Kastigar v. United States case brief summary
406 U.S. 441
SYNOPSIS:
Petitioners sought review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that respondent United States could compel testimony from petitioners by conferring on them immunity from the use of the compelled testimony despite the fact that petitioners invoked their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
OVERVIEW:
-Petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury.
-Petitioners refused to answer questions, asserting their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, despite a grant of immunity proffered by respondent, the United States.
-Petitioners contended that the scope of immunity was less broad than the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination.
HOLDING:
On review, the court held that the immunity provided by respondent left the witness and the prosecutorial authorities in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
ANALYSIS:
-The immunity therefore was coextensive with the privilege and sufficed to supplant it.
-The court held that petitioners had been offered both use immunity and immunity from transactions arising from the testimony (transactional immunity), therefore, petitioners could be compelled to testify.
-The judgment of the appellate court compelling petitioners to testify was therefore affirmed.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed and petitioners were denied relief on review. The court held that respondent could compel testimony from petitioners despite the fact that they had invoked their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, by conferring on them immunity from use of compelled testimony.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
406 U.S. 441
SYNOPSIS:
Petitioners sought review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that respondent United States could compel testimony from petitioners by conferring on them immunity from the use of the compelled testimony despite the fact that petitioners invoked their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
OVERVIEW:
-Petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury.
-Petitioners refused to answer questions, asserting their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, despite a grant of immunity proffered by respondent, the United States.
-Petitioners contended that the scope of immunity was less broad than the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination.
HOLDING:
On review, the court held that the immunity provided by respondent left the witness and the prosecutorial authorities in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
ANALYSIS:
-The immunity therefore was coextensive with the privilege and sufficed to supplant it.
-The court held that petitioners had been offered both use immunity and immunity from transactions arising from the testimony (transactional immunity), therefore, petitioners could be compelled to testify.
-The judgment of the appellate court compelling petitioners to testify was therefore affirmed.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed and petitioners were denied relief on review. The court held that respondent could compel testimony from petitioners despite the fact that they had invoked their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, by conferring on them immunity from use of compelled testimony.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment