Posted on 07/23/2018 12:31:57 PM PDT by DCBryan1
The way courts interpret "use immunity," it is virtually indistinguishable from transactional immunity. The leading case is Oliver North's. The Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor, hearing that North was going to be given use immunity to testify before Conress, took all of the evidence he had already accumulated against North and sealed it in a locked safe. When North went to trial, the prosecutor used only evidence that had been in that safe. The Court of Appeals nonetheless reversed North's conviction, because the prosecution couldn't prove that none of its witnesses had heard (first or second-hand) North's immunized testimony, which might have affected their "demeanor" when testifying.
Yes, but that was before Bush set up his secret courts to hear secret evidence.
I’m old enough to remember back in the last century where they had now outmoded ideas like “confronting your accuser” and “public trials”.
And while I'm on a rant, TOMMY TOMMY TOMMY, TOMMY ROBINSON!!
Mueller may have backed off giving Pedophile Tony Podesta immunity once:
1. It leaked out to Fox News
2. The judge ordered that the names of those given immunity be released to the public and not under seal
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.