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: Daijin Gazshura
Country: Venezuela
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Video
Published (Last): 23 November 2008
Pages: 68
PDF File Size: 13.34 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.82 Mb
ISBN: 212-6-14057-705-3
Downloads: 49414
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tolrajas

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.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. I would adhere to Counselman v. Our holding is consistent with the conceptual basis of Counselman. The constitutional inquiry, rooted in logic and history as well as in the decisions of this Court, is whether the immunity granted under this statute is coextensive with the scope of the privilege.

But Counselman, Page U. Kastigar and Stewart argued that the subpoena violated their 5 th Amendment right against self-incrimination because the grant of immunity did not include transactional immunity. Waterfront Comm’n, supra, at U.

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

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 Court said in Hale v. The statute provides a sweeping proscription of any use, direct or indirect, of the compelled testimony and any information derived therefrom: The proposed immunity is thus of the same scope as that frequently, even though unintentionally, conferred as the result of constitutional violations by law enforcement officers.


An exclusionary rule comes into play after the interrogation or search has occurred, and the decision to question or to search is often made in haste, under pressure, by an officer who is not a lawyer. The Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor is a bi-state body established under an interstate compact approved by Congress.


Supreme Court of the United States. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. The Lord Chancellor was accused by the House of Commons of the sale of public offices and appointments. 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.

Kastigar v. United States

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Applying this principle to the state immunity legislation before it, the Court held the constitutional rule to be that:. An immunity statute operates in advance of the event, and it authorizes kashigar even encourages — interrogation that would otherwise be prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. 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.

The Murphy Court emphasized that the scope of kastigxr privilege is the same in state and in federal proceedings.

kastiga Retrieved from ” https: The government may compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings. In commenting on its proposal in a special report to the President, the Commission said:. Evidence obtained through a coercive interrogation, like evidence obtained through an illegal search, is excluded at trial because the Constitution prohibits such methods of gathering evidence.

New York, U.

Kastigar v. United States – Wikipedia

The constitutional violation remains, and may provide the basis for other relief, such as a civil action for damages see 42 U. I do not see how it can suffice merely to kasstigar the burden of proof on the government. For both these reasons, it is kastibar to me that an immunity statute must be tested by a standard far more demanding than that appropriate for an exclusionary rule fashioned to deal with past constitutional violations. 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.


Kastigar v. United States

The Court heretofore has not. Publications Pages Publications Pages. Kastigar and Stewart refused to testify, and were arrested and charged with contempt.

The Appellate Court affirmed. Such testimony constitutes one of the Government’s primary sources of information. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Unired appeared but refused to answer questions, asserting their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

The broad language in Counselman relied upon by petitioners. For while the precise testimony that is compelled may not be used, leads from that testimony may. That margin can be provided only by immunity from prosecution for the offenses to which the testimony relates, i. Kastigar and Stewart appealed. A grant of immunity.

III Petitioners’ second contention is that the scope of immunity provided by the federal witness immunity statute, 18 U. The broad language in Counselman relied upon by petitioners Page U. It is also possible that use immunity might actually have an adverse impact on the administration of justice, rather than promote law enforcement.

Author: admin