Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Kastigar v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFifth Amendmentuse immunitytransactional immunitycompelled testimonyFifth Amendmentself-incriminationimmunity

Facts

The Government subpoenaed petitioners to appear before a federal grand jury and, anticipating Fifth Amendment objections, obtained a district court order compelling testimony under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003. Petitioners argued that the statute's immunity was not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment because it granted only immunity from use of compelled testimony and evidence derived from it, not full immunity from prosecution for related offenses. After the district court rejected that argument and ordered them to answer, petitioners still refused and were held in contempt. Their challenge in the Supreme Court was directed at the constitutional sufficiency of the statute's use and derivative-use immunity.

Issue

May the federal government compel testimony from a witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment by granting immunity only from use of the compelled testimony and evidence directly or indirectly derived from it? Or does the Constitution require broader transactional immunity from prosecution for offenses related to the compelled testimony?

Rule

A grant of immunity is constitutionally sufficient to displace the Fifth Amendment privilege and compel testimony if it is coextensive with the privilege. Immunity from the use of compelled testimony and from the use of evidence directly or indirectly derived from that testimony is coextensive with the privilege; transactional immunity is broader than the Constitution requires. If an immunized witness is later prosecuted, the prosecution must affirmatively prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal grand jury in Chicago is investigating bid-rigging in municipal supply contracts. Dana Ortiz is ordered by a district court to testify after the government obtains an immunity order providing that neither her compelled testimony nor any information directly or indirectly derived from it may be used against her in any criminal case, except for perjury or false statements.

Dana refuses to answer, arguing that she can still be prosecuted later for the same scheme and therefore only immunity from prosecution would satisfy the Fifth Amendment. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that immunity coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege is enough to supplant the privilege. Use and derivative-use immunity is coextensive because it bars any direct or indirect use of the compelled testimony in a criminal case. Transactional immunity is broader than the Constitution requires, so Dana's refusal is unjustified and contempt is proper. (Derived from Kastigar v. United States (1972).)