NCJ Number
6518
Journal
Northwestern University Law Review Volume: 67 Issue: 1 Dated: (MARCH/APRIL 1972) Pages: 106-117
Date Published
1972
Length
12 pages
Annotation
ANALYSIS OF TWO CONFLICTING CASES REGARDING THE EXTENT OF IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION GIVEN TO WITNESSESS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY DESPITE THE SELF-INCRIMINATION PRIVILEGE.
Abstract
MOST STATE IMMUNITY STATUTES GRANT TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY, WHICH IS COMPLETE PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS TESTIFIES. THE ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1970 CREATED USE AND FRUITS IMMUNITY UNDER WHICH A WITNESS MAY BE SUBSEQUENTLY PROSECUTED, WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT BEING ABLE TO USE HIS TESTIMONY OR ANY EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM IT AGAINST HIM AT A LATER TRIAL. THIS STANDARD WAS FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL BY ONE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN STEWART V US, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY ANOTHER IN RE KORMAN. THE AUTHOR REVIEWS THE HISTORY OF IMMUNITY STATUTES AND THE BENEFITS AND LIABILITIES OF EACH TYPE OF IMMUNITY IN LIGHT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF PROSECUTION BY ONE JURISDICTION FOR TESTIMONY THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN IMMUNITY BY ANOTHER. HE CONCLUDES THAT TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY IS THE PROPER STANDARD IF THE JURISDICTION QUESTIONING THE WITNESS IS CONSIDERING PROSECUTION, BUT THAT THE USE AND FRUITS STANDARD IS TO BE USED IF ANOTHER JURISDICTION WANTS TO PROSECUTE AND HAS INDEPENDENT GROUNDS FOR DOING SO.