21 U.S.C. § 884

Immunity and privilege

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Refusal to testify

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before a court or grand jury of the United States, involving a violation of this subchapter, and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this section, 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 issued under subsection (b) of this section or any information obtained by the exploitation of such testimony or other information, may be used against the witness in any criminal case, including any criminal case brought in a court of a State, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.

(b) Order of United States district court

In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before a court or grand jury of the United States, the United States district court for the judicial district in which the proceeding is or may be held shall issue, upon the request of the United States attorney for such district, an order requiring such individual to give any testimony or provide any other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.

(c) Request by United States attorneyA United States attorney may, with the approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General designated by the Attorney General, request an order under subsection (b) when in his judgment—(1) the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest; and(2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 514, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1278; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7020(f), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–690 inserted reference to Associate Attorney General.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2022 · leading case: Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U.S. 548 (1971).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U.S. 548 (1971). · cites it 2× “927 ; 21 U. S. C. § 884 (1970 ed.) codifies the use immunity provision enacted in § 514 (a) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 84 Stat.”

United States v. Victor Del Toro, 464 F.2d 520 (2d Cir. 1972). “Appellee had been indicted on one count of the possession of cocaine ( 21 U.S.C. § 884 ). . The agent’s belief was based on fifteen years’ experience as a police officer', the last seven of which he had spent in narcotics enforcement.”

United States v. Prop. Identified as 1813 15th Street N.W., 956 F. Supp. 1029 (D.D.C. 1997). “21 U.S.C. § 884 . If the property has a "substantial connection" to the felony simple possession, the residence has facilitated a felony punishable by greater than one year in prison.”

Rollins C. Snelling, Jr., Witness-Appellant v. United States, 719 F.2d 1067 (10th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “” 1 Snelling claims that since the grand jury presumably was investigating drug trafficking, the United States Attorney should have acted pursuant to the immunity provision contained in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 884 2 There is no indication, in our view,…”

In re Ferguson, 443 S.E.2d 905 (S.C. 1994). “Respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 884 (a) and 846. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to three counts of intentional possession of cocaine in violation of 21 U.”

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Yuch, 437 F. Supp. 775 (E.D. Pa. 1977). “At the contempt hearing the witness contended that he should not be held in contempt for the following reasons: (1) the immunity order was defective on its face because it was not entered under 21 U.S.C. § 884 with an express prohibition on dissemination of such compelled…”

United States v. Greene (D.D.C. 2022). “After his subsequent arrest, Greene pleaded guilty on July 19, 2007, to possession of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C § 884(a); possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 USC § 922 (g)(1 ); and assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers…”

United States v. Taggart, 334 F. Supp. 206 (D. Del. 1971). “The defendant Taggart stands charged with possession of one gram of cocaine hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 884 (a). The cocaine was found in the possession of the defendant when he was searched at the police station two hours after his arrest and was thereupon seized…”

United States v. Blair, 530 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 2008). “Further, 21 U.S.C. § 884 (a) prohibits suspension of the minimum sentence.”

United States v. Tina Blair (8th Cir. 2008). “Further, 21 U.S.C. § 884 (a) prohibits suspension of the minimum sentence.”

United States v. Rule, 600 F. Supp. 127 (D. Me. 1984). “At oral argument the Government asserted that it intended, if permitted to do so, to try Defendant Sterner first and subsequently, regardless of the outcome of that trial, to grant him immunity under 21 U.S.C. § 884 and call him as a witness in the course of the Government’s…”

— 21 U.S.C. § 884(a) — 1 case

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.