by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

“ Judicial jurisdiction denotes the political entity's power to subject a given person, thing or occurrence to its judicial processes. [4] There is in this case no absence of jurisdiction in any of these basic meanings. Congress has the undisputed power under the Constitution [5] to define the crimes involved in the pending prosecution, the U.S. Attorney's Office has undisputed authority to conduct the prosecution, and the United States (Congress) , beyond doubt, has power to commit the case to adjudication in a court of its creation. ”

“ Since Kember and Budlong were extradited and arraigned only on local charges, however, appellants contend that the District Court lost jurisdiction to try the case and was therefore without power to hold them in contempt for refusing to testify in response to the Government's subpoenas. [1]
The word jurisdiction is popular in the lexicon of lawyers and judges, so popular that its chameleon quality sometimes slips from our grasp. ”

“ If appellants testify, the evidence they supply may furnish the Government with no insights into possible defense strategies beyond those that documents now in the Government's possession suggest. Nor would appellants be bound by any testimony they give in the Kember-Budlong prosecution. That testimony would not be admissible against them in any subsequent proceeding. The possibility that appellants may respond differently on another day further undercuts the Government's ability to divine later strategy from current testimony. ”

“ Initially, we note that many of these arguments are more appropriately raised by appellants in attacking their own convictions. Similarly, any impropriety by the Government affecting the fairness of the trial of defendants Kember and Budlong may be raised by those defendants in their own right. We express no view as to the likelihood of success of such arguments should they be raised by appellants or by Kember and Budlong as defendants.
Courts have long recognized that grants of immunity are largely made at the discretion of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. ”

“ Hubbard's request that immunity be granted to Mrs. Kember, Kember was in the United Kingdom, challenging the extradition request of this country. Moreover, Kember was a codefendant charged with the same crimes in the same indictment with appellants. We find, therefore, that no manipulation or bad [p1372] faith on the part of the Government is uncovered by the fact that the Government granted immunity to Hubbard but refused to grant immunity to Kember. At the time that immunity was considered for each witness, Hubbard and Kember stood in very different positions before the Government. ”

“ B. Appellant's Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel Related to their concern that the prosecutor may use their immunized testimony in violation of their Fifth Amendment privilege, appellants forcefully argue that if the prosecutor is permitted to examine them now, their Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel will be undermined. They fear revelation of the strategy they have worked out with their attorneys for use in any future proceedings directed against them. ”

“ Accepting this argument of the Government, however, does not dispose of appellants' Fourth Amendment argument. Appellants here assert that their own Fourth Amendment rights protect them from being forced to testify in this case. [23] The question presented to us, therefore, focuses on the extent to which the Fourth Amendment protects an individual from unlawful seizures of evidence when that evidence will be used against some other party.
At the outset, it is fundamental that the Fourth Amendment protects all citizens, and not merely criminal defendants. ”

“ For these appellants, a second trial engagement is conjectural. [15] In another respect, these appellants range nearer to convicted defendants. The concern that the Government's real motive in compelling testimony under use immunity is to gather evidence against the witness is highest in the case of the unindicted witness. [16] If a prosecutorial [p1363] evidence-gathering motive is a risk in the case of a witness facing initial trial following indictment, that risk is diminished when the witness, like these appellants or Liddy, cannot be further prosecuted if his present conviction stands. ”

“ Similarly, a federal court ordinarily does not abuse its discretion when federal civil claims drop from a case after the start of trial and the court proceeds with the pendent state claims. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726-27, 86 S.Ct. at 1139-40.↑ While a witness may challenge a court's authority to compel his testimony and may assert testimonial privileges, we know of no case permitting a witness, on appeal from a contempt citation, to attack mere errors by the trial court. This is so even if, but for the trial court's error, the witness would not have been called to testify. ”

“ Appellants claim that their situation is similar to that of defendants whose private communications with their attorneys were revealed to the Government. In United States v. Levy, 577 F.2d 200 (3d Cir. 1978) , for example, the court held that such intrusion into the privacy of the attorney-client relationship warranted reversal of a conviction whether or not the informant's disclosure to the Government actually prejudiced the defendant. ”

“ PER CURIAM Appellants, subpoenaed by the prosecution to testify in a criminal trial currently in progress in the District Court and granted use immunity for that purpose, refused to testify and were held by the District Court to be in civil contempt. They appeal that judgment and challenge its validity on a number of grounds. ”

“ In stating that an individual only has "standing" to assert the exclusionary rule in a case in which the Government is attempting to impose criminal sanctions against that individual, Calandra resolves this case. The illegally seized evidence sought to be used here will not incriminate appellants, the alleged victims of the unlawful search, in this action. The evidence sought may only incriminate defendants Kember and Budlong. ”

“ The question presented by this case is whether the individual may also block the use of evidence illegally seized from him [24] by refusing to testify concerning that evidence at a trial of some other party. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that an individual does not have such a right and may be compelled to testify.
We note that the questioning of appellants in this case does not separately violate the Fourth Amendment. As stated in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 354, 94 S.Ct. ”

“ A more difficult problem is presented where the Government admits to conducting unlawful electronic surveillance of a person connected with the individual requesting disclosure, with no surveillance conducted of the individual who has requested the disclosure. In such a case, the concern remains that the Government may have obtained evidence concerning the individual requesting disclosure through unlawful electronic surveillance. ”

“ A. Appellants' Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Appellants contend that the grant of use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6001 et seq. is insufficient to protect them against prosecution use of the testimony now sought to be extracted from them. Therefore, they claim, their continued refusal to testify is sheltered by the Fifth Amendment and is not contemptuous. ”

“ Based on our reading of Kastigar and Liddy we are constrained to conclude that the Government's ripeness argument must prevail. The Kastigar - style hearing to which appellants are entitled in any further proceedings is a safeguard against violation of their Fifth Amendment right. We cannot extract from the authorities before us a conclusion that appellants are entitled to more. ”

“ Mrs. Hubbard is being compelled to testify in a trial separate from her own. Such testimony is not an allocution in violation of the disposition agreement. Safeguards exist to assure that anything Mrs. Hubbard may say at the Kember-Budlong trial is not called to the attention of the sentencing judge. [29]
Fourth, appellants claim that the grants of immunity in this case were improper because the Government denied Mrs. Hubbard's motion in her own trial to secure the testimony of defendant Kember pursuant to a grant of immunity. Appellants argue that to require the testimony of Mrs. ”

“ In the present case the Government did not dispute appellants' claim that the questions asked of appellants as witnesses at trial could not be derived from unlawful electronic surveillance conducted in violation of statutory rights. We offer no opinion on this question.↑ Alderman involved claims arising under the Fourth Amendment that were asserted by a defendant, not a witness, in a criminal proceeding. ”

“ Finally, we do not believe that the general guidelines established by the Manual are judicially enforceable, particularly since these guidelines do not reflect constitutional concerns. Accord, Beverly v. United States, 468 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1972) ”