Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Use and Derivative Use Immunity as Coextensive with the Fifth Amendment Privilege
Leading case
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)
How courts have described it
holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)
concluding that use immunity “is coextensive with the [Fifth Amendment] privilege and suffices to supplant it”
United States v. Mike, 655 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2011)
holding that derivative use and use immunity did not violate the Fifth Amendment
Donhauser v. Goord, 314 F. Supp. 2d 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004)
holding that if the government prosecutes a person after granting him use immunity, it must show its evidence was derived from a completely independent source
United States v. Hunter, 843 F. Supp. 235 (E.D. Mich. 1994)
explaining the distinction between direct and indirect or derivative use immunity and stating that only full-use immunity substitutes for the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
Dansby, Michael Edward Sr., 448 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
holding that "use" and "derivative use" immunity were coextensive with Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and therefore sufficed to compel testimony over assertion of the right
Ajabu v. State, 693 N.E.2d 921 (Ind. 1998)
explaining that the purpose of offering derivative use immunity to witnesses testifying before a grand jury is to ensure “that the testimony cannot lead to the infliction of criminal penalties on the witness”
In re: Misc. 4281, 149 A.3d 1253 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016)
holding that granting of use and derivative use immunity is sufficient to compel testi- mony over claim of privilege
Cruz v. Superior Court (Conn. App. Ct. 2016)
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.