This I would respectfully submit, is use immunity statute that has no limitations indeed it is called a general immunity law. Security, Unique First, the history and development of the privilege and the logic compel absolute immunity be granted and nothing less. Well, Your Honor I would assume so but I am not addressing myself to the question of scope as--, Well, I am just inquiring as to the scope of –-. It has to be the authority for giving, immunity must be approved by the attorney general or its authorized representative, but I would submit Your Honor that under Section 6002 has to be as –. Petitioners refuse to testify at a grand jury hearing on Fifth Amendment grounds despite their having been granted immunity. • I would assume Your Honor that that would be true in both cases but I could not represent as to its effect with regard to the house or congress might certainly confirm that that would be true as regards immunity for a grand jury. Petitioners refuse to testify at a grand jury hearing on Fifth Amendment grounds despite their having been granted immunity. The government may compel testimony even though subpoenaed persons have invoked their privilege versus self-incrimination if they have conferred immunity from use on their compelled testimony. • The attorney general, the deputy or one of the assistants here in Washington, do I read the statute correctly? An immunity grant is only adequate if it operates as a complete pardon for the offense. This case involves the constitutionality of the federal use immunity statute Title 18 Sections 6002 and 6003. And is that true also with respect to subsection 3 of 6002 when it involves questions before a committee of all the houses of congress.
Dissent. They cannot guarantee the absolute immunity which the Fifth Amendment demand requires. This case arises from the imprisonment for civil contempt of the petitioners, both of them, by the federal district Court or the central district of California for refusing to answer questions put to them by the -- before the grand jury for violations or alleged violations of the selective service law.
Kastigar v. United States (1972). 2d 212, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 57 (U.S. 1972). 47 Bergen St--Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA, Service Justice William O. Douglas dissented because he believed that if transactional immunity was absent, the grant of immunity was not sufficient under the constitution to compel witness’ testimony. Facts. HAVEN’T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT? Hugh R. Manes: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. A 'Kastigar Letter' is used to proffer information that might be valuable to the Department of Justice without risk of self-incrimination. The total proscription on use found in this federal statute, that is, from both use and derivative use, provides enough of a safeguard against Fifth Amendment rights being infringed on by barring the testimony from even being used as an investigatory lead. Before I proceed with that argument, I would like to point out something about this particular statute that we are dealing with which is in response to questions put to prior counsel.
If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware. Kastigar v. United States 406 U.S. 441 (1972) Case Text.
Issue. Petitioners contend here that only transactional immunity will satisfy the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? Brief Fact Summary. Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Finally we argue that use immunity conferred by 6002 coupled with existing statute for example the Jenks Act rule 16 and other provisions. Can the government, by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony in future prosecutions, force a witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment to testify?
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). FOR ONLY $13.90/PAGE, Illinois State Penitentiary at Menard, Illinois, D. H. Overmyer Company, Inc., of Ohio v. Frick →, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. CitationKastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. Ct. 1653, 32 L. Ed. Yes.
This basically means that the government may pursue any investigative leads suggested by, any statements or other information provided by a defendant. And we submit that where you have a statute that is as broad as the statute at bar from a prosecution point of view if it is there, it is going to be used. Since this case and Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Comm.
Working 24/7, 100% Purchase
The petitioners were accorded use immunity by the United States Attorney and ordered to answer by the United States District Court pursuant to that immunity which was conferred under Section 6002 and they declined to answer the questions in any event invoking their privilege on their theory that the immunity offered by 6002 was incomplete. Neither this letter nor the interview requires the government to enter into any plea discussions with your client or to file any motion regarding cooperation provided by your client. The majority in this case foresees enforcement of the grants of immunity through “taint hearings” in which the prosecution has an affirmative duty to show an independent source. The question presented in this case, whether federal use immunity as conferred by Section 6002 is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He was found in contempt of court for failing to testify.
As such has to deprive the witness of due process and abridge his right guarantee him by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and particularly to render these immunity statutes at bar unfair as against the subject witness who may become an accused person. Robert C. Bonsib, Esq. Of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472 (1972) were decided, many states have moved to use/derivative use immunity from transactional immunity. A Kastigar letter, also known as a proffer letter, is supposed to ensure that the prosecution and defense could engage in preliminary discussions looking towards a fair resolution of a potential or pending criminal matter without either party being unfairly disadvantaged. Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.
Mr. Manes you may proceed whenever you are ready.