chadenright t1_iuus84l wrote
Reply to comment by N8CCRG in Trump Aide, Granted Immunity, Set to Testify at Grand Jury Probing Mar-a-Lago Documents by hoosakiwi
The fifth amendment, once upon a time, prevented one from being compelled to incriminate oneself via testimony. However, that hasn't stopped courts from attempting to compel people to incriminate themselves anyhow, and the last-ditch line of defense against that is to simply be unable to remember any of the incriminating evidence you are being compelled to testify about.
If you aren't a big-wig politician with the pull to buy off a judge it generally results in contempt of court.
N8CCRG t1_iuuubzt wrote
That's not the part I found unclear. I meant the difference between "immunity agreement" and "granted immunity".
BowwwwBallll t1_iuuy5lt wrote
An immunity AGREEMENT can be very broad. The witness can agree that nothing in his testimony can incriminate him, OR that nothing that the government finds out as a result of his testimony can incriminate him. Which is a very nice deal.
Having immunity GRANTED can mean as little as no prosecution for the answers given in response to questioning, BUT, if the answers open an investigation into other illicit dealings independent of the actions about which the witness is questioned, the witness can and will be prosecuted for those.
RSquared t1_iuvwiyf wrote
A notable fuckup was a grant of immunity to Oliver North when testifying to Congress about Iran-Contra. He successfully overturned his conviction because the prosecution couldn't show that they absolutely didn't use his public testimony in preparing the ironclad case against him.
Another one is the medic who was supposed to testify against Eddie Gallagher, and was granted immunity, only to claim that he himself did the killing that Gallagher was accused of.
SacrificialPwn t1_iuuwcgz wrote
One is accepted and the other is applied without acceptance?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments