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.

Author: Moogukree Kajind
Country: Senegal
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 24 May 2004
Pages: 385
PDF File Size: 4.66 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.88 Mb
ISBN: 886-4-35495-376-6
Downloads: 73787
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Meztikus

The privilege has never been construed to mean that one who invokes it cannot subsequently be prosecuted. Burger Associate Justices William O.

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)

The first federal immunity statute was enacted to facilitate an investigation of charges of corruption and vote buying in the House of Representatives. There are a number of exemptions from the testimonial duty, [ Footnote 7 ] the most important of which is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

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.

Measured by that standard, the statute approved today by the Court fails miserably. Petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California on February 4, The Murphy Court emphasized that the scope of the privilege is the same in state and in federal proceedings.

In addition, Kastigar and Stewart argued that being forced to testify and possibly implicate oneself in a crime without being allowed to have a lawyer in the courtroom was a violation of the 6 th Amendment right to counsel.

Sign in to annotate. The District Court rejected this contention, and ordered petitioners to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions under the grant unitd immunity. 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.

Petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California on February 4, Use immunity prevents the government from using compelled testimony or any information derived from such testimony against the witness in a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Inasmuch as no inter-jurisdictional problems presented themselves, Murphy was not even cited. United States Supreme Court case. The Court heretofore has not Page U. In a decision Justices Brennan and Rehnquist took no part in the consideration of the casethe Court held that the government can overcome a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege by granting a witness “use and derivative use” immunity in exchange for his testimony.

  EWC 1350 PDF

Use immunity, the Court concluded, is compatible with the Fifth Amendment because it ensures that the compelled testimony cannot lead to prosecution. 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.

Applying this principle to the state immunity legislation before it, the Court held the constitutional rule to be that: This case presents the question whether the United States Government may compel testimony from an unwilling witness, who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, by conferring on the witness immunity from use of the compelled testimony in subsequent criminal proceedings, as well as immunity from use of evidence derived from the testimony.

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.

A grant of immunity Page U. After the winner responded and returned his ill-gotten gains, he was.

Kastigar v. United States :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The Court said in Hale v. In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory enactment, to be valid, must afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offence to which the question relates.

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.

This Court, however, apparently believes that Counselman and its progeny were overruled sub silentio in Murphy v. The Court repeatedly emphasized this deficiency, noting that the statute: The Counselman statute, as construed by the Court, was plainly deficient in its failure to. 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.


A witness might believe, with good reason, that his “immunized” testimony will inevitably lead to a felony conviction.

That is further proof that Murphy was not thought significantly to. In support of this contention, they rely on Counselman v. See the remarks of Senator Cullom, 23 Cong. Oral Argument – January 11, Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We held that the testimony in question could be compelled, but that the Federal Government would be barred from using any of the testimony, or its fruits, in a subsequent federal prosecution.

Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today 7 The Court repeatedly emphasized this deficiency, noting that the statute:.

Kastigar v. United States

For a concise history of testimonial compulsion prior to the adoption of our Constitution, see 8 J. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 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.

Indeed, their origins were in sstates context of such offenses, [ Footnote 14 ] Page U. When we allow the prosecution stztes offer only “use” immunity, we allow it to grant far less than it has taken away. For plain old regular immunity from use and derivative use like being offered hereif dtates are later filed against the witness, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the information came from a completely independent source.

The exclusionary rule of evidence that applies in that situation has nothing whatever to do with this case. The Government believed that petitioners were likely to assert their Fifth Amendment right. Therefore the prosecutor kastgar the two immunity and then ordered them to testify. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accordingly is.

One raising a claim under this statute need only show jastigar 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.