Abstract

This Note examines the nonevidentiary uses of compelled testimony and their prejudicial effects. Part I presents the background of the fifth amendment privilege within the context of the leading Supreme Court opinions concerning the constitutionality of compulsory testimony legislation. Part II examines the Kastigar opinion and the subsequent efforts by the lower courts to apply that decision and resolve its ambiguities. Part III considers the debate over nonevidentiary use, suggesting that the Supreme Court's construction of the fifth amendment privilege and immunity legislation prohibits any nonevidentiary use that increases the likelihood of criminal penalties for the witness. Part III also challenges the prevalent assumption that the difficulty of proving that no such use has occurred effectively immunizes the witness from prosecution and constitutes a de facto return to the transactional immunity standard. Part IV then offers procedural safeguards intended to address the practical problems associated with excluding nonevidentiary uses.

How to Cite