United States v. Zayas
United States Court of Military Appeals
1DissentCox, Judge
I respectfully dissent for several reasons.
First, I agree with the view expressed by then Judge William H. Cook in United States v. Villines, 13 M.J. 46, 56 (C.M.A.1982) (concurring in the result), that the decision to grant transactional or use immunity should be left in the hands of the Executive Branch. When the Government seeks to go forward with prosecution of an individual who has been granted use immunity, “the prosecution [has] the affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitímate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.” Kastigar…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Government of the Virgin Islands v. Glen Smith, Elton Rieara, Elvis Smith and Roland GeorgesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- United States v. Gordon PennellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- UNITED STATES of America v. Arthur S. LOWELL, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.