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):||19 October 2012|
|PDF File Size:||15.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.10 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This statement was made with specific reference to the Compulsory Testimony Act of27 Stat.
If transactional immunity had been deemed to be the “constitutional rule,” there could be no federal prosecution. 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.
As the Murphy Court noted, immunity from use and derivative use “leaves the witness and the Federal Government in substantially the same position. I do not see how it can suffice merely to put the burden of proof on the government. It usually operates to allow a citizen to remain silent when asked a question requiring an incriminatory answer. In commenting on its proposal in a special report to the President, the Commission said:.
See the remarks of Senator Cullom, 23 Cong. Murphy overruled not Counselman, but Feldman v. 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. Such testimony constitutes one of the Government’s primary sources of information.
See also Piemonte v. 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.
The legislatures in colonial Pennsylvania and New York enacted immunity legislation in the 18th century. It is also possible that use immunity might actually have an adverse impact on the administration of justice, rather than promote law enforcement.
More Like This Show all results sharing this subject: The basis of the Court’s decision was recognized in Ullmann v. Transactional immunity would afford broader protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege, and is not constitutionally required. Petitioners appeared but refused to answer questions, asserting their right against compulsory self-incrimination. The Murphy petitioners were subpoenaed to testify at a hearing conducted by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.
Kastigar v. United States :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Search within my subject specializations: Kastigar and Stewart appealed. The statute is a product of careful study and consideration by the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, as well as by Congress. Language similar to the Counselman dictum can be found in Brown v. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
United States Supreme Court case. Notwithstanding a grant of immunity and order to testify under the revised Act, the witness, asserting his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, refused to testify before a federal grand jury. Murphy involved state witnesses, granted transactional immunity under state law, who refused to testify for fear of subsequent federal prosecution. I assume, unifed, that in theory that test would be met by a complete ban on the use of the compelled testimony, including all derivative use, however remote and indirect.
It prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the compelled testimony in any respect, and it therefore insures that the testimony cannot lead to the infliction of criminal penalties on the witness.
Sign in via your Institution.
The only thing that the 5 th Amendment prohibits is compelled self-incrimination, and immunity from use and derivative use satisfies that prohibition. While a grant of immunity must afford protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege, it need not be unitev. 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 v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)
Its sole concern is to afford protection against being “forced to give testimony statees to the infliction of penalties affixed to. Indeed, their origins were in the context of such offenses, [ Footnote 14 ]. The Commission recommended legislation to reform the federal immunity laws. Views Read Edit View history.
Kastigar v. United States – Oxford Reference
This is very substantial protection, [ Footnote 51 ] commensurate with that resulting from invoking the privilege itself. 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.
The statute provides a sweeping proscription of any use, direct or indirect, of the compelled testimony and any information derived therefrom:.