explaining the difference between transactional immunity and use immunity and noting that use immunity only “protects the individual from prosecution through the use of the immunized testimony or evidence derived from that testimony.”
How later courts described this case
- explaining the difference between transactional immunity and use immunity and noting that use immunity only “protects the individual from prosecution through the use of the immunized testimony or evidence derived from that testimony.”
- holding that use immunity and informal transactional immunity granted in connection with drug offenses did not bar prosecution for failure to report interest income after the grant of immunity
- noting that privilege generally encompasses only crimes that a witness "had already committed, or was in the process of committing, at the time of the testimony"
- stating that “due process requires us to enforce the government’s agreement”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I join Judge Clark’s dissent. The agreement in this case covers the subject funds.
I hasten to add that nothing is gained by encouraging the government to enter into informal agreements, the terms of which are determined through evidentiary hearings in the district court and fact-finding in the in banc court, after the accused has completed performance.