18 U.S.C. § 6002

59 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Robert W. Beverly v. United States
  468 F.2d 732· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-25 ·cited 112×
  The court held that the government's denial of electronic surveillance of attorneys was inadequate, requiring vacation of the contempt order and remand.
• United States v. Irie E. Leonard
  494 F.2d 955· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-31 ·cited 109×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury to scrutinize the testimony of witnesses granted immunity and by limiting cross-examination regarding pending felony charges against a witness. It also held that the failure to prov
• United States v. Turkish
  623 F.2d 769· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-27 ·cited 108×
  The court held that a trial judge should not inquire into the prosecution's refusal to grant use immunity to a prospective defense witness.
• United States v. North
  910 F.2d 843· D.C. Cir.· 1990-07-20 ·cited 69×
  The court, in a dissenting opinion, argues that the trial court committed reversible error regarding prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and violations of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA).
• In re Grand Jury Appearance of Alvin S. Michaelson
  511 F.2d 882· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that an attorney's refusal to answer grand jury questions regarding client fee arrangements, even after being granted use immunity, constitutes civil contempt, as such information is generally not protected by attorney-client privilege, and immunity negates Fifth A
• United States v. North
  920 F.2d 940· D.C. Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 36×
  A government official cannot be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2071 for altering documents if they reasonably believed their actions were legal.
• In re the Grand Jury. In re Veronica Vigil
  524 F.2d 209· 10th Cir.· 1975-10-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the witness's claims of unlawful electronic surveillance and marital privilege were insufficient to constitute 'just cause' for refusing to testify, and that the grant of use immunity adequately protected her Fifth Amendment rights.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  506 F.2d 1293· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-10 ·cited 33×
  A witness granted compulsory use and derivative use immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 cannot refuse to testify before a grand jury, even if they are a defendant, appellant, or target of the investigation, as the immunity granted is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege.
• United States v. Berardelli
  565 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1977-10-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the immunity granted under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 was adequate to protect the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and his refusal to testify was unjustified.
• United States v. Hawkins
  501 F.2d 1029· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a defendant's refusal to provide handwriting exemplars to a grand jury can result in both criminal and civil contempt without violating double jeopardy, and that one day was a reasonable time to prepare a defense.
• United States v. Hogan
  862 F.2d 386· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that information provided by a defendant under a cooperation agreement granting use immunity for uncharged offenses could be used in sentencing for the offenses to which the defendant pled guilty, as the agreement explicitly distinguished between the two.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation
  644 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 28×
  Responsive answers to deposition questions derived from a witness's prior immunized testimony are not subject to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and can be compelled.
• United States v. Irvine
  756 F.2d 708· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's attempt to solicit a bribe breached his cooperation agreement, thus forfeiting immunity and allowing the use of his statements against him for narcotics offenses. It also held that the bribery and narcotics charges were properly joined.
• United States v. Mariani
  851 F.2d 595· 2d Cir.· 1988-07-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the government proved its evidence was derived from sources independent of the defendant's immunized testimony, thus reversing the district court's vacatur of convictions.
• United States v. Houston Watkins
  505 F.2d 545· 7th Cir.· 1974-11-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the immunity granted under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 was coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, despite the exception for future perjury.
• United States v. Tantalo
  680 F.2d 903· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment without conducting a hearing to determine if the evidence the government intended to use was derived from legitimate independent sources, apart from the defendant's immunized
• In re Bonk
  527 F.2d 120· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 22×
  A defendant acquitted of criminal charges can be compelled to testify before a grand jury about the same events under a grant of immunity, and refusal to do so can result in civil contempt.
• United States & W. Donald Bell v. The Equitable Tr. Co.
  611 F.2d 492· 4th Cir.· 1979-10-16 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would hold that DiVivo's allegations, if proven, are sufficient to defeat enforcement of the IRS summons because the investigation was not conducted in good faith.
• Artie G. Thompson v. Warden Sam P. Garrison
  516 F.2d 986· 4th Cir.· 1975-05-29 ·cited 20×
  A federal court need not grant an evidentiary hearing or compel testimony with immunity if the state court record adequately addresses claims of perjured testimony and prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Poindexter
  951 F.2d 369· D.C. Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Independent Counsel failed to prove that compelled testimony was not used against the defendant, requiring reversal of all convictions. It also found that the statute 18 U.S.C. § 1505 could not constitutionally apply to lying to Congress in some instances.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation. Appeal of John Conboy
  661 F.2d 1145· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-16 ·cited 18×
  The court should affirm the district court's contempt order, as the en banc majority's interpretation of the use immunity statute provides inadequate protection.
• United States v. North
  621 F.2d 1255· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of a criminal offense without notice, and a new criminal sentence cannot interrupt a previously imposed sentence.
• In re James Frederick Weir. United States v. Weir
  520 F.2d 662· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The court adhered to its prior decision, finding the refusal to answer grand jury questions unjustified despite claims of coerced confession.
• United States v. Pantone
  634 F.2d 716· 3d Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prosecutor's knowledge of a defendant's immunized grand jury testimony, obtained after a first trial conviction but before a retrial, does not automatically taint the second trial if the government can prove all evidence used was derived from legitimate inde
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  608 F.2d 640· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by not allowing appellants adequate notice and opportunity to present defenses before adjudicating them in civil contempt.
• United States v. Morales
  566 F.2d 402· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the conviction for criminal contempt, holding that a grand jury has the power to indict for criminal contempt and that a witness is not entitled to a full suppression hearing regarding electronic surveillance in a criminal contempt proceeding.
• United States v. Eldridge V. Black
  776 F.2d 1321· 6th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the immunity agreement did not protect the defendant from prosecution for perjury and obstruction of justice, as these are distinct offenses not covered by the immunity grant.
• In re Grand Jury Matter. Appeal of United States
  673 F.2d 688· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-09 ·cited 12×
  The court did not reach the issue of court-awarded use-fruits immunity because it was not raised by the parties.
• In re DeMONTE v. United States
  667 F.2d 590· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a grand jury witness alleging illegal electronic surveillance, even if authorized by court order, should presumptively be granted limited access to supporting documents, rather than having their request denied outright or subjected to only an in camera review.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Teresa Starr
  647 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a parent-child testimonial privilege is not recognized in federal law and that use immunity is sufficient to compel testimony over a Fifth Amendment claim.
• United States v. Land
  937 F.2d 98· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 11×
  A donee of money traceable to drug transactions can assert an innocent owner defense under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) even if not a bona fide purchaser for value.
• United States v. Gallo
  859 F.2d 1078· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 10×
  The inadvertent inclusion of a small portion of a defendant's prior immunized testimony in an application for electronic surveillance, which did not influence the decision to seek or issue the surveillance order, constitutes harmless error and does not require dismissal of the in
• United States v. Seltzer
  794 F.2d 1114· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the use of 1981 immunized testimony to prosecute for 1983 perjury was permissible, and that materiality is a question of law for the court, not the jury.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation. Appeal of John Conboy
  655 F.2d 748· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 10×
  A deponent granted use immunity for prior testimony cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when compelled to answer deposition questions that are verbatim or closely track that immunized testimony, as such answers are considered derived from the im
• United States v. Apfelbaum
  584 F.2d 1264· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that immunized grand jury testimony, compelled under 18 U.S.C. § 6002, can only be used as the corpus delicti of a perjury or false swearing indictment, not as substantive evidence or for impeachment in other proceedings.
• United States v. Hughey
  571 F.2d 111· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the witness's prior incarceration for contempt was civil, not criminal, and therefore a subsequent criminal contempt indictment does not violate double jeopardy protections.
• In re Hodges
  524 F.2d 568· 1st Cir.· 1975-11-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government's denial of electronic surveillance was adequate under the circumstances, and the witness's refusal to testify was not justified.
• In re Di Bella
  499 F.2d 1175· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the procedure for obtaining an immunity order under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002, 6003 was substantially followed, even if the United States Attorney's direct involvement in the initial request was belated.
• In re Sealed Case
  791 F.2d 179· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 8×
  A grant of use immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 is sufficient to compel production of documents, even if the act of production itself is incriminating, as the burden is on the government to prove any subsequent use of evidence is from an independent source.
• In re TSE
  748 F.2d 722· 1st Cir.· 1984-11-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the contempt order was valid because procedural irregularities were harmless and the government's denial of illegal electronic surveillance was adequate.
• United States v. Lach
  874 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the criminal contempt convictions were lawful because the oral grant of immunity was effective, the use of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was proper, the two contempt counts did not violate double jeopardy, and the sentences were not an abuse of disc
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Frank Derek Greentree
  644 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 6×
  A grant of immunity does not protect a witness from prosecution for perjury based on prior false statements, but it does foreclose the government from using those prior false statements to prove perjury in the immunized testimony.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  625 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a witness granted immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 lacks just cause to refuse to testify, even if concerned about potential perjury prosecutions for prior inconsistent statements, when the district court assures protection.
• United States v. Bartholomew Rivieccio
  919 F.2d 812· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to dismissal of an indictment based on the government's alleged misuse of immunized testimony before the grand jury, especially when no such testimony was used at trial.
• United States v. LEE
  867 F.2d 206· 4th Cir.· 1989-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The government did not default on its disclosure obligations regarding a key witness's plea agreement, and the defendant is not entitled to have his sentence vacated.
• United States v. Skalsky
  857 F.2d 172· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant knowingly entered into a non-prosecution agreement and materially breached it by failing to disclose crucial information, thus his conviction was properly affirmed.
• United States v. Harvey
  651 F. Supp. 894· S.D. Fla.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government made an enforceable bargain granting the defendant transactional and use immunity, and that the indictment must be dismissed because the evidence was tainted by the immunized disclosures.
• In re the Application of the United States Senate Permanent Subcomm. ON Investigations. Appeal of William Cammisano
  655 F.2d 1232· D.C. Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly approved the grant of immunity and properly sentenced the appellant for civil contempt.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Rotundo
  554 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Acting United States Attorney had the authority to request use immunity and that the government's application for disclosure of wiretap evidence was sufficient.
• United States v. Velda Mapelli
  971 F.2d 284· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a deliberate ignorance instruction was inappropriate where evidence suggested actual knowledge, and that prosecutors exposed to a defendant's immunized testimony must affirmatively prove an independent source for all evidence.