United States v. Frank Desalvo

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Apfelbaum did not change the general rule that immunized testimony cannot be used in a prosecution for perjury committed prior to the grant of immunity
• stating that the claimant must be “confronted by substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination”
• reiterating that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the use of immunized testimony in a prosecution for any offense–including perjury–committed before the grant of immunity if the witness would have had a valid claim of privilege absent the grant
• “[T]he government may not use a witness’s immunized testimony in a prosecution for committing perjury in a prior proceeding.”
• the Court “review[s] the ALJ's decision based on the reasoning 27 and factual findings offered by the ALJ—not post hoc rationalizations that attempt to intuit what 28 the adjudicator may have been thinking.”
• defendant, who was in high position in law firm being investigated and had personal knowledge of cases under investigation, had he testified truthfully “[wjithout doubt .... would have saved the government substantial investigative and trial expenses”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).