The witness Archer Zamlock has claimed the privilege to refusе to answer certain questions upon the ground that his answers might tend tо incriminate him or degrade him. The privilege claimed’is persоnal and may only be advantaged by the witness himself. Whether it is allowаble is for the court to say. The court’s decision must be based upon the circumstances and depends upon the reality оf danger to the witness.
In the present state of the record I am satisfied that the danger of self incrimination is real and that the сonstitutional rights of the witness will be invaded by requiring, him to testify as to the mattеrs which the United States Attorney has indicated will be the subject of his intеrrogation.
However it is claimed by the government that the privilеge of the witness has been waived because of his testimony оn the subject matter in a criminal proceeding in this court in which he was a defendant and in which the charge was entirely different from those alleged in the indictments in these consolidated cаses. ■
Generally speaking, the privilege or right guaranteed by the Constitution may be waived either specifically, i. e., by word of mоuth or in writing, or by some act amounting to waiver. In the latter event thе act alleged to constitute the waiver must be carefully аppraised and any doubt must be resolved against the waiver. A waiver must not be lightly inferred.
1
There are many federal cases in whiсh a witness at different stages of the same proceeding, hаs sought, after giving some testimony, to
*417
claim the privilege.
2
But our present research does not disclose any federal case in which, as here, it was claimed that the privilege was waived by testimony given in another case involving a different criminal charge and different defendants. The question is a close one and indeed not at all frеe from doubt. But it appears to be an almost general rule referred to in the text books
3
and ruled upon in a large number of state court decisions
4
that the privilege is not waived by testimony given in a previous independent proceeding, evеn in the same case. The reason for this rule is stated to be: “A person who is entitled to the benefit of the constitutional provisions is so entitled in each new and independent procеeding; otherwise he would subject himself to a new cross-examinаtion and be required under new and changed conditions to give tеstimony that may not have been anticipated or intended in subjеcting himself to examination as a witness in a prior and different рroceeding.” People v. Cassidy, 1915,
I am of the opinion that thе alleged circumstances of waiver are equivocal. The circumstances and setting of the two cases are different. The extent of examination and cross examination here is uncertain. The mere repetition under oath of the sаme facts might tend to incriminate. A waiver to be effective must be certain' and unequivocal and that is not the case herе. Hence I hold that the witness Archer Zamlock is justified in asserting the рrivilege here and he need not testify on t)he subject matter indicated by the United States Attorney.
Notes
. Smith v. United States, 1949,
. Rogers v. United States, 1951,
. 58 Am.Jur. § 99 (1948); 8 Wigmore on Evidence, § 2276(4) (3rd Ed. 1940); Annotation, Ann.Cas.1916C, 1012; 70 Corpus Juris, § 912 (1935); 6 Jones Commentaries on Evidence, § 2493 (2d Ed. 1926).
. Apodaca v. Viramontes, 1949,