Where a target of a grand jury investigation is compelled under threat of the pains and penalties of the law to appear to testify at the grand jury and is placed under oath but not advised of his privilege against self-incrimination, does the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbid the use of that person's incriminating grand jury testimony against himself at his criminal trial (other than a trial for perjury)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Where a target of a grand jury investigation is compelled under threat of the pains and penalties of the law to appear to testify at the grand jury and is placed under oath but not advised of his privilege against self-incrimination, does the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbid the use of that person’s incriminating grand jury testimony against himself at his criminal trial (other than a trial for perjury)? 2) The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) failed to address Woods’s claim that, in the absence of self-incrimination warnings, the use at trial of his grand jury testimony, given the means by which it was obtained, resulted in a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Instead, the SJC misconstrued Woods’s claim as a claim that the government was constitutionally obliged to provide him with a self-incrimination warning before he testified at the grand jury. In this situation, did the SJC silently adjudicate Woods’s actual claim on the merits, or is there “reason to think some other explanation for the state court’s decision is more likely” under Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 99-100, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 (2011), meaning that Woods is entitled to have his claim reviewed de novo in federal court? i