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):||8 November 2012|
|PDF File Size:||20.44 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
United States, supra, decisions that uphold the constitutionality of immunity statutes. See also n 35, supra. That margin can be provided only by immunity from prosecution for kasrigar offenses to which the testimony relates, i. See Comment, n 13, supra, 72 Yale L.
Kastigar v. United States
But I cannot agree that a ban staates 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. New Developments and New Confusion, 10 St. 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.
This is very substantial protection, [ Footnote 51 ] commensurate with that resulting from invoking the privilege itself. Subversive Activities Control Board, U. The existence of these statutes reflects the importance of testimony and the fact that many offenses are of such a character that the only persons capable of giving useful testimony are those implicated in the crime.
The government should still be allowed to prosecute using evidence from legitimate independent sources.
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. Petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California on February 4, These statutes provided that the loser could sue the winner, who was compelled to answer the loser’s charges.
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)
One raising a claim under this statute need only show kastigad 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. 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 testimony.
It is also possible that use immunity might actually have an adverse impact on the administration of justice, rather than promote law enforcement. 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 Page U.
For while the precise testimony that is compelled may not be used, kqstigar from that testimony may. Murphy involved state witnesses, granted transactional immunity under state law, who refused to testify for fear of subsequent federal prosecution.
Kastigar v. United States – Oxford Reference
Burger Associate Justices William O. The Self-Incrimination Clause creates, as I have said before, “the federally protected right of silence,” making it unconstitutional to use a law “to pry open one’s lips and katigar him a witness against himself. The statute provides a sweeping proscription of any use, direct or indirect, of the compelled testimony and any information derived therefrom: Petitioners contend, first, that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, which is that “[n]o person.
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. The Court heretofore has not.
If, as some have thought, the Bill of Rights contained only “counsels of moderation” from which courts and legislatures could deviate according to their conscience or unied, then today’s contraction of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment would be understandable.
Waterfront Commission of New York U. Six Agents, U.
Kastigar v. United States – Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Lord Chancellor Macclesfield’s Trial, supra, for which Parliament passed immunity legislation, was a prosecution for political bribery involving the sale of public offices and appointments. Kastigar argued that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prohibits the compulsion of testimony under a grant of use immunity but instead requires transactional immunity at the very least.
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 testimony. Rehnquist, Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. 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.
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 penalties. That is indeed one of the chief procedural guarantees in our accusatorial system. 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.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accordingly is. The Appellate Court affirmed. If, on the other hand, the immunity granted is not as comprehensive as the protection afforded by the privilege, petitioners were justified in refusing to answer, and the judgments of contempt must be vacated. See also Bishop Atterbury’s Trial, 16 How.
The Court recognizes that an immunity statute must be tested by that uniyed, 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.
The Counselman statute, as construed by the Court, was plainly deficient in its failure to.
Transactional immunity would afford broader protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege and is not constitutionally required. InCongress had substituted use unitde transactional immunity in the federal immunity statute.
In commenting on its proposal in a special report uniteed the President, the Commission said: Both the statute and the Fifth Amendment allow the government to prosecute using evidence from legitimate independent sources.
Retrieved from ” https: United States, F. First, contrary to the Court’s assertion, the Court’s rule does leave the witness “dependent for the preservation of his rights upon the integrity and good faith of the prosecuting authorities. Unuted statute provides a sweeping proscription of any use, direct or indirect, of the compelled testimony and any information derived therefrom:.