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):||22 May 2009|
|PDF File Size:||18.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.17 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The US Supreme Court affirmed.
The Court heretofore has not. The broad language in Counselman relied upon by petitioners. The United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as provided by 18 U.
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)
Bishop Atterbury’s Trial, supra, for which the House of Commons passed immunity legislation, kaatigar a prosecution for treasonable conspiracy. They ask us to reconsider and overrule Brown v. New York, supra, at U. InCongress had substituted use for transactional immunity in the federal immunity statute.
Kastigar v. United States
The court found both in contempt, and committed them to the custody of the Attorney General until either they answered the grand jury’s questions or the term of the grand jury expired. Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
But this Court has held that the Constitution does authorize the government to compel a witness to give potentially incriminating testimony, so long as no incriminating use is made of the resulting evidence. That power, however, is not absolute but is limited by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Hansard, Parliamentary History of England Waterfront Comm’n, supra, at U. Use immunity, the Court concluded, is compatible with the Fifth Amendment because it ensures that the compelled testimony cannot lead to prosecution. 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 Kastgar had granted petitioners transactional immunity.
Petitioners opposed issuance of the order, contending primarily that the scope of the immunity provided by the statute was not coextensive staets the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and knited was not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel their testimony.
Kastigar v. United States
Prior to the scheduled appearances, the government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U. United States, supra, at U.
The Court noted that a grant of immunity is not a pardon nor an amnesty from the crime. 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 safeguards, 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.
The Court’s analysis of this immunity unitd rested solely on Counselman: A witness might believe, with good reason, that his “immunized” testimony will inevitably lead to a felony conviction. They alone are in a position to trace the chains of information and investigation that lead to the evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution.
Kastigar v. United States – Wikipedia
In the course of its opinion, the Court made the following statement, on which petitioners heavily rely:. Sign in via your Institution.
Show Summary Details Overview Kastigar v. The only thing that the 5 th Amendment prohibits is compelled self-incrimination, and immunity from use and derivative use satisfies that statess. Senator Cullom introduced the new bill on Jan.
For when illegal police conduct has occurred, the exclusion of evidence does not purport to purge the conduct of its unconstitutional character. The irrelevance of Murphy unnited such a situation was made clear in Albertson v. But the power to compel testimony is not absolute.
First, because an immunity statute gives constitutional approval to the resulting interrogation, the government is under an obligation here to remove the danger of incrimination completely and absolutely, whereas, in the case of the exclusionary rules, it may be sufficient to shield the witness from the fruits of the illegal search or interrogation in a partial and reasonably adequate manner.
An immunity statute thus differs from an exclusionary rule of evidence in at least two critical respects. Don’t have an account? See supra at U.