Also known as: use · derivative use · use immunity · derivative use immunity · use and derivative use immunity · derivative-use immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A form of immunity that bars the government from introducing a witness's compelled testimony or any evidence derived from it in a later criminal prosecution of that witness. It replaces broader transactional immunity and satisfies the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when the government shows the evidence it offers has an independent source.
Ulrike Ulrich is compelled to testify about a disputed entry into a residence. Prosecutors later charge her with burglary. The court suppresses her testimony and all leads traced to it because the government cannot prove an independent source for the evidence of non-consensual force.
Ugo Ucelli receives use and derivative use immunity before a congressional committee investigating interstate trade. When federal prosecutors attempt to use information from his testimony to support a commerce-clause prosecution, the court excludes it after finding the evidence flowed directly from the immunized statements.
Usman Uddin testifies under a grant of use and derivative use immunity about a judge's alleged law practice. Later state charges against the judge rely on leads from that testimony. The court dismisses the case because the prosecution cannot establish an independent source untainted by the immunized statements.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uriah Urban is granted use and derivative use immunity in a disciplinary proceeding. Prosecutors later seek to introduce documents discovered only through his testimony to prove a violation of former-client confidentiality rules. The court bars the evidence for lack of an independent source.
Ursula Upton testifies under use and derivative use immunity about an agent's notice of facts. A subsequent prosecution attempts to rely on information derived from her statements. The court suppresses the evidence because the government cannot show it would have learned the facts through ordinary due care without the immunized testimony.
Urban Utley receives use and derivative use immunity before testifying about a landlord's failure to maintain habitable premises. Prosecutors later try to use leads from that testimony in a related criminal case. The court excludes the evidence after finding no independent source existed apart from the compelled statements.
Use and derivative use immunity prevents the government from introducing the compelled testimony itself or any evidence derived from it. Transactional immunity would bar any prosecution for the underlying transaction regardless of the source of the evidence. Congress replaced transactional immunity with the narrower use and derivative use form after Murphy v. Waterfront Commission.
Supporting sources
Yes. In Kastigar v. United States the Supreme Court upheld the federal statute granting use and derivative use immunity. The government must prove that any evidence it offers has a source independent of the immunized testimony.
Supporting sources
The statute permits prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the immunity order. These offenses are carved out because they involve the truthfulness of the immunized testimony itself.
Supporting sources