Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealtestimonydue processself-incriminationcase lawappellantgrand jury

statuteappealtestimonydue processself-incriminationappellantgrand jury

Related Cases

Stewart v. U.S., 440 F.2d 954

Facts

Michael Stewart and Charles Kastigar were called to testify before a federal grand jury investigating possible violations of U.S. laws. They were granted immunity under the Organized Crime Control Act but refused to answer questions, claiming their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The district court found them in civil contempt and ordered their confinement, leading to this appeal.

Appellants' difficulties stem from the fact that each of them refused to answer questions put to him by the federal grand jury after an order granting immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6001 et seq. had been obtained for each.

Issue

Whether the immunity provision of the Organized Crime Control Act violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and whether the summary procedure imposed by the Act denies the appellants due process.

They claim the shelter of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. They also assert that the summary procedure provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1826 denies them due process of law.

Rule

The immunity provision of the Organized Crime Control Act protects witnesses from having their compelled testimony used against them in criminal cases, except for prosecutions related to perjury or false statements. The court applied the standard that compelled testimony must not be used in a manner that violates the Fifth Amendment.

The statute now under question appears clearly within the protective limitations of the Fifth Amendment as construed by Murphy.

Analysis

The court analyzed the immunity provision in light of the Fifth Amendment and previous case law, concluding that the statute provides adequate protection against self-incrimination. It determined that the immunity granted was sufficient to compel testimony without violating constitutional rights, as long as the testimony and its fruits could not be used in a criminal prosecution against the witness.

It seems apparent from this footnote that the Court does not believe that the immunized testimony must bar all prosecution for the ‘transaction’ about which he testified.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, holding that the immunity provision of the Organized Crime Control Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment and that the appellants were afforded due process.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court upheld the validity of the immunity provision and the contempt order against the appellants.

The statute pursuant to which this appeal was taken requires that the appeal be disposed of not later than thirty days from its filing.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Greenfield v. Villager Industries, Inc., 483 F.2d 824, 32 A.L.R. Fed. 83, 17 Fed.R.Serv.2d 577, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,037

Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740

United States v. DeCoster, 828 F.3d 626

People v. Guzman, 8 Cal.5th 673, 453 P.3d 1130, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 19 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,669, 2019 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,336

In re Witness Before Special Grand Jury 2000-2, 288 F.3d 289, 58 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1142