Apr 18 2020

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: Tejar Mugar
Country: Azerbaijan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Medical
Published (Last): 20 January 2006
Pages: 69
PDF File Size: 11.64 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.12 Mb
ISBN: 738-7-20598-448-3
Downloads: 28019
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zolorg

The Court’s analysis of this immunity provision rested solely on Counselman: Hansard, Parliamentary History of England The references were in the context of ancillary points not essential to the decisions of the Court.

A grant of immunity Page U. That power, however, is not absolute but is limited by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The first federal immunity statute was enacted to facilitate an investigation of charges of corruption and vote buying in the House of Representatives. The statute, a reenactment of the Immunity Act of[ Footnote 26 ] provided that no.

Kastigar v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In a subsequent unuted, an affirmative duty is placed on the government to prove that evidence it seeks to use is derived from a source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.

Burger Associate Justices William O. The Court today sets out a loose net to trap tainted evidence and prevent its use against the witness, but it accepts an intolerably great risk that tainted evidence will, in fact, slip through that net. It prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the kastibar testimony in any respect, and it therefore insures that the testimony cannot lead to the infliction of criminal penalties on the witness.

United StatesU. After refusing to answer certain questions on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate them, petitioners were granted immunity. Transactional immunity means that you are immune from prosecution for any offense to which the compelled testimony might relate, no matter what other evidence there is.

Rehnquist, Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. The Court heretofore has not.


Petitioners’ second contention is that the scope of immunity provided by the federal witness immunity statute, 18 U. We hold that such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against syates, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. The immunity therefore is coextensive with the privilege and suffices to supplant it.

Views Read Edit View history.

I cannot believe the Fifth Amendment permits that result. None of these factors applies when the threat of prosecution is from the jurisdiction seeking to compel the testimony, which is the situation we faced in Counselman, and which we face today.

As stated in Murphy: 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 unite the evidence it proposes to kadtigar was derived from Page U. Reconsideration of the rule that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not protect a witness in one jurisdiction against being compelled to give testimony that could be used to convict him in another jurisdiction was made necessary by the decision in Malloy v.

In commenting on its proposal in a special report to the President, the Tsates said: This is unietd substantial protection, [ Footnote 51 ] commensurate with that resulting from invoking the privilege itself.

The irrelevance of Murphy to such a situation was made clear in Albertson v.

Kastigar v. United States – Oxford Reference

The statute provides that, when a witness is compelled by district court order to testify over a claim of the privilege: 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.

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.

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. New York, supra, at U.

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

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. 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. 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.


However, the required testimony would implicate them in a crime. The exclusionary rule of evidence that applies in that situation has nothing whatever to do with this case.

Kastigar v. United States

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. The US Supreme Court found that a witness “who invokes the 5 th Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination” can be compelled to statee if given immunity “as such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of privilege.

Rather, they seek a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify. Petitioners appeared but refused to answer questions, asserting their right against compulsory self-incrimination.

Both witness and government know precisely where they stand. Kastigar and Stewart refused to testify, and were arrested and charged with contempt. 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. The Commission recommended legislation to reform the federal immunity laws.