I was watching a TV show the other day and the following we go premise was advanced:
immunity can be forced on you. So they don’t actually offer immunity, they tell you you have it like it or not.
if you have immunity, you can be forced to testify against yourself or others or face contempt of court charges. In other words you can no longer plead the 5th
This sounds like bullshit, but I don’t know enough about law to know if it is or not. If it matters, the case in question was a federal one.
It’s basically correct. It sometimes happens that people are granted immunity without having asked for it (and without wanting it) in order to deprive them of the opportunity to defeat a subpoena by pleading the fifth.
They used this plot device quite a few times on Law and Order, giving immunity in order to preclude the invocation of the fifth amendment.
I always assumed it was legit, and it seems perfectly logical to me. The clear purpose of the amendment is to protect you from legal self-incrimination, and if the possibility of legal incrimination is removed, then the amendment doesn’t apply.
There’s more detail in the PDF. I’d be willing to bet that the general rule applies in most states, although the specific requirements probably vary from one jurisdiction to another.
So, the immunity you get in order to compel your testimony need only be use immunity, not transactional immunity. If i’ve understood the explanation correctly, use immunity means that they can still prosecute you for the criminal stuff that you’re testifying about, but they can’t use the evidence that you provided in your testimony; they have to get independent evidence. If they give you transactional immunity, then they can’t come after you at all, even if they develop completely separate and independent evidence.
If i’ve misinterpreted that, i’m sure a lawyer will be along to correct me.
Mobster Sam Giancana is a famous example of someone who was granted immunity and then ordered to testify- about mob activity in 1974. Knowing the consequences of blabbing, he kept his mouth shut for the most part. (None-the-less he was killed the next year when he was under subpoena to testify in front of a Senate committee.)
There was a similar matter in 1965 where he took the 5th in front of a grand jury. Not sure how much, if any, immunity he had been granted then.
(Sam, btw, was the mobster that was linked to JFK in various ways, including a shared mistress, and is considered a candidate in being involved in the assassination by one category of conspiracy kooks.)
There are some crimes for which both the state and the federal government can prosecute. The thing that comes to mind immediately is the murder cases in which the defendants were acquitted then prosecuted for depriving the victim of his civil rights.
So can a suspect be granted immunity and refuse to testify on the grounds that there is still federal crime possibilities?
The force is that they can be locked up for contempt. It happens. Why is it bullshit? They either tell the truth or face the consequences. They wouldn’t be locked up for no reason, it’s because they have knowledge of criminal activity and refuse to divulge it. It is substantially the same as perjury.
I have edited the thread title to indicate that there are spoilers in this thread (The Blacklist and Law and Order so far).
As for moving the thread, this is a factual question about the law, and not about a legal issue that might involve legal opinions (which would be an IMHO topic). I’m not a lawyer, but to me the thread seems factual enough for GQ at the moment.
So if I’m denied Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination by the prosecutors giving me immunity does that mean if during my testimony I confess to a serious crime they were unaware of that I can’t be prosecuted for it?
No. The offer of immunity will very specifically set forth what the witness will be immune from. If it’s use immunity, the offer will clearly delineate the boundaries of what testimony is no longer going to be shielded by the Fifth Amendment; if it’s transactional immunity, it will clearly delineate the acts for which no criminal prosecution can be brought. Anything outside of those boundaries is still covered by the right to avoid self-incrimination.
So, assume prosecutors know (but can’t prove) that crime boss Luigi was killed by Tony “the Gorilla” under orders from rival boss Mario. As the prosecutors want to get Mario more than Tony, they give Tony immunity for his testimony about killing Luigi, so they can prosecute a case against Mario. However, Tony knows that answering the prosecutors’ questions would implicate him in the murder of Japanese crime boss Yoshi, which is so far unsuspected by law enforcement.
What happens next, especially if Tony thinks that once his involvement with Yoshi’s murder is known, investigators will likely be able to find incriminating evidence?
5th amendment explained very simply by comic strip. Written and drawn by an actual experienced trial lawyer. Easy to understand, and also entertaining in its own way.
OP’s question fully answered in just 8 pages.
From the strip - the 5th amendment applies whenever the government demands testimony that could potentially help to convict you of a crime. If you are given immunity, then you can’t be convicted. That means the 5th doesn’t apply, and you can be punished for refusing to answer.
Just didn’t want to mention it in the OP since that might have been booted to CS and I figured actual lawyers were more likely to answer here.