People v. Pollock, 21 N.Y.2d 206 (1967)
r
r
It is reversible error for a prosecutor to call a witness to the stand knowing that the witness will invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, especially when the witness’s refusal to answer implicates the defendants in a crime.
r
r
Summary
r
Defendants Pollock and Arnold were convicted of killing Martin Funk during a robbery. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the defendants’ confessions, which they later recanted, claiming they were coerced. A key issue arose when the prosecution called Earl James, named by both defendants as an accomplice, to the stand. Knowing James would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the prosecution questioned him, leading the jury to infer James’s guilt and, by extension, the defendants’ guilt. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that calling James to the stand solely to have him invoke his privilege was prejudicial error, as it effectively bolstered the contested confessions.
r
r
Facts
r
Martin Funk was killed during a robbery at his television repair shop. Pollock and Arnold confessed to the crime, implicating Earl James as an accomplice who stood watch outside the shop. Both defendants later recanted their confessions, claiming they were coerced by police. At trial, the prosecution called Earl James as a witness. James’s attorney informed the court that James would refuse to answer any questions on the grounds that his answers might incriminate him. Despite this, the prosecutor proceeded to ask James if he knew Pollock. James refused to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The defendants were convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division had previously ordered a Huntley hearing to determine the voluntariness of the confessions. The trial court found the confessions were voluntary. The defendants appealed the convictions, arguing that calling Earl James to the stand was prejudicial error. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether it is reversible error for the prosecution to call a witness to the stand, knowing the witness will invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, when the witness’s refusal to answer serves to incriminate the defendants.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because calling a witness solely to have them invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege can be highly prejudicial, especially when the witness’s potential testimony is central to the case and directly implicates the defendants in the crime.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the defendants’ convictions hinged on their confessions, which they had recanted. Calling James to the stand, knowing he would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege, effectively allowed the jury to infer that James was indeed involved in the crime as described in the confessions, thus bolstering the prosecution’s case despite James providing no substantive testimony. The court distinguished this case from Namet v. United States, where the witness’s claim of privilege related to only a few incidental questions. Here, James’s refusal to answer directly implicated him in the robbery and homicide, making it a central piece of (inferred) evidence against the defendants. The court cited Fletcher v. United States and United States v. Tucker as examples of cases where similar actions by the prosecution were deemed reversible error. Quoting United States v. Maloney, the court acknowledged that