18 U.S.C. § 6005

Congressional proceedings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee of either House, or any joint committee of the two Houses, a United States district court shall issue, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order requiring such individual to give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 6002 of this title.(b) Before issuing an order under subsection (a) of this section, a United States district court shall find that—(1) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present of that House;(2) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to a committee or a subcommittee of either House of Congress or a joint committee of both Houses, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the full committee; and(3) ten days or more prior to the day on which the request for such an order was made, the Attorney General was served with notice of an intention to request the order.(c) Upon application of the Attorney General, the United States district court shall defer the issuance of any order under subsection (a) of this section for such period, not longer than twenty days from the date of the request for such order, as the Attorney General may specify.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title II, § 201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 928; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330013(4), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146; Pub. L. 104–292, § 5, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3460; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 605(o), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3510.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–292, § 5(1), inserted “or ancillary to” after “any proceeding before”.

Subsec. (b)(1), (2). Pub. L. 104–292, § 5(2)(A), inserted “or ancillary to” after “a proceeding before”.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 104–292, § 5(2)(B), and Pub. L. 104–294, amended par. (3) identically, inserting period at end.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “title” for “part” before period at end.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1971–2017 · leading case: United States v. Oliver L. North, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Oliver L. North, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “We must assume that any American could be compelled to testify in return for use immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6005 (1988), which authorizes Congress to grant that immunity, even over protests of the prosecutor, independent or otherwise.”

United States v. Allen, 864 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2017). “”); see also 18 U.S.C. § 6005 . 106 . Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.”

In the Matter of the Application of the United States Senate Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations. Appeal of William Cammisano, 655 F.2d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “was waiving the 10-day notice requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 6005 (b)(3) (1976), under which at least 10 days must elapse between the time the Attorney General is notified of a committee’s intention to obtain such an order and the time the request is actually made.”

United States v. Fred Romano, 583 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1978). “An order was nonetheless sought and on November 25, 1975, the District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order under 18 U.S.C. § 6005 conferring immunity and compelling Romano’s testimony.”

Walker v. Cheney, 230 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2002). “Reply at 78 (citing, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 6005 (2002), which allows a House of Congress, committee, or subcommittee to institute judicial action for an immunity order).”

In Re the Grand Jury Testimony of Kinoy, 326 F. Supp. 407 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). “The Government could not give the court an adequate reason as to why Miss Kinoy was required to continue her testimony before a different grand jury. In the court’s view, orderly procedure requires that once a witness, under these circumstances, has begun testifying about a…”

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.