Case law · Highest court · Federal

Kastigar v. United States

Decided
June 26, 1972
Docket
70-117
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 2,510 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

  • holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity" — United States v. Patane (2004)
  • recognizing that the "Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination ... can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory ..." — Chavez v. Martinez (2003)
  • recognizing that the “Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination . . . can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory . . .” — Chavez v. Martinez (2003)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

[*442] Mr. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether the United States Government may compel testimony from an unwilling witness, who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, by conferring on the witness immunity from use of the compelled testimony in subsequent criminal proceedings, as well as immunity from use of evidence derived from the testimony.

Petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California on February 4, 1971. The Government believed that petitioners were likely to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege. Prior to the scheduled appearances, the Government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §§ 6002-6003. Petitioners opposed issuance of the order, contending primarily that the scope of the immunity provided by the statute was not coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore was not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel their testimony. The District Court rejected this contention, and ordered petitioners to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions under the grant of immunity.

Statutes cited

Cite this

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

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.