Facts of the Case

Charles Kastigar and Michael Stewart were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury concerning their involvement in criminal activity. Both men refused to testify, invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, the federal government offered them use immunity under the federal immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 6002. Under this statute, the government can compel testimony in exchange for a promise not to use the testimony, or any evidence derived from it, against the witness in criminal prosecution (though they can still be prosecuted using independent evidence).

Kastigar and Stewart still refused to testify, arguing that use immunity was not sufficient to protect their Fifth Amendment rights. They contended that only transactional immunity, which provides complete immunity from prosecution for the offense in question, would adequately safeguard their constitutional rights against self-incrimination. Both men were held in contempt and challenged the constitutionality of the federal immunity statute.

Constitutional Question

Does the federal immunity statute that provides use and derivative use immunity compel testimony in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, or is it constitutionally sufficient to allow compelled testimony?

Arguments

For Kastigar:

• Kastigar argued that the Fifth Amendment provides an absolute right against self-incrimination and that use immunity was insufficient to protect this right. They contended that, despite the government’s assurances, there was still a risk that their compelled testimony could indirectly be used against them.
• The petitioners maintained that only transactional immunity—immunity from prosecution for the entire subject matter of the compelled testimony—would adequately protect their constitutional rights.

For the United States:

• The government argued that use and derivative use immunity provided by 18 U.S.C. § 6002 was sufficient under the Fifth Amendment. It guaranteed that no testimony or evidence derived from the compelled testimony could be used against the witness in criminal prosecution.
• The government contended that the immunity statute was necessary for law enforcement purposes and was a reasonable balance between an individual’s rights and the needs of criminal justice.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, ruled in favor of the United States. The Court, led by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., held that use and derivative use immunity is constitutionally sufficient to compel testimony without violating the Fifth Amendment. The Court reasoned that this type of immunity provides the witness with protection coextensive with the Fifth Amendment because it ensures that the compelled testimony, as well as any evidence derived from it, cannot be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution against the witness.

The Court rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment requires transactional immunity, concluding that use immunity provides adequate protection. If the government attempts to prosecute the individual later, it bears the heavy burden of proving that any evidence it uses was derived from sources entirely independent of the compelled testimony.

Significance

Kastigar v. United States is a landmark case that clarified the scope of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. The decision established that use and derivative use immunity is sufficient to protect a witness’s Fifth Amendment rights and allows the government to compel testimony under certain conditions. The ruling has had a significant impact on the use of immunity in criminal investigations and grand jury proceedings, enabling prosecutors to compel testimony while ensuring that the witness’s rights are protected.

This case also set the standard for future cases involving immunity statutes, placing the burden on the government to prove that any evidence it seeks to use in subsequent prosecutions is not derived from the compelled testimony.