(1) Any testimony obtained by the attorney general or a district attorney pursuant to compulsory process under this article or any information derived directly or indirectly from such testimony shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal prosecution against the person so compelled to testify. The provisions of this subsection (1) shall not be construed to prevent any law enforcement officer from independently producing or obtaining the same or similar facts, information, or evidence for use in any criminal prosecution.
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 6-1-110 (2), the records of investigations or intelligence information of the attorney general or a district attorney obtained under this article may be deemed public records available for inspection by the general public at the discretion of the attorney general or the district attorney. This subsection (2) shall not be construed to prevent the attorney general or a district attorney from issuing public statements describing or warning of any course of conduct or any conspiracy which constitutes a deceptive trade practice, whether on a local, statewide, regional, or nationwide basis.
Source: L. 69: p. 375, § 8. C.R.S. 1963: § 55-5-8. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 350, § 7, effective July 1. L. 81: (1) amended, p. 401, § 1, effective April 30. L. 88: (2) amended, p. 344, § 5, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
People Ex Rel. Smith v. Jordan, 689 P.2d 1172 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 10× “Defendant, Dan Jordan, appeals a trial court order holding him in contempt for his refusal to testify despite its grant of immunity pursuant to § 6-1-111(1), C.R.S. (1983 Cum.Supp.). We affirm.”
Duncan v. Norton, 974 F. Supp. 1328 (D. Colo. 1997).
· cites it 3× “§ 6-1-111 (1) of the CCPA states: Any testimony obtained by the attorney general or a district attorney pursuant to compulsory process under this article [§ 6-1-108] or any information derived directly or indirectly from such testimony shall not be admissible in evidence in any…”
People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Sari, 585 P.2d 591 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 7× “The Attorney General has appealed from the ruling of the district court that the grant of immunity from prosecution embodied in section 6-1-111(1), C.R.S. 1973, 1 is not sufficiently broad to permit the prosecution to compel respondent Sari to testify, over Sari’s invocation of…”
People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Sari, 585 P.2d 591 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 7× “The Attorney General has appealed from the ruling of the district court that the grant of immunity from prosecution embodied in section 6-1-111(1), C.R.S. 1973, 1 is not sufficiently broad to permit the prosecution to compel respondent Sari to testify, over Sari’s invocation of…”
United States v. Martinez, 81 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (D. Colo. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Martinez’s testimony on these three dates (collectively, the “immunized testimony”) was given pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-1-111, which provides that testimony compelled by the Colorado Attorney General “shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal prosecution against…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-111(1) — 5 cases
People Ex Rel. Smith v. Jordan, 689 P.2d 1172 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
“Defendant, Dan Jordan, appeals a trial court order holding him in contempt for his refusal to testify despite its grant of immunity pursuant to § 6-1-111(1), C.R.S. (1983 Cum.Supp.). We affirm.”
Duncan v. Norton, 974 F. Supp. 1328 (D. Colo. 1997).
“§ 6-1-111 (1) of the CCPA states: Any testimony obtained by the attorney general or a district attorney pursuant to compulsory process under this article [§ 6-1-108] or any information derived directly or indirectly from such testimony shall not be admissible in evidence in any…”
People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Sari, 585 P.2d 591 (Colo. 1978).
“The Attorney General has appealed from the ruling of the district court that the grant of immunity from prosecution embodied in section 6-1-111(1), C.R.S. 1973, 1 is not sufficiently broad to permit the prosecution to compel respondent Sari to testify, over Sari’s invocation of…”
People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Sari, 585 P.2d 591 (Colo. 1978).
“The Attorney General has appealed from the ruling of the district court that the grant of immunity from prosecution embodied in section 6-1-111(1), C.R.S. 1973, 1 is not sufficiently broad to permit the prosecution to compel respondent Sari to testify, over Sari’s invocation of…”
United States v. Martinez, 81 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (D. Colo. 2015).
“Martinez’s testimony on these three dates (collectively, the “immunized testimony”) was given pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-1-111, which provides that testimony compelled by the Colorado Attorney General “shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal prosecution against…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-111(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.