prosecutor may grant immunity (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

prosecutor may grant immunity in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Greengreen
calctapp · 1951 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–2009
2 sentences

2009Testimony by Flores to a Particular Version of Facts (5) "A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].)" ( People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 455 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677 , 133 P.3d 581 ].) "[A]n agreement [that] requires only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid, and indeed such a requirement would seem necessary to prevent the witness from sabotaging the bargain." ( People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 361 [ 197 Cal.

2009Testimony by Flores to a Particular Version of Facts (5) "A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].)" ( People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 455 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677 , 133 P.3d 581 ].) "[A]n agreement [that] requires only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid, and indeed such a requirement would seem necessary to prevent the witness from sabotaging the bargain." ( People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 361 [ 197 Cal.

33
People v. Williamsgreen
cal · 2010 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014
2 sentences

2014Moreover, the California Supreme Court has made it clear that “[t]here is nothing improperly coercive about confronting a lesser participant in a crime with his or her predicament, and offering immunity from prosecution for the witness’s criminal role in 17 return for the witness’s promise to testify fully and fairly. [Citations.]” (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 445 .) “A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. [Citation.] But if the immunity agreement places the witness under a strong compulsi

2013The California Supreme Court has made it clear that “[t]here is nothing improperly coercive about confronting a lesser participant in a crime with his or her predicament, and offering immunity from prosecution for the witness‟s criminal role in return for the witness‟s promise to testify fully and fairly. [Citations.]” (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 445 .) “A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on 20 Defendants suggested at trial, but never actually established through the transcript of the interview or testimony, that Bertram and Bunch told Tapia what they w

22
People v. Boyerred
cal · 2006 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2014
2 sentences

2014Moreover, the California Supreme Court has made it clear that “[t]here is nothing improperly coercive about confronting a lesser participant in a crime with his or her predicament, and offering immunity from prosecution for the witness’s criminal role in 17 return for the witness’s promise to testify fully and fairly. [Citations.]” (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 445 .) “A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. [Citation.] But if the immunity agreement places the witness under a strong compulsi

2013The California Supreme Court has made it clear that “[t]here is nothing improperly coercive about confronting a lesser participant in a crime with his or her predicament, and offering immunity from prosecution for the witness‟s criminal role in return for the witness‟s promise to testify fully and fairly. [Citations.]” (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 445 .) “A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on 20 Defendants suggested at trial, but never actually established through the transcript of the interview or testimony, that Bertram and Bunch told Tapia what they w

13
People v. Medinagreen
calctapp · 1974 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–2009
2 sentences

2009Testimony by Flores to a Particular Version of Facts (5) "A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].)" ( People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 455 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677 , 133 P.3d 581 ].) "[A]n agreement [that] requires only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid, and indeed such a requirement would seem necessary to prevent the witness from sabotaging the bargain." ( People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 361 [ 197 Cal.

2009Testimony by Flores to a Particular Version of Facts (5) "A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].)" ( People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 455 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677 , 133 P.3d 581 ].) "[A]n agreement [that] requires only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid, and indeed such a requirement would seem necessary to prevent the witness from sabotaging the bargain." ( People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 361 [ 197 Cal.

13
People v. Fieldsgreen
cal · 1983 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–2009
2 sentences

2009Testimony by Flores to a Particular Version of Facts (5) "A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].)" ( People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 455 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677 , 133 P.3d 581 ].) "[A]n agreement [that] requires only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid, and indeed such a requirement would seem necessary to prevent the witness from sabotaging the bargain." ( People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 361 [ 197 Cal.

2009Testimony by Flores to a Particular Version of Facts (5) "A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].)" ( People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 455 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677 , 133 P.3d 581 ].) "[A]n agreement [that] requires only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid, and indeed such a requirement would seem necessary to prevent the witness from sabotaging the bargain." ( People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 361 [ 197 Cal.

12
People v. Garrisongreen
cal · 1989 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991As we explained in People v. Garrison (1989) 47 Cal.3d 746, 768-769 [254 *238 Cal. Rptr. 257, 765 P.2d 419 ]: "A prosecutor may grant immunity to one jointly charged with a crime upon the condition that he or she testify fully and fairly as to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal. App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].) When the grant of immunity places the witness under strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion, however, the testimony is tainted by the witness's self-interest and is inadmissible. ( People v. Medina [(1974)] 41 Cal. App.3d [438,] 455 [ 116 Cal. Rptr.

1991As we explained in People v. Garrison (1989) 47 Cal.3d 746, 768-769 [254 *238 Cal. Rptr. 257, 765 P.2d 419 ]: "A prosecutor may grant immunity to one jointly charged with a crime upon the condition that he or she testify fully and fairly as to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal. App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].) When the grant of immunity places the witness under strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion, however, the testimony is tainted by the witness's self-interest and is inadmissible. ( People v. Medina [(1974)] 41 Cal. App.3d [438,] 455 [ 116 Cal. Rptr.

11
People v. Mezagreen
calctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989(See People v. Fields, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 359 .) *769 The assumption that the witness will receive the benefit of his bargain only if his testimony is beneficial or valuable to the prosecution is not alone such an inducement as to place him under the kind of compulsion condemned in Green and Medina : "What is improper ... is not that what is expected from the informant's testimony ... will be favorable to the People's case, but that the testimony must be confined to a predetermined formulation or rendered acceptable only if it produces a given result, that is to say, a conviction." ( Peopl

1989(See People v. Fields, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 359 .) *769 The assumption that the witness will receive the benefit of his bargain only if his testimony is beneficial or valuable to the prosecution is not alone such an inducement as to place him under the kind of compulsion condemned in Green and Medina : "What is improper ... is not that what is expected from the informant's testimony ... will be favorable to the People's case, but that the testimony must be confined to a predetermined formulation or rendered acceptable only if it produces a given result, that is to say, a conviction." ( Peopl

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Badgett green
cal · 1995
2 sentences

2014Moreover, the California Supreme Court has made it clear that “[t]here is nothing improperly coercive about confronting a lesser participant in a crime with his or her predicament, and offering immunity from prosecution for the witness’s criminal role in 17 return for the witness’s promise to testify fully and fairly. [Citations.]” (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 445 .) “A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on condition that he or she testify truthfully to the facts involved. [Citation.] But if the immunity agreement places the witness under a strong compulsi

2013The California Supreme Court has made it clear that “[t]here is nothing improperly coercive about confronting a lesser participant in a crime with his or her predicament, and offering immunity from prosecution for the witness‟s criminal role in return for the witness‟s promise to testify fully and fairly. [Citations.]” (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 445 .) “A prosecutor may grant immunity from prosecution to a witness on 20 Defendants suggested at trial, but never actually established through the transcript of the interview or testimony, that Bertram and Bunch told Tapia what they w

22013–2014
People v. Avila green
cal · 2006
2 sentences

2014(People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 594 ; see § 1111.) The plea agreement here did not place Whitfield under a “strong compulsion” to testify in any particular fashion.

2013(People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 594 ; see § 1111.)21 The immunity agreement here did not place Tapia under a “strong compulsion” to testify in any particular fashion.

22013–2014
People v. Freeman green
calctapp · 1987
1 sentence

1991As we explained in People v. Garrison (1989) 47 Cal.3d 746, 768-769 [254 *238 Cal. Rptr. 257, 765 P.2d 419 ]: "A prosecutor may grant immunity to one jointly charged with a crime upon the condition that he or she testify fully and fairly as to the facts involved. ( People v. Green (1951) 102 Cal. App.2d 831, 838-839 [ 228 P.2d 867 ].) When the grant of immunity places the witness under strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion, however, the testimony is tainted by the witness's self-interest and is inadmissible. ( People v. Medina [(1974)] 41 Cal. App.3d [438,] 455 [ 116 Cal. Rptr.

11991–1991
People v. Ruthford green
cal · 1975
2 sentences

1989That's the deal...." Defendant argues that the admission of the testimony that resulted from this plea arrangement violated due process because the terms of the bargain unequivocally required Roelle's trial testimony to conform to his pretrial statement. (3a) Defendant further contends, citing People v. Ruthford (1975) 14 Cal.3d 399 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 261 , 534 P.2d 1341 ], that the prosecution's failure to disclose the terms of the bargain prevented the defense from effectively moving to exclude or strike the testimony and precluded thorough impeachment of Roelle, also in violation of defendant

1989That's the deal...." Defendant argues that the admission of the testimony that resulted from this plea arrangement violated due process because the terms of the bargain unequivocally required Roelle's trial testimony to conform to his pretrial statement. (3a) Defendant further contends, citing People v. Ruthford (1975) 14 Cal.3d 399 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 261 , 534 P.2d 1341 ], that the prosecution's failure to disclose the terms of the bargain prevented the defense from effectively moving to exclude or strike the testimony and precluded thorough impeachment of Roelle, also in violation of defendant

11989–1989

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check