vs. any DoJ prosecution. Remember Oliver North?
He testified under a grant of immunity before televised hearings of a joint congressional committee that was investigating the Iran–Contra scandal. North admitted during the hearings that he had misled Congress and shredded government documents. Independent counsel viewed the prosecution or cooperation of North as the key to the secrets behind the Iran/contra affair but when he refused to enter into plea negotiations leading to a cooperation agreement, it left no alternative but to proceed with prosecution. However, under the immunity deal the congressional committee gave him he was promised that nothing he told Congress could be used against him in a criminal proceeding.
Later he was indicted on 16 felony counts, and he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents. North's convictions were vacated after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony. While the defense could show no specific instance in which North's congressional testimony was used in his trial, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue. https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm
If any 1/6 committee witnesses demand and get use immunity, prosecutors might find themselves facing a similar situation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
