Opinion ID: 552750
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Kastigar Proceedings in This Case

Text: 75 My earlier dissent cataloged the thorough, if tedious, Kastigar procedures employed by the trial court. Diss. op. at 914-917. These efforts--unrebutted by any showing of taint by the defense--ensured that there was no use of North's immunized testimony and thus no reversible error. 76 The trial court clearly and correctly found that the IC office fully insulated itself from exposure to immunized testimony. 77 The content of the testimony of all but one of the relevant grand jury witnesses was canned before North testified--and the testimony of that witness was cumulative with other canned testimony. 78 The court's preliminary Kastigar finding--analogous to the prima facie showing suggested above--was based on a thorough reading of preliminary witness interviews and the grand jury record. 3 79 The trial court precisely and cautiously instructed trial witnesses to testify based solely on personal knowledge; indeed, the court instructed that any doubt should be resolved in favor of not testifying. 4 Based on knowledge of the preliminary interviews and grand jury testimony, the court was able to determine that no tainted testimony was introduced at trial. 80 The IC delivered relevant grand jury testimony to the defense, enabling the latter to challenge any testimony as tainted. 81 Upon consideration of North's post-trial motion for a second Kastigar hearing--analogous to the burden of production suggested above--the court found few new issues and no new information suggesting taint, and, accordingly, denied the motion. 82 Taken together, all of these procedural protections and the continued diligence of the trial court made clear that no testimony was tainted by North's immunized testimony and thus that no illegal use of immunized testimony was made. The majority's remand for a line-by-line re-examination of the source (and perhaps the motivation) of the testimony of every prosecution witness and its mandate that the prosecution prove--by pre-testimony canning or some undefined functional equivalent--that all testimony was untainted represents an unneeded and unprecedented incursion into the trial court's discretion in managing a fair trial. 5