Kastigar v. United States
Case Background, How Comprehensive Must The Offered Immunity Be?
Charles Joseph Kastigar, Michael Gorean Stewart
That the petitioners were correct to refuse to testify because only transactional immunity, which was not granted, would satisfy the Fifth Amendment with respect to self-incrimination.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Hugh R. Manes
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Erwin N. Griswold
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall (William J. Brennan, Jr., and William H. Rehnquist did not participate)
Date of Decision
22 May 1972
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals.
The case of Kastigar v. United States raised many important questions concerning the extent and application of Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, levels of immunity, refusal of a witness to testify on the grounds of inadequate immunity, and the historical precedents for compulsory testimony.
- Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892).
- Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896).
- Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956).
- Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958).
- Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Katz v. United States - Significance, The Pros And Cons Of Wiretapping
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. - Significance, The Same Right As White Citizens
- Kastigar v. United States - Case Background
- Kastigar v. United States - How Comprehensive Must The Offered Immunity Be?
- Other Free Encyclopedias