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):||11 July 2015|
|PDF File Size:||7.96 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I The power of government to compel persons to testify in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence.
Sign in to annotate. See also n 35, supra. The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being forced to give testimony that could be used against him or her in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Transactional immunity, which accords full immunity from prosecution for the offense to which the compelled testimony relates, affords the witness considerably broader protection than does the Fifth Amendment privilege.
For when illegal police conduct has occurred, the exclusion of evidence does not purport to purge the conduct of its unconstitutional character.
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)
Since New Jersey and New York had not purported to confer immunity from federal prosecution, the Court was faced with the question what limitations the Fifth Amendment privilege imposed on the prosecutorial powers of the Federal Government, a nonimmunizing sovereign. Sixteen days after the Counselman decision, a new immunity bill was introduced by Senator Cullom, [ Footnote 31 ] who urged that enforcement of the Interstate Commerce Act would be impossible in the absence of an effective immunity statute.
Today the Court holds that the United States may compel a witness to give incriminating testimony, and subsequently prosecute him for crimes to which that testimony relates.
stqtes This protection coextensive with the privilege is the degree of protection that the Constitution requires, and is all that the Constitution requires even against the jurisdiction compelling testimony by granting immunity. Murphy involved state witnesses, granted transactional immunity under state law, who refused to testify for fear of subsequent federal prosecution. This Court granted certiorari to resolve the important question whether testimony may be compelled by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom “use and derivative use” immunityor whether it is necessary to grant immunity from prosecution for offenses to which compelled testimony relates “transactional” immunity.
The Appellate Court affirmed.
See also Bishop Atterbury’s Trial, 16 How. After refusing to unoted certain questions on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate them, petitioners were granted immunity.
Counselman was decided Jan. An immunity statute, on the other hand, is much more ambitious than any exclusionary rule. One raising a claim under this statute need only show that he testified under a grant of immunity in order unuted shift to the government the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from.
The Government believed that petitioners were likely to assert their Fifth Amendment right. The privilege assures that a citizen is not compelled to incriminate himself by his own testimony. While a grant of immunity must afford protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege, it need not be broader.
Kastigar v. United States – Wikipedia
Kastigar and Stewart refused to testify, and were arrested and charged with contempt. In my view, the Court turns reason on its head when it compares a statutory grant of immunity to the “immunity” that is inadvertently conferred by an unconstitutional interrogation. 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.
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. United States U. No question arises of tracing the use or non-use of information gleaned from the witness’ compelled testimony.
The Murphy Court emphasized that the scope of the privilege is the same in state and in federal proceedings. In the course of its opinion, the Court made the following statement, on which petitioners heavily rely:. Chief Justice Warren E. Immunity statutes, which have historical roots deep in Anglo-American jurisprudence, [ Statess 13 ] are not incompatible.
The statute, a reenactment of the Immunity Act of[ Footnote 26 ] provided tsates no. Use immunity, the Court concluded, is compatible with the Fifth Amendment because it ensures that the compelled testimony cannot lead to prosecution.
The sole question presented to a court is whether the subsequent prosecution is related to the substance of the compelled testimony. United States, supra, at U. For while the precise testimony that is compelled may not be used, leads from that testimony may Page U. The broad language in Counselman relied upon by petitioners. Use immunity prevents the government from using compelled testimony or any information derived from such testimony against the witness in a subsequent criminal prosecution.
As the Murphy Court noted, immunity from use and derivative use “leaves the witness and the Federal Government in substantially the same position Page U. See Comment, n 13, supra, 72 Yale L.
Kastigar v. United States
We make 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 only way to provide that guarantee is to give the witness immunity from prosecution for crimes to which his testimony relates.
Prior to the scheduled appearances, the Government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to answer questions kastgar produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U.
That is further proof that Murphy was not thought significantly to Page U. They were brought before the District Court, and each persisted in his refusal to answer the grand jury’s questions, notwithstanding the grant of immunity.
This Court, however, apparently believes that Counselman and its progeny were overruled sub silentio in Murphy v. But I cannot agree that a ban on use will in practice be total, if it remains open for the government to convict the witness on the basis of evidence derived from a legitimate independent source. This transactional immunity statute became the basic form for the numerous federal immunity statutes [ Footnote 35 ] untilwhen, after reexamining applicable constitutional principles and the adequacy of existing law, Congress enacted the statute here under consideration.
We conclude, moreover, that, in order to implement this constitutional rule and accommodate the interests of the State and Federal Governments in investigating and prosecuting crime, the Federal Government must be prohibited from making any such use of compelled testimony and its fruits. The District Court rejected ordered petitioners to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions, under the grant of immunity.
Kastigar v. United States
Justice Frankfurter observed, speaking for the Court in Ullmann v. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proving affirmatively that evidence proposed to be used is derived from a legitimate source, wholly independent of the compelled unitef.
Search within my subject specializations: Petitioners’ second contention is that the scope of immunity provided by the federal witness immunity statute, 18 U. United StatesU.