People v. Goldman, 21 N.Y.2d 152 (1967)

A public officer who is compelled to testify before a grand jury under threat of removal from office can be prosecuted for perjury if their testimony is intentionally false, even if the compelled waiver of immunity would render the testimony inadmissible in a prosecution for a substantive crime.

Summary

Goldman, a former New York City police officer, was convicted of perjury for false statements he made before a grand jury investigating bribery. Goldman had signed a waiver of immunity under threat of losing his job, and he subsequently denied knowing a gambler named Johnson, despite photographic evidence to the contrary. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the compelled waiver might prevent prosecution for substantive crimes, it does not give the officer a license to lie under oath. The court reasoned that compelling truthful testimony serves a critical public interest, and perjury sanctions are necessary to enforce that requirement. This case clarifies the limits of Garrity v. New Jersey in the context of perjury prosecutions.

Facts

In 1964, Lewis Goldman, a New York City police officer, testified before a grand jury investigating bribery related to gambling. Prior to his testimony, Goldman signed a limited waiver of immunity, compelled by Section 1123 of the New York City Charter, which mandated termination for refusing to waive immunity. During his testimony, Goldman denied knowing a gambler named “Grumpy” Johnson and denied receiving anything from him in August 1960. However, a hidden police camera had photographed Goldman receiving something from Johnson on that date. At the grand jury, Goldman was shown the photograph and conceded the person looked like him, but still denied knowing Johnson or receiving anything from him.

Procedural History

Goldman was indicted for perjury based on his denials before the grand jury. He was convicted after a jury trial in the Supreme Court, New York County, and sentenced to a prison term. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction without opinion. Goldman then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a public officer, compelled to testify before a grand jury under threat of removal from office, can be prosecuted for perjury based on false statements made during that testimony, when the waiver of immunity may have been coerced?

Holding

Yes, because compelling testimony from a public officer serves a critical public interest and the threat of perjury sanctions is necessary to ensure that the testimony is truthful, and because the right against self-incrimination does not protect against the commission of a crime (perjury) during the giving of testimony.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Garrity v. New Jersey, which held that statements obtained under threat of removal from office cannot be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions. The court reasoned that Garrity addressed the use of compelled testimony in prosecuting substantive crimes, whereas Goldman was prosecuted for the act of perjury itself. Citing Matter of Gardner v. Broderick, the court affirmed that a public officer may be compelled to testify, even under threat of removal, and that refusal to testify constitutes insubordination. The court reasoned that to allow the officer to lie with impunity would render the compulsion to testify meaningless. The court drew an analogy to witnesses granted immunity from prosecution for substantive crimes, who are still subject to perjury charges for false statements. The court quoted Glickstein v. United States, stating that it is “impossible in reason to conceive that Congress commanded the giving of testimony, and at the same time intended that false testimony might be given with impunity”. The court also found that Goldman’s denials before the grand jury were clear and unequivocal, and that the delay in bringing him before the grand jury was a matter for the jury to consider, which they did. The court concluded that the passage of time did not excuse his outright false statements, because the jury chose not to believe that it had clouded the defendant’s memory. Ultimately, the court decided that the importance of extracting truthful testimony from public officers outweighs concerns about coerced waivers of immunity when the prosecution is for the crime of perjury itself. Therefore, the judgement was affirmed.