Kastigar v. United States

1972-06-26

Headline: Court allows the federal Government to compel witnesses to testify by granting 'use and derivative use' immunity, barring prosecutors from using compelled testimony while permitting prosecutions based on independent evidence.

Holding: The Court held that federal immunity barring any use of compelled testimony and evidence derived from it is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege and can justify compelling a witness to testify.

Real World Impact:

Permits the federal Government to compel witnesses after granting use-and-derivative-use immunity.
Bars prosecutors from using compelled testimony or evidence traced to it in trials.
Allows prosecutions based on independent evidence developed without compelled testimony.

Topics: self-incrimination, witness immunity, grand jury testimony, federal prosecutions

Summary

Background

Two people subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in California refused to answer, invoking the Fifth Amendment right against forced self-incrimination. Before their appearances, the Government had asked a court to order them to testify under a new federal immunity law (18 U.S.C. §§6002–6003). The district court ordered them to testify, they still refused, were held in contempt, and a federal appeals court affirmed that contempt.

Reasoning

The Court examined history and prior decisions and focused on whether immunity that bars any use of compelled testimony and evidence derived from it is as protective as the Fifth Amendment. The majority concluded that a grant forbidding use, directly or indirectly, does put a witness in substantially the same position as remaining silent. The Court explained that prosecutors must prove at trial that any evidence they use comes from an independent, legitimate source, not from the compelled testimony.

Real world impact

As a result, federal investigators can require witnesses to testify before grand juries if the Government grants use-and-derivative-use immunity; prosecutors may not use the compelled testimony or its fruits, but may still prosecute using evidence shown to be independently obtained. The ruling affirms the constitutionality of the 1970 statute and upholds the contempt judgments in this case.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing that only full transactional immunity (a promise not to prosecute for the matters testified about) adequately protects the Fifth Amendment because reliance on prosecutors to prove non‑taint is insufficient.