# Law question: forced testimony? \[open spoilers in thread\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 22, 2017, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199 "2017-05-22T04:56:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/1 "2017-05-22T04:56:24Z")
I was watching a TV show the other day and the following we go premise was advanced: 1. immunity can be forced on you. So they don’t actually offer immunity, they tell you you have it like it or not. 2. 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. Anyone know if there’s any truth to this? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/2 "2017-05-22T05:16:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/3 "2017-05-22T06:19:33Z")
Season finale of **The Blacklist** I presume? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/4 "2017-05-22T07:20:10Z")
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. Here’s a [section from the North Carolina Superior Court Judges’ Benchbook](http://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/benchbook.sog.unc.edu/files/pdf/Fifth%20Amendment%20Privilege%20And%20Grant%20Of%20Immunity_0.pdf) (PDF), explaining how it works in that state: > [@](#): > > As noted in Section II.A. above, a witness who invokes the Fifth > Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in any criminal or civil hearing or > proceeding, including a grand jury, may be ordered to testify or produce other > information when the witness has been granted immunity under Article 61 of > Chapter 15A. Although an order granting immunity may be issued in any criminal > or civil matter, only a district attorney is authorized to apply for an order. G.S. > 15A-1052(a). Thus, almost all applications involve criminal proceedings. > > \ > > Note that there are two unusual aspects to the statutory framework > involving a grant of immunity. First, because only a district attorney may apply for > immunity, a party in a civil case who wants to seek immunity for a witness who > has invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege must request a district attorney to > apply for immunity. Second, because only a superior court judge can grant > immunity, that judge must decide whether to grant immunity even when a case is > pending in district court because the district court judge has no statutory authority > to do so. > > p. 9 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. And [this more general information](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immunity_from_prosecution), from Cornell Law School: > [@](#): > > The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from forcing witnesses to give self-incriminating testimony in criminal cases. Courts may evade this prohibition and force reluctant witnesses to testify by granting them immunity from prosecution. Once witnesses cannot be prosecuted for their testimony, courts may punish them if they refuse to testify. > > Federal grants of immunity from prosecution do not bind the states. And here’s the syllabus from a [key Supreme Court case](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/441/) on the issue: > [@](#): > > The United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 6002, from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings, as such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. Transactional immunity would afford broader protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege, and is not constitutionally required. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proving affirmatively that evidence proposed to be used is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/5 "2017-05-22T12:01:30Z")
Mobster [Sam Giancana](http://www.biography.com/people/sam-giancana-9542088) 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/6 "2017-05-22T12:51:04Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Season finale of **The Blacklist** I presume? Sounds like it… ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/7 "2017-05-22T13:40:47Z")
Reported for forum change ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/8 "2017-05-22T14:21:12Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/9 "2017-05-22T14:24:46Z")
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. ETA: I’m sure the state can abuse this power. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/10 "2017-05-22T15:26:53Z")
**Moderator Note** 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. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/11 "2017-05-22T15:35:11Z")
Go **ecg**. And props for the unusual, unnecessary but nice words on what mods actually do (um…think :)) for a non-living at SD. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/12 "2017-05-22T17:31:25Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/13 "2017-05-22T17:43:26Z")
I would think that the “confess to this” deal-a-criminal-can’t-say-no-to spells out in crazy detail what he will confess to. And that’s the deal. He’s on his own there on. As mentioned above, regarding both disgruntled associates and the justice system. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/14 "2017-05-22T18:20:50Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/15 "2017-05-22T19:05:15Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/16 "2017-05-22T20:28:00Z")
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. > **[Convict Yourself pg 50 | The Illustrated Guide to Law](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2545)** 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/17 "2017-05-22T20:28:32Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Season finale of **The Blacklist** I presume? Yup. 🙂 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. And a thanks to everyone for the info. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/18 "2017-05-22T20:30:51Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > **Moderator Note** > > 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. Thank ECG–I didn’t put the show into the OP so I didn’t think spoilers would be necessary (for Blacklist. I had no idea about Law & Order). And thanks for not moving it. I really tried to keep it as fact based and as far from art/entertainment as I could. I appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/19 "2017-05-22T21:48:37Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > 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? For an answer to this, I will defer to my esteemed colleague from the actual prosecutorial bar, Mr. **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2017, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199/20 "2017-05-22T23:00:00Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > 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. > [50. Jane Has a Webcomic | The Illustrated Guide to Law](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2545) > > 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. The IRS and several federal judges should read this page: > **[Convict Yourself pg 56](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2589)** > > A person can assert the privilege against self-incrimination ANY time the four elements exist. They desperately pretend that the Fifth doesn’t apply to tax returns. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-question-forced-testimony-open-spoilers-in-thread/787199.md?page=2)