skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 135634 Find in a Library
Title: Nonevidentiary Use of Compelled Testimony and the Increased Likelihood of Conviction
Journal: Arizona Law Review  Volume:32  Issue:1  Dated:(1990)  Pages:173-192
Author(s): J Keenan
Date Published: 1990
Page Count: 20
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Until 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently held that a witness claiming the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination could be compelled to testify only if he was granted immunity from prosecution for any transaction revealed in his testimony. However, in Kastigar v. United States, the court upheld an immunity statute that permitted subsequent prosecution of the witness, but proscribed any direct or indirect use of the compelled testimony.
Abstract: The nonevidentiary uses of compelled testimony and their prejudicial effects are examined in this article. The background of the fifth amendment privilege within the context of leading Supreme Court rulings concerning the constitutionality of compelled testimony laws is outlined. The Kastigar opinion and its effect on lower court decisions and efforts to resolve the decision's ambiguities are analyzed. The article considers the debate over nonevidentiary use. The author maintains that the Supreme Court's construction of the fifth amendment privilege and immunity legislation prohibits any nonevidentiary use that increases the likelihood of criminal penalties for the witness. He challenges the assumption that the difficulty of proving no such use occurred effectively immunizes the witness from prosecution. Suggested procedural safeguards to address the problems associated with excluding nonevidentiary uses of compelled testimony involve restricted access and prima facie use, declaration of intent to prosecute prior to compulsion, and the standard of proof. 187 notes
Main Term(s): Right against self incrimination; Witness immunity
Index Term(s): Testimony; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.