State v. Finley
Court of Appeals of Alaska
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
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- United States v. MurdockSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Feldman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.