Statements (58)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
March 22, 1972
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Frequently cited in legal arguments.
Analyzed the implications of immunity on legal proceedings. Affected future cases involving witness testimony. Part of constitutional law jurisprudence. Relevant in discussions of witness rights. Set standards for immunity in legal proceedings. Used in law schools for teaching constitutional law. |
| gptkbp:case_number |
Addressed the limits of the Fifth Amendment.
No. 70-16 A landmark case on immunity and self-incrimination. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
The decision affirmed the government's power to compel testimony.
Affirmed the use of immunity. Government's ability to compel testimony. The ruling allowed for compelled testimony under immunity. Influenced how immunity is granted in federal cases. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Significant for legal precedents regarding immunity.
Important for understanding the limits of self-incrimination. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Constitutional law case.
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Influenced immunity statutes.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 29, 1972 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Harry_Blackmun
|
| gptkbp:followed_by |
gptkb:United_States_v._Mc_Clain
|
| gptkbp:has_implications_for |
Witnesses in federal investigations.
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Post-Watergate legal reforms.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Kastigar v. United States
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Legal standards for immunity in criminal cases.
|
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
Fifth Amendment.
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
John Kastigar
United States government. |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
Often referenced in legal literature.
406 U. S. 441 |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Supreme Court review.
The Court reasoned that immunity protects against self-incrimination. |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Federal law regarding self-incrimination.
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Set a precedent for future immunity cases.
Constitutional protections against self-incrimination. |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Fifth Amendment rights
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Transactional immunity vs. use immunity.
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Examined the balance between state interests and individual rights.
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
Immunity statutes.
Self-incrimination. Witness immunity. |
| gptkbp:material |
Involved a witness refusing to testify.
|
| gptkbp:modern_relevance |
Criminal procedure.
|
| gptkbp:notable_quote |
“ Immunity from use is not immunity from prosecution.”
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
The Court ruled that the government can compel testimony if it grants immunity.
|
| gptkbp:preceded_by |
gptkb:United_States_v._Mc_Carthy
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Subsequent cases involving immunity and self-incrimination.
|
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Potter_Stewart
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Miranda_v._Arizona
Garrity v. New Jersey |
| gptkbp:significance |
Clarified the scope of immunity under the Fifth Amendment.
|
| gptkbp:subsequent_interpretation |
Legal scholars and courts.
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:462_U._S._416
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
7
|