This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding this language:
"However, it [The court] also ruled that if the witness produces such documents, pursuant to a grant of immunity, the government may use them to prepare criminal charges against him"
From memory, this doesn't look correct to me. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts in throwing out the indictment. My memory is that the Court ruled that if the witness produces the documents persuant to a grant of immunity -- which is what Hubbell received -- then the government may NOT use those documents to prepare criminal charges against him.
Here is my paraphrasing of the Supreme Court in Hubbell:
The second prosecution of Webster Hubbell by the Independent Counsel resulted from the Independent Counsel's attempt to determine whether Hubbell had violated a promise (part of a plea agreement) to cooperate in the Whitewater investigation. In October 1996, while Hubbell was in jail as a result of the conviction on the guilty plea, the Independent Counsel served him with a subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of 11 categories of documents before a grand jury.
On November 19, 1996, Hubbell appeared before the grand jury and invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In response to questioning by the prosecutor, Hubbell initially refused "to state whether there are documents within my possession, custody, or control responsive to the Subpoena."
Thereafter, the prosecutor produced an order, which had previously been obtained from the District Court pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §6003(a), directing Hubbell to respond to the subpoena and granting him immunity "to the extent allowed by law."
Hubbell then produced 13,120 pages of documents and records and responded to a series of questions that established that the produced documents were all of the documents in his custody or control that were responsive to the commands in the subpoena (with the exception of a few documents he claimed were shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges).
The contents of the documents produced by Hubbell provided the Independent Counsel with the information that led to this second prosecution.
The indictment was thrown out by the District Court, because Hubbell had been granted immunity.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court, the prosecutor argued that because the government's possession of the documents was the fruit only of the simple physical act of Hubbell's production of those documents, Hubbell's immunity did not prevent the prosecutor from making derivative use of the documents, even though Hubbell's production of those documents was the result of Hubbell's compliance with the court order granting him immunity.
The United States Supreme Court rejected the prosecutor's argument. The Court stated:
The Supreme Court also stated (bolding added by Famspear):
The Court stated:
The Court also stated:
In the syllabus, the Reporter of Decisions summarized the decision in part in this way:
Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding this language:
"However, it [The court] also ruled that if the witness produces such documents, pursuant to a grant of immunity, the government may use them to prepare criminal charges against him"
From memory, this doesn't look correct to me. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts in throwing out the indictment. My memory is that the Court ruled that if the witness produces the documents persuant to a grant of immunity -- which is what Hubbell received -- then the government may NOT use those documents to prepare criminal charges against him.
Here is my paraphrasing of the Supreme Court in Hubbell:
The second prosecution of Webster Hubbell by the Independent Counsel resulted from the Independent Counsel's attempt to determine whether Hubbell had violated a promise (part of a plea agreement) to cooperate in the Whitewater investigation. In October 1996, while Hubbell was in jail as a result of the conviction on the guilty plea, the Independent Counsel served him with a subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of 11 categories of documents before a grand jury.
On November 19, 1996, Hubbell appeared before the grand jury and invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In response to questioning by the prosecutor, Hubbell initially refused "to state whether there are documents within my possession, custody, or control responsive to the Subpoena."
Thereafter, the prosecutor produced an order, which had previously been obtained from the District Court pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §6003(a), directing Hubbell to respond to the subpoena and granting him immunity "to the extent allowed by law."
Hubbell then produced 13,120 pages of documents and records and responded to a series of questions that established that the produced documents were all of the documents in his custody or control that were responsive to the commands in the subpoena (with the exception of a few documents he claimed were shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges).
The contents of the documents produced by Hubbell provided the Independent Counsel with the information that led to this second prosecution.
The indictment was thrown out by the District Court, because Hubbell had been granted immunity.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court, the prosecutor argued that because the government's possession of the documents was the fruit only of the simple physical act of Hubbell's production of those documents, Hubbell's immunity did not prevent the prosecutor from making derivative use of the documents, even though Hubbell's production of those documents was the result of Hubbell's compliance with the court order granting him immunity.
The United States Supreme Court rejected the prosecutor's argument. The Court stated:
The Supreme Court also stated (bolding added by Famspear):
The Court stated:
The Court also stated:
In the syllabus, the Reporter of Decisions summarized the decision in part in this way:
Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)