How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Legal-Guru Your Own Question
Legal-Guru, Criminal Justice Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 1366
Experience:  Experienced Criminal Trial Attorney since 1998.
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Legal-Guru is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

If a Judge dismiss my case due to taint of a Kastigar hearing,

Customer Question

If a Judge dismiss my case due to taint of a Kastigar hearing, which becomes case law, without prejudice and another jurisdiction takes the case and has to conduct their own Kastigar hearing and the same type of result results (dismissal without prejudice)...Can they ring around the rosy and try as many jurisdictions that they are allowed to?
Submitted: 5 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Legal-Guru replied 5 years ago.
(1) It would have to be in a court that had jurisdiction over the case (i.e., some act or omission that formed the crime occurred within that geographic jurisdiction).

(2) Your attorney could argue that it was res judicata or that the government is collaterally estopped from seeking a different result from a different court. Whether those arguments would be successful or not I cannot tell you.
Customer: replied 5 years ago.
Ok. I understand your answer. Yet, it still doesn't answer my question.

If a Federal Judge rules against the Prosecution for failing to meet the burden of proof in a Kastigar hearing and he/she dismisses the case without prejudice because the entire district that handled my case has been tainted. (1% of Judges dismiss with prejudice).

How can an entirely new jurisdiction decide to take my case and prosecute me if the simple "dye in the water" was exposed in the original Kastigar hearing. My understanding from Kastigar vs U.S. Supreme Court is that you can not "rely on the good faith and testimony from a Prosecutor".

If you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a "wall was formed" in order to protect the testimonial immunity then you can not meet the burden.

If the Judge's rules that the CASE and not the EVIDENCE was tainted...How do you prove that all witness were not in a pool where a droplet of dye was place from the previous prosecution?