NCJ Number
53828
Date Published
1978
Length
5 pages
Annotation
TYPES OF IMMUNITY THAT CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND THE USE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM IMMUNITY TESTIMONY ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
IN MOST STATES, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO DECLARE A WITNESS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION UNLESS IT IS GRANTED BY A STATUTE. TWO TYPES OF IMMUNITY CAN BE GRANTED BY STATUTE UNDER RULINGS BY THE SUPREME COURT. 'TRANSACTIONAL' IMMUNITY IS THE BROADEST IMMUNITY POSSIBLE. IT PROVIDES THAT PERSONS WHO TESTIFY UNDER IMMUNITY CANNOT BE PROSECUTED IN THE AREAS ABOUT WHICH THEY ARE QUESTIONED, REGARDLESS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR TESTIMONY. 'USE' IMMUNITY IS MUCH NARROWER. IT PROVIDES THAT ONLY THE ACTUAL TESTIMONY GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE IMMUNITY ORDER OR ANY EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THAT TESTIMONY CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE WITNESS IN ANY SUBSEQUENT PROSECTION. WHEN A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN GRANTED 'USE' IMMUNITY IS BROUGHT TO TRIAL ON MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH IMMUNITY TESTIMONY, THE STATE HAS A 'VERY HEAVY BURDEN' TO PROVE TOTAL INDEPENDENCE OF ANY USE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OF THE IMMUNIZED TESTIMONY IN THE PROSECUTION. THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN MURPHY VERSUS WATERFRONT COMMISSION (1964) ALSO HELD TESTIMONY GIVEN UNDER IMMUNITY IN ONE JURISDICTION CANNOT BE USED BY ANOTHER JURISDICTION IN PROSECUTING THE WITNESS. A MAJOR PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF TESTIMONY SECURED UNDER IMMUNITY IS THAT JURIES ARE MOST LIKELY TO MISTRUST SUCH TESTIMONY BECAUSE THE WITNESS IS PERCEIVED AS TESTIFYING PURELY OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. IMMUNITY TESTIMONY, THEREFORE, SHOULD ONLY BE RISKED WHEN THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF GAINING THE DESIRED CONVICTION. IMMUNITY IS PERHAPS MOST FRUITFUL WHEN AN INVESTIGATION HAS BOGGED DOWN FOR LACK OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND A SUSPECT GRANTED IMMUNITY CAN PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT LEADS TO NEW EVIDENCE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IS CLARIFIED. (RCB)