U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART V— IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES › Chapter CHAPTER 601— IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES

18 U.S.C. § 6002

Immunity generally

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to—(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,(2) an agency of the United States, or(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title II, § 201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 927; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330013(4), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “under this title” for “under this part” in concluding provisions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 733 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: United States v. Apfelbaum
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Apfelbaum (1980) scotus · cites it 14× “The Government then granted him immunity in accordance with 18 U. S. C. § 6002 , and he answered the questions propounded to him.”
United States v. Doe (1984) scotus · cites it 10× “The Court of Appeals noted that no formal request for use immunity under 18 U. S. C. §§ 6002 and 6003 had been made.”
Kastigar v. United States (1972) scotus · cites it 10× “§ 6002 , is not coextensive with the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and therefore is not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. The statute provides that when a witness is compelled…”
United States v. Thomas (2010) ca9 · cites it 9× “A Thomas testified at the 2003 grand jury hearing pursuant to a grant of immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 . This immunity order stated that her “testimony and other information compelled from” her “may not be used against her in any criminal case, except for a prosecution for…”
United States v. Hubbell (2000) scotus · cites it 6× “rn the scope of a witness' protection against compelled self-incrimination: (1) whether the Fifth Amendment privilege [1] protects a *30 witness from being compelled to disclose the existence of incriminating documents that the Government is unable to describe with reasonable…”
Braswell v. United States (1988) scotus · cites it 6× “Petitioner suggests, however, that these concerns can be minimized by the simple expedient of either granting the custodian statutory immunity as to the act of production, 18 U. S. C. §§ 6002 , 6003, or addressing the subpoena to the corporation and allowing it to chose an agent…”
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States (1988) scotus · cites it 4× “, violations of 18 U. S. C. §§ 6002 and 6003, violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, knowing presentation of misinformation to the grand jury and mistreatment of witnesses.”
Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy (1983) scotus · cites it 6× “Conboy subsequently appeared before a grand jury investigating price-fixing activities and, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 6002 , was granted formal use immunity for his testimony.”
United States v. Ramos (2008) ca5 · cites it 5× “See § 18 U.S.C. § 6002 (“[N]o testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case .”
Dunn v. United States (1979) scotus · cites it 4× “I On June 16, 1976, petitioner Robert Dunn testified before a federal grand jury under a grant of immunity pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 6002 . 2 The grand jury was investigating illicit *103 drug activity at the Colorado State Penitentiary where petitioner had been incarcerated.”
United States v. Oliver L. North (1990) cadc · cites it 5× “” 18 U.S.C. § 6002 (1988) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Rosario Montoya, United States of America v. Filiberto E. Montoya (1995) ca9 · cites it 6× “In Kastigar, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal witness use immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 6002 , and held that a prosecution of a previously immunized witness is allowable, but emphasized that “[t]he statute provides a sweeping proscription of any use,…”
Show all 733 citing cases →
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.