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):||24 August 2016|
|PDF File Size:||15.17 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.45 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Prior to the scheduled appearances, the government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to unitedd questions and produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U.
For the paths of information through the investigative bureaucracy may well be long and winding, and even a prosecutor acting in the best of faith cannot be certain that somewhere in the depths of his investigative apparatus, often including hundreds of employees, there was unoted some prohibited use of the compelled testimony.
Kastigar v. United States – Oxford Reference
The Self-Incrimination Clause says: Don’t have an account? Waterfront Comm’n, supra; Ullmann v. The proposed immunity is thus of the same scope as that frequently, even unied unintentionally, conferred as the result of constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. Thus, the Albertson Court, which could have struck the statute by employing the test approved today, stafes well beyond, and measured the statute solely against the more restrictive standards of Counselman.
After refusing to answer certain questions on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate them, petitioners were kasfigar immunity.
The Murphy petitioners were subpoenaed to testify at a hearing conducted by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. The Commission recommended legislation to reform the nuited immunity laws. 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.
After undertaking an examination of the policies and purposes of the privilege, the Court overturned the rule that one jurisdiction within our federal structure may compel a witness to give testimony which could be used to convict him of a crime unkted another jurisdiction.
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 other words, petitioners assert that no immunity statute, however drawn, can afford a lawful basis for compelling incriminatory testimony.
The constitutional violation remains, and may provide the basis for other relief, such as a civil action for damages see 42 U. Language similar to the Counselman dictum statees be found in Brown v.
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.
Publications Pages Publications Pages. See also Bishop Atterbury’s Trial, 16 How. Transactional immunity, which accords full immunity from prosecution for kwstigar offense to which the compelled testimony relates, affords the witness considerably broader protection than does the Fifth Amendment privilege.
The immunity therefore is coextensive with the privilege and suffices to supplant it. 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.
Please check official sources. 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. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. Rather, they seek a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify.
While a grant of immunity must afford protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege, kastjgar need not be broader. A grant of immunity.
Kastigar v. United States
Transactional immunity would stztes broader protection than the Fifth Umited privilege, and is not constitutionally required. 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 make him a witness against himself.
The same is true of Smith v. The Supreme Court, Term, 78 Harv. See the remarks of Senator Cullom, 23 Cong. He was consequently adjudged in contempt of court. Second, because an immunity statute operates in advance of the interrogation, there is room to require a broad grant of transactional immunity without imperiling large numbers of otherwise valid convictions.
Hitchcock and hold that this attempt to dilute the Self-Incrimination Clause is unconstitutional.
Kastigar v. United States
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.
An immunity statute, on the other hand, is much more ambitious than any exclusionary rule. The US Supreme Court affirmed.
Federal immunity statutes have existed since The first federal immunity statute was enacted to facilitate an investigation of charges of corruption and vote buying in the House of Representatives. It usually operates to allow a citizen to remain silent when asked a question requiring an incriminatory answer.