SLU Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration Case Brief

Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration

TITLE AND CITATION: Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S 441 (1972)

TYPE OF ACTION: Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, even when granted immunity. 

FACTS OF THE CASE: Charles Kastigar and Michael G. Stewart received subpoenas to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California on February 4, 1971. The Government believed that the Petitioners would assert their Fifth Amendment rights. The Government wanted the Petitioners to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury and applied for a grant of immunity. The petitioners felt that immunity provided by the statute did not give enough protection against self-incrimination and was not sufficient to compel them to testify. Although both petitioners appeared, they refused to answer questions asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. District Court for the Central District of California found both petitioners in contempt and ordered them confined into the custody of the Attorney General. Both petitioners refused to answer grand jury questions despite the immunity waiver. They were held until they either answered the grand jury questions or the grand jury expired. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

ISSUE: The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incriminating protects against does not prevent Congress from writing laws that compel self-incrimination by a grant of immunity from prosecution.

• DECISION: The court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed petitioners being taken into custody. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a grant of immunity from prosecution can compel testimony.

REASONING: The states and the federal government must ensure the effective functioning of government is the ability to compel citizens to testify in court or before a grand jury as a primary source of evidence gathering. The statute reflects that in criminal offenses, only those implicated in the crime can provide information. 

RULE OF LAW: A grant of immunity has to provide protection commensurate with that afforded by the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. That scope need not be broader, and immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the privilege’s scope and sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of privilege. The court also decided that criminal prosecution of a person who has been granted immunity to testify, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the evidence used is derived from a legitimate source other than the compelled testimony. 

Petitioners argue that the scope of the immunity provided by the statute is not comparable to that of the privilege against self-incrimination. The statute ordering a witness by district court order to testify can not be refused by the witness based on the privilege against self-incrimination. The petitioners could face charges in a criminal case for perjury, giving false statements, or failing to comply with the order. That testimony given in a state proceeding of a criminal nature can be used against the defendant in a federal court. 

• The Government argues that the Statute allows the Government to apply for an order directing the petitioner to answer questions and provide evidence with a grant of immunity. The government’s power to compel by subpoena to testify before a grand jury is a well-established Anglo-American jurisprudence. The Judiciary Act of 1789, compulsory attendance of witnesses in federal courts. 

no less than 100 words , respond to this persons discussion