U.S. v. Watkins
| Decision Date | 19 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1287,74-1287 |
| Citation | 505 F.2d 545 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Houston WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant. Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Roland J. Steinle, Jr., Cedarburg, Wis., for defendant-appellant.
William J. Mulligan, U.S. Atty., Joseph P. Stadtmueller, Asst. U.S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge, KILKENNY, Senior Circuit Judge, * and SPRECHER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was subpoenaed to testify in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in a case involving a bank robbery, in which appellant and another allegedly participated. Although granted use immunity under 18 U.S.C. 6002, he declined to answer any questions involving his knowledge of the robbery. He was adjudged in contempt and appeals.
Appellant contends that because of the exception contained in the statute, the immunity granted was not coextensive with his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because the statute does not immunize him from prosecution for having previously given false testimony to federal and state law enforcement agencies. We disagree.
A similar contention has been considered and rejected in United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (CA9 1973) and United States v. Doe, 361 F.Supp. 226 (E.D.Pa.1973), aff'd. 485 F.2d 682 (CA3 1973), cert. denied415 U.S. 989, 94 S.Ct. 1587, 39 L.Ed.2d 886 (1974). Each of the cases holds that the exception refers to future perjury, future false statements or future failure to comply with the immunity order, rather than previous acts. We agree. This interpretation of the statute is fully consistent with Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The State of Wisconsin is required to give appellant the same protection as that provided for federal prosecutions under 6002. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n.,378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964).
The decision upon which appellant principally relies, In re Baldinger, 356 F.Supp. 153 (C.D.Cal.1973), was overruled sub silentio in Alter, supra.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
* Senior Circuit Judge John F. Kilkenny of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Patrick
...for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order." As recognized by this Court in United States v. Watkins, 505 F.2d 545 (7th Cir. 1974), this exception refers only to "future" perjury, false statements or non-compliance with the court order. To interpret......
-
U.S. v. Leyva, 74-3565
...the immunity order and thus this argument lacks merit. Taylor v. United States, 509 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1975); accord United States v. Watkins, 505 F.2d 545 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016, 1028 (9th Cir. 1973). III. Defendant contends that the failure of the court to......
-
State v. Rice
...future false statements or future failure to comply with the immunity order, rather than previous acts.” United States v. Watkins, 505 F.2d 545, 546 (7th Cir.1974) (per curiam). The State therefore may not use Officer Porter's trial testimony—given prior to the grant of immunity—in any case......
-
Grand Jury Proceedings of August, 1984, In U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of Illinois, Springfield Div., Matter of
...under 18 U.S.C. Secs. 6002 and 6003 precludes the use of immunized testimony in a prosecution for past perjury, United States v. Watkins, 505 F.2d 545, 546 (7th Cir.1974), and appellant is not entitled to any protection for future perjury, United States v. Chevoor, 526 F.2d 178, 181 (1st In......