In re Morganroth v. Fitzsimmons

Mayer Morganroth (defendant) operated a company that received a multimillion-dollar loan from a pension fund. Morganroth’s company defaulted, and the pension fund suffered large losses. Morganroth was indicted by a federal grand jury on conspiracy, mail-fraud, and wire-fraud charges. After the indictment, Morganroth was deposed in a civil foreclosure case in Florida state court relating to the loan and answered all questions voluntarily. Morganroth was acquitted on all federal charges. Morganroth was then subpoenaed to testify before a New York grand jury and was asked the same questions he had answered in the Florida deposition. This time, Morganroth asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Morganroth was given immunity and testified. The prosecutor informed Morganroth that his testimony conflicted significantly with that of other witnesses. Morganroth was then subpoenaed as a nonparty witness for a civil deposition led by the secretary of labor. Morganroth appeared and answered basic identifying questions, but he again asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions covering the same topics he had voluntarily addressed in Florida and had testified about under immunity in New York. Morganroth asserted answering could subject him to prosecution for perjury and criminal tax evasion. The secretary of labor asked the district court to compel Morganroth to answer the questions, arguing Morganroth had waived his Fifth Amendment right regarding these questions by answering the same questions in Florida, and that because he had been acquitted, he faced no reasonable likelihood of prosecution by answering. The district court ordered Morganroth to testify. Morganroth filed for certification to appeal the order, which was granted.