Case opinion for US Supreme Court KASTIGAR v. UNITED STATES. Read the Court’s full decision on FindLaw. Kastigar cited his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before a grand jury, even though prosecutors had. United States: The Immunity Standard Redefined,” The Catholic Lawyer: Vol. No. 4, Article The case to be discussed in this comment, Kastigar v. United.
|Published (Last):||10 November 2006|
|PDF File Size:||3.55 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.21 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We conclude that the immunity provided by 18 U. Articles with short description. A grant of immunity Page U. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)
Applying this principle kastigzr the state immunity legislation before it, the Court unitedd the constitutional rule to be that: It is true that, in Murphy, the Court was not presented with the precise question presented by this case, whether a jurisdiction seeking to compel testimony may do so by granting only use and derivative use immunity, for New Jersey and New York had granted petitioners transactional immunity.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Court recognizes that an immunity statute must be tested by that standard, that the relevant inquiry is whether it “leaves the witness and the prosecutorial authorities in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege. There can be no justification in reason or policy for holding that the Constitution requires an amnesty grant where, acting pursuant to statute and accompanying statew, testimony is compelled in exchange for immunity from use and derivative use when no such amnesty is required where the government, acting without colorable right, coerces a defendant into incriminating himself.
If, as some iastigar thought, the Bill of Rights contained only “counsels of moderation” from which courts and legislatures could deviate according to their conscience or discretion, then today’s contraction of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment would be understandable.
Accordingly, under the principle that a grant of immunity cannot supplant the privilege, and is not sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege, unless the scope of the grant of immunity is coextensive with the scope of the privilege, [ Footnote 30 ] the witness’ refusal to testify was held proper.
Brown and Hale, however, involved statutes that were clearly sufficient to supplant the privilege against self-incrimination, as they provided full immunity from prosecution “for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence. He was consequently adjudged in contempt of court. In any event, the Court in Ullmann v. In other words, petitioners assert that no immunity statute, however drawn, can afford a lawful basis for compelling incriminatory testimony.
Kastigar v. United States – Wikipedia
When we allow the prosecution to offer only “use” immunity, we allow it to grant far less than it has taken away. The Court asserts that the witness is adequately protected by a rule imposing on the government a heavy burden of proof if it would establish the independent character of evidence to be used against the witness. As the Murphy Court noted, immunity from use and derivative use “leaves the witness staates the Federal Government in substantially the same position.
That margin can be provided only by immunity from prosecution for the offenses to which the testimony relates, i. Hitchcock, supra, at U. The Court repeatedly emphasized this deficiency, noting that the statute:.
The broad language in Counselman relied upon by petitioners.
For the paths of information through the investigative bureaucracy may well be long and winding, and even a prosecutor acting in the best of faith cannot be certain that somewhere in the depths of his investigative apparatus, often including hundreds of employees, there was not some prohibited use of the compelled testimony.
We hold that such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore stages sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. This statement was made with specific reference to the Compulsory Testimony Act of27 Stat. Bishop Atterbury’s Trial, supra, for which the House of Commons passed immunity legislation, was a prosecution for treasonable conspiracy.
We statws no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. The legislatures in colonial Pennsylvania and New York f immunity legislation in the 18th century.
Transactional immunity would afford broader protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege and is not constitutionally required. Notwithstanding a grant of immunity and order to testify under the revised Act, the witness, asserting his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, refused to sgates before a federal grand jury.
If an unconstitutional interrogation or search were held to create transactional immunity, that might well be regarded stages an excessively high price to pay for the “constable’s blunder. In most cases, derivative use immunity is the functional equivalent of transactional immunity. This statute, which operates after a witness has given incriminatory testimony, affords the same protection by assuring that the compelled testimony can in no way lead to the infliction of criminal kaastigar.
Supreme Court of the United States. We start from the premise, repeatedly affirmed by this Court, that an appropriately broad immunity grant is compatible with the Constitution.
We held uinted the testimony in question could be compelled, but that the Federal Government kastigaf be barred from using any of the testimony, or its fruits, in a subsequent federal prosecution. Applying this principle to the state immunity legislation before it, the Court held the constitutional rule to be that:.
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. One raising a claim under this statute need only show that he testified under a grant of immunity in order to shift to the government the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or akstigar.
See the remarks of Senator Cullom, 23 Cong.