena issued from a court of record in this state. 5. Uniformity of interpretation. This section shall be so. inte rpreted and constrned.as to effectuate its general loa Appr ndix Rk" “Statutes Involved, purpose to make uniform the law of the states which enact t.¢** L. 1936, ¢. 387, eff. May 1, 1936. Penal Law § 2447. Witsesses’ Imuesity. 1. In any investigation or proceeding where, by express provi- sion of ‘statute, a competent authority is authorized to confer immunity, if a person refuses to answer a question or produce evidence of any other kind on the ground that he may be incriminated thereby, and, notwithstanding such refusal, an order is made by such competert authority that sucli person answer the questidn or produce the evidence, such persot shall comply with the order. If such person com- plies with the order, and if, but for this seetion, he ¢ would have been privileged to withhold the answer given or the evidence produced by him, then immun- ity shall be conferred upon him, as provided for herein. . 9. ‘Immunity’? as used in this section means that such person shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on ‘account of any transaction, matter or thing coneerning which, in - accordance with the order-by competent authority, he gave answer or preduced evidence, and that no such answer given or evidence préduced shall be received against him upon any criminal praceeding. But he may nevertheless be prosecuted or sub, tod to penalty or foi .viture for any perjury or contempt committed in answering, or failing to answer, or in producing or failing to produce evidence, in aceord- ance with the order, and any stich answer given or evidence produced shall be admissible against him upon any criminal proceeding concerning such per- jury or contempt. l6a Appendix “ E*'—Statutes Involved 3. ‘*Competent authority’? as used in this section means: < % . oo 7 ft 0 . (c) The grand jury before which a person is called to answer questions or produce evidence, when such grand jury is expressly requested by the prosecuting attorney to tes ayy see to give answer or produce evidence; * °°. — 4. Immunity shall not be conferred upon any per son except in accordance with the provisions of this section. -L. 1935, ¢. 299, §1, eff. April 5, 1935. (McKinney’s Consolidated Laws, Vol. 39, Part 2.) Usconsoumarven Laws, McKissey’s Votvme 65, Part 3 Sections 7051-7057 (Stare Commission or INvesticatioy! Section 7052. Fuxctions, Powers ann Duties or THE ComMISSION. an Subd. 5. The commission shall cooperate %ith depart ments and officers of the United States government in the investigation of violations of the federal laws within this state. Subd. 6. The commission sha!] examine into matters re lating to law enforcement extending across the boundaries of the state into other states; and may consult and exchange information with officers and agencies of other states with respect to law enforcement problems of mutual concern to this and other states. Z Subd. 7. Whenever it shall appear to the commission that there is cause for the prosecution for a crime, or for lia Appendix Bo Statutes Involved the removal of a public officer for misconduct, the commis- sion shall refer the evidence of such crime or misconduct to the officials authorized to conduct the prosecution or to remove the public officer. Subd. 9. The commission shall make an annual report to the governor and legislature which shall include its ree- ommendations. The commission shall make such further interim reports to the vovernor, or to the governor and legistature, as it shall deem advisable, or as shall be re- quired by the governor. L. 1958, ¢. 989 § 2, eff. May 1, 1908. : New Jersey Revisep Srairres ArticLe 2. Privitetes of Wirness: 2A :81-4 General Rule : Except as otherwise provided by statute, a witness . shall not be excused from answering any questions relevant and material to the issue 4L. 1900, ¢. 150, ‘£5, 8, pp. 363, 364). 7 24 :81-5 Personal Privilege Generally. No witness shall be compelled: to answer any ques tion if the answer will expose himi tO a criminal prosecution or penalty or toa forfeiture of his estate (L. 1900, e. 150, § 8, p. 264). © -, Gexerat Btsixess Law: : (MeKinney’s Vol. 19, Consol. Laws) ‘352. Investigation by Attorney General. 5. * © ©. Any officer participating in such inquiry and any person ‘examined as a witness upon such inquiry who , . 18a Appendiz ‘‘ E’’—Statutes Involved ° shall disclose to any person other than the attorney-general the name of any witness examined or any other informa- tion obtained upon such inquiry: except as directed by the attorney-general shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Added L. 1921, c. 649; amended L. 1923, c. 600, § 1; L. 1925, ¢. 239, §1; L. 1926, c. 617, §1; L. 1927, c. 365; L. 1932, c. 214; L. 1935, ¢. 271; L. 1949, c. 525; L. 1955, ¢. 553, § 1, eff. April 21, 1955. | — * --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0671%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.