Opinion ID: 1257677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: lankford's fifth amendment rights were violated.

Text: It is clear that Lankford would not have testified at his brother's trial, or at the hearing on his brother's motion for a new hearing, unless his testimony had been immunized. The use of his testimony by the trial court in sentencing was a violation of his rights under the fifth amendment. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). In Kastigar the Supreme Court said: Immunity from the use of compelled testimony ... prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the compelled testimony in any respect, and it therefore insures that the testimony cannot lead to the infliction of criminal penalties on the witness. Id. at 453, 92 S.Ct. at 1661. In my view, this prohibition was violated when the trial court used Lankford's testimony in fashioning his sentence.