Quote:
|
Originally Posted by csmsss
The issuance of immunity from prosecution is an action of prosecutorial, NOT legislative discretion, and I believe that SCOTUS will slap down any attempt by a congressional committee to grant immunity from prosecution to a witness if DOJ opposes it.
|
It is probably appropriate to refine the terms being used. Technically,
18 USC § 6002 does not provide for "immunity
from prosecution" (as demonstrated by Oliver North's prosecution after his immunized testimony), but it does provide for immunity
from the use of such testimony in a prosecution (North clearly won on that point). That concept of immunity has been fully upheld by SCOTUS (
US v Hubbell).
Quote:
|
In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972), we upheld the constitutionality of §6002 because the scope of the “use and derivative-use” immunity that it provides is coextensive with the scope of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
|
Hanah Volokh's
law review article on Congressional immunity actually supports the premise that the grant of immunity does not conflict with prosecutorial authority. She makes the point that, even without a grant of immunity, the Fifth Amendment would bar the use of compelled testimony in a subsequent court case and the prosecution would be in no worse a position than if the testimony had never been given.