U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1974

United States v. Houston Watkins

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Decided November 19, 1974 · Fairchild, Kilkenny, Per Curiam, Sprecher

505 F.2d 545; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6000 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision. The 19 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re Grand Jury Proceedings of August, 1984 (7th Cir. 1984)
United States v. James A. Saettele (8th Cir. 1978)
State v. Rice, Nero, Miller White & Goodson v. State (Md. 2016)
United States v. Frank Desalvo (2d Cir. 1994)
United States v. Ralph A. Eckhardt (7th Cir. 1988)
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, No. 84-4, Appeal of Gilbert B. Hartmann, Antonio Reyes Espinoza, and Ricardo A. Gomez (5th Cir. 1985)
Turner v. Wlodarski (In re Minton Group, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1984)
Rollins C. Snelling, Jr., Witness-Appellant v. United States (10th Cir. 1983)
United States v. Mahler (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1983)
In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Frank Derek Greentree (5th Cir. 1981)
State v. JHS (Wis. Ct. App. 1979)
State v. J. H. S. (Wis. Ct. App. 1979)
United States v. Robert Lee Holleman, Charles Edward Jamerson and Henry Taylor (7th Cir. 1978)
Watkins v. Howard (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1977)
In re Leonard L. Bianchi (1st Cir. 1976)
United States v. Leonard Patrick (7th Cir. 1976)
United States v. Allstate Mortgage Corporation (7th Cir. 1975)
United States v. Frank Ernest Leyva (5th Cir. 1975)
McDonald v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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. denied 415 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.