UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HOUSTON WATKINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the immunity granted under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 was coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, despite the exception for future perjury.
Appellant was subpoenaed to testify in a federal case, granted use immunity, but refused to answer questions about a bank robbery. He was held in cont…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 18 U.S.C. § 6002 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was subpoenaed to testify in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in a case involving a bank robbery, in which appellant and another allegedly participated. Although granted use immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002, he declined to answer any questions involving his knowledge of the robbery. He was adjudged in contempt and appeals.
Appellant contends that because of the exception contained in the statute, the immunity granted was not coextensive with his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because the statute does not immunize him from prosecution for having previously given false testimony to federal and state law enforcement agencies. We disagree.
A similar contention has been considered and rejected in United States v. Alter, 482 F. 2d 1016 (CA9 1973) and United States v. Doe, 361 F.Supp. 226 (E.D.Pa.1973), aff’d. 485 F. 2d 682 (CA3 1973), cert. denied 415 U.S. 989, 94 S.Ct. 1587, 39 L.Ed.2d 886 (1974). Each of the cases holds that the exception refers to future perjury, future false statements or future failure to comply with the immunity order, rather than previous acts. We agree. This interpretation of the statute is fully consistent with Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The State of Wisconsin is required to give appellant the same protection as that provided for federal prosecutions under § 6002. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n., 378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964).
The decision upon which appellant principally relies, In re Baldinger, 356 F.Supp. 153 (C.D.Cal.1973), was overruled sub silentio in Alter, supra.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
McDONALD v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
-
United States v. Patrick, 542 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1976)
-
United States v. Leyva, 513 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1972)
- Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1964)
- United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973)
- Broccolino v. Md. Comm'n on Jud. Disabilities, 415 U.S. 989 (U.S. 1974)