Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 436.510 (2026)

Witnesses in investigation or prosecution for gambling

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In any prosecution or any investigation by an examining court or grand jury of gambling violations, it shall be no exemption for a witness that his testimony may incriminate himself.

(2) It shall be no exemption for the buyer of a lottery ticket, in any prosecution against the seller of a lottery ticket, that his testimony may incriminate himself.

(3) No testimony given in the proceedings stated in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be used against the testifying witness in any prosecution except for false swearing.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a witness testifying in any prosecution against the seller of a lottery ticket, shall be discharged from all liability for any offense necessarily disclosed in his testimony.

(5) A witness testifying in any prosecution for gambling shall be discharged from all liability for gambling disclosed in his testimony.

(6) No person against whom a witness testifies in any prosecution for gambling shall testify as to any gambling by the witness. History: Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 334. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 1328a, 1973, 2579.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1950–1981 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Brown, 619 S.W.2d 699 (Ky. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Brown, 619 S.W.2d 699 (Ky. 1981). “520 (protection of prisoners); KRS 436.510 (gambling offenses); KRS 437.”

Kindt v. Murphy, 227 S.W.2d 895 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). · cites it 2× “The respondent, Judge Murphy, has filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that if the evidence they might give should be used against them in a criminal proceeding, they would be immune from prosecution under KRS 436.510. The plaintiff, in the original action, Duff,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.