Immunity in the U.S. Court Essay

1417 Words 6 Pages
The right to not incriminate one’s self is established within the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (Davenport, 2006, P. 87). People may plead the fifth as a means of refusing to answer questions about alleged criminal activities. The right to not self incriminate, is a fundamental right meant to protect individuals from being forced into giving evidence that could be used against one’s self. This concept against self incrimination extended to forced confessions due to Miranda v. Arizona. In the Miranda case, the Supreme Court decided that police have an obligation to inform a suspect to his rights under Constitution. …show more content…
In some cases this works in two ways. For example, if a defendant gives testimony about a murder cases and says were they threw the gun, police cannot be asked to search for the weapon to be used as evidence. However, if by chance someone independent by the government finds the weapon and turns it in, the weapon can be used as evidence against the defendant (Davenport, 2006). The other form of Immunity is transactional immunity, which is “absolute protection against prosecution for any event or transaction about which a witness is compelled to give testimony or furnish evidence” (Neubauer, 2011, p. 466). This form of immunity is said to be the preferred form of immunity by defendants, because the government will be barred from prosecuting the defendant for a crime they were granted immunity (Davenport, 2006). Use immunity grants less protection than transactional immunity in that witnesses may not refuse the government’s offer of immunity. In this case, accepting immunity is forced and is not a choice. In the case Kastigar v. United States, the belief was that Charles Joseph Kastigar would use the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. The issued an order granting immunity but Kastigar and Stewart refused to testify (Kastigar v. United States - Case Background, 2009). The claim was that “only transactional immunity, which was not granted, would
Open Document