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: 141968 Find in a Library
Title: Nonevidentiary Use of Immunized Testimony: Twenty Years After Kastigar and the Jury Is Still Out
Journal: American Journal of Criminal Law  Volume:20  Issue:1  Dated:(Fall 1992)  Pages:105-133
Author(s): D A Turner
Date Published: 1992
Page Count: 29
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This analysis of the Federal immunity statute focuses on the extent to which the nonevidentiary use of immunized testimony is prohibited by the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
Abstract: The analysis focuses on the concept of use immunity in the Federal code, its establishment by the United States Supreme court in its 1972 decision in Kastigar v. United States, and its controversial application to nonevidentiary uses over the last 20 years. The analysis concludes that much of the confusion stems from the existence of two issues rather than one: (1) whether the current immunity statute or the fifth amendment prohibit nonevidentiary use of immunized testimony and (2) who has the burden of proof regarding this nonevidentiary use. Both the fifth amendment and the use immunity statute prohibit nonevidentiary use. In addition, while the initial burden to provide that nonevidentiary use occurred should and does appear to belong to the defendant, the burden of proof should shift to the prosecution once the defendant shows that the prosecution was exposed either intentionally or because of a failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid exposure. Although this may place an insurmountable burden on the prosecution, this burden is avoidable if the prosecution avoids intentionally reading testimony known to be immunized. Footnotes
Main Term(s): Right against self incrimination; Witness immunity
Index Term(s): Burden of proof; Federal Code; Legal doctrines; 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.