United States v. Christopher D. MacKey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that there is “no per se rule that profane employee speech fails [the Pickering] test”
• recognizing the government's interest in avoiding risk to possible future prosecution of a witness as a legitimate justification for denying use immunity
• rejecting Smith and holding that courts generally cannot compel witness immunity where prosecutor has refused to do so
• analyzing under traditional hearsay rules the defendant’s attempt to admit a wit- ness’s out-of-court statement after the witness invoked his Fifth Amend- ment privilege against self-incrimination and the court refused to compel the government to grant immunity
• “[I]n certain extreme cases of prosecutorial misconduct, the government’s refusal to grant immunity could justify a court’s refusal to allow the prosecution to proceed.”
• “[Hjearsay statements by third persons * * * are not admissible under this exception merely because they appéar within public records.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).