Legal Opinion

State v. Finley

Court of Appeals of Alaska

Decided November 14, 2014No. 2433 A-11552Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Judge MANNHEIMER,

The State of Alaska is prosecuting Demetrius J. Finley for a drug offense, and the State wishes to call Thomas B. Dickson as a witness at Finley's trial The State concedes that Dickson's testimony would be self-incriminatory, so the State has granted "transactional" immunity to Dickson-promising him that he will not be prosecuted by the State of Alaska for any crime he is compelled to testify about. The Alaska Constitution requires this complete immunity when a witness is compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. State v. Gonzalez, 853 P.2d 526 (Alaska 1993).

But…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. United States v. MurdockSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  5. Feldman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API