Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...tion for notification of convening the grand jury is moot because counsel for appellant appeared before the grand jury when the state presented its case against Johnston. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to enforce section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), and his motion in limine requesting the court to prohibit the state from introducing into evidence the statement of the defendant discussing two letters....

...Both attorneys then responded to the subpoenas and turned the two letters over to the prosecutor. In a later statement to Investigator Mundy, appellant revealed that he had written both letters. The letters and appellant's statement regarding the letters were subsequently introduced at trial. Section 914.04 provides that neither testimony given pursuant to a subpoena nor evidence procured through a subpoena duces tecum shall be received against the person compelled to give the testimony or produce the evidence....

...the attorney-client privilege. Proceeding on this premise, appellant claims that the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum was equivalent to an issuance to him personally, and thus, once he was compelled, through his attorneys, to produce the letters, section 914.04 was activated and the immunity thus created required the trial court to grant his motions....

...aled to appellant's girlfriend. Obviously, appellant cannot claim that what he "communicated" to his lawyers was confidential or in any way privileged. See Mobley v. State, 409 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1982). Accordingly, the denial of the motion to enforce section 914.04 was correct....

...sconduct, and selective prosecution. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hough v. Popper, 287 So.2d 282, 285 (Fla. 1973) (issuing writ to compel trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the transactional immunity or use immunity provisions of section 914.04, Florida Statutes, were applicable); Owen v....

...nts, including Hampton’s relationship with Musselwhite and other individuals under investigation. Under Florida law, since this testimony was given pursuant to a subpoena, it resulted in automatic transactional immunity from state prosecution. See § 914.04, Florida Statutes....

...circumstances of that crime. However, appellant was adamant and refused to testify. Thereupon, the state served appellant with an investigative subpoena returnable instanter and advised the court that it was thereby immunizing appellant pursuant to § 914.04, F.S....

...testify on grounds of self-incrimination. Appellant's acquittal of the alleged rape involved in the Hill prosecution protected appellant from any further prosecution on the rape charge. In addition, the state through an investigative subpoena under § 914.04, F.S....

...The immunization of appellant was complete as to any necessarily disclosed past act, including the giving of past statements or testimony. As pointed out in State ex rel. Hough v. Popper, Fla. 1973, 287 So.2d 282, an individual who gives coerced testimony pursuant to § 914.04, F.S....

...or false imprisonment for which he was charged." That case might be distinguished on the basis of the above quoted limited offer of immunity. If on the other hand the state's offer of immunity was sufficient to completely immunize the witness under § 914.04, F.S....

...bearing or effect; to be directed as to any end, object, or purpose; to have a tendency, conscious or unconscious, to any end, object or purpose. In Jenny v. State, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984), the Supreme Court of Florida reminds us (referring to F.S. 914.04) of the principles governing statutory construction: There is no requirement that a person must invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in order to be granted immunity....

...LaPorte and Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for relator. Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. HATCHETT, Justice. This is an original proceeding on suggestion for writ of prohibition, which raises questions under the immunity statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...There is also a typewritten statement for services rendered and, finally, Miss Burton's name, address, telephone number, age, and date of birth have been written by hand on a piece of paper. Dr. Tsavaris contends that his secretary's production of these documents precludes his being brought to trial, on account of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975). In construing Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), it is important to bear in mind "the very purpose for its enactment ......

...In Florida, the state attorney may subpoena witnesses to appear for questioning either before the grand jury, or, pursuant to Section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1975), before the state attorney himself. In this connection, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, said of a predecessor to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975): The gravamen of the statute is to provide an investigatory weapon to law enforcement which they are not obligated to utilize....

...The language of the immunity statute betrays no intention to empower an employee to secure its benefits for an employer. The statute says that "no person shall be prosecuted ... for ... any ... matter ... concerning which he may ... produce evidence." Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) (emphasis supplied). We believe the plain language of the statute should be given effect and decide that no citizen can be immunized from prosecution for crime under Section 914.04 by another citizen's compliance with a subpoena....

...In the instant case the deeply held views of various members of the Court seem to be leading us not necessarily to bad law, but to a failure to have a meeting of the minds on what I perceive to be the only issue in this case, i.e., do the provisions of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, come into play so as to grant relator total immunity from prosecution? The dissents strongly and sincerely assert relator's protection against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution....

...However, there is no analysis by which I can join the dissenters in their leap from Dr. Tsavaris's right to have illegally seized documentary evidence and its fruits suppressed to the conclusion that total immunity has been invoked through operation of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes....

...In short, the law enforcement authorities in the instant case may have unwittingly victimized Dr. Tsavaris for which he has recourse under an appropriate motion to suppress; but surely the authorities have not immunized Dr. Tsavaris through operation of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes....

...To cast my view of the Constitution in that light, however, is to scorn a system of justice which for 200 years has been geared to protect any citizen from criminal prosecution based on documents and testimony extracted from him by force. It is essential to remember that by enacting Section 914.04 the Legislature granted state attorneys an awesome authority to pry into private documents and to compel sworn testimony....

...to compel testimony or the production of documents, the Legislature has extracted a high price from government, namely an immunization from prosecution for the person so compelled to respond to subpoena. For these reasons, the immunity conferred by Section 914.04 should be liberally construed to extend to the full breadth of at least Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, [8] even if not required by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution....

...papers or other articles which merely furnish evidence of a crime and the search and seizure of the actual instrumentality of the crime. See Annotations, 129 A.L.R. 1297. The majority opinion construes Article I, Section 9, Florida Constitution, and Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), as being inapplicable, because Dr....

...After probable cause was *756 found, a search warrant was issued for the purpose of seizing private records and papers which were, in fact, instrumentalities of the crime. The defendant objected to their admissibility at the trial invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. No statute similar to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, was involved....

...errogation of Dr. Tsavaris during the grand jury proceeding was such as to require him to invoke his privilege. His silence or refusal to testify concerning the death of Cassandra Burton was of such testimonial character as to bring the provision of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, into play and grant him immunity....

...As a federal constitutional matter, it is only necessary that the witness be given use immunity. Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Com'n of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472, 92 S.Ct. 1670, 32 L.Ed.2d 234 (1972); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). Under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), the prosecutor, by requiring a subpoenaed witness to testify over objection on self-incrimination grounds, confers transactional immunity as to the matter about which he inquires and use immunity as to other offenses....

...3d DCA 1969). Chapter 69-316, Laws of Florida, was enacted to expand the investigatory abilities of law enforcement officials by extending the power to coerce testimony and cooperation to all areas of criminal activity. Since that time the few cases involving Section 914.04 which have reached the appellate courts have concerned offenses of lesser magnitude than murder....

...cietal interest in law enforcement by excluding the highly probative testimony of a nondefendant. Id. (footnote omitted). This situation is not comparable to those involving a valid offer of immunity from a state attorney or other authorized person. § 914.04-.05, Fla....

...This is a petition to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Farmer v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 400 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), in which the following questions were certified by subsequent order as being of great importance: 1) Does Section 914.04 of the Florida Statutes and the Supreme Court's decision in Lurie v....

...In response to the questions certified for our review, we make the following observations. Given the resolution of this case on the merits, we find it unnecessary to answer the first question. The issues upon which this decision rests do not involve either section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), or our decision in Lurie v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 288 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1973), concerning section 932.29, Florida Statutes (1967), the predecessor of section 914.04....

...Rendina, an attorney, for offering unlawful compensation to DeBock while DeBock was an assistant state attorney. DeBock asserted his fifth amendment privilege and refused to answer questions at a deposition, contending that the immunity flowing from section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), was insufficient to immunize him from bar disciplinary proceedings....

...ore DeBock could be compelled to testify in the criminal case. The district court reversed, holding that the witness seeking immunity from bar discipline is the one who has the burden of obtaining it from this Court. The district court reasoned that section 914.04 immunizes a witness solely from criminal prosecution and since bar disciplinary proceedings are remedial and not penal, the immunized witness cannot invoke his fifth amendment privilege and refuse to testify in a criminal case because...

...DeBock petitioned this Court for review, alleging that the district court's opinion was in conflict with our decision in Ciravolo v. The Florida Bar, 361 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1978), which dealt with two attorneys who had been granted immunity from criminal prosection pursuant to section 914.04 and who claimed that this immunity also extended to bar disciplinary proceedings....

...Because DeBock's claims are all at least partially based on an erroneous view of our decision in Ciravolo, it is with that case that our discussion begins. Two attorneys, Ciravolo and Feldman, had been subpoenaed to appear before a *166 grand jury; both were granted immunity pursuant to the provisions of section 914.04....

...From this premise DeBock argues that equal protection demands that an attorney be treated the same as non-lawyer professionals. We reject both suggestions. First, we point out that the underpinnings of both Lurie and Seymour, upon which DeBock relies, were effectually gutted when section 914.04 was amended by 82-393, section 1, Laws of Florida (1982)....

...United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1661, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972), but also provided that "no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify ..." § 914.04, Fla....

...ve use immunity. The Supreme Court in Kastigar held that this is as broad as is constitutionally required to encompass the fifth amendment's protection against compulsory self-incrimination. 406 U.S. at 453, 92 S.Ct. at 1661. [4] By its plain terms, section 914.04 now is limited strictly to "any criminal investigation or proceeding." Even accepting arguendo DeBock's assertion that Ciravolo left intact Lurie and Seymour, the 1982 amendment to section 914.04 now renders Lurie and Seymour inapposite....

...ilege until immunized from bar discipline. However, regardless of this statutory analysis, DeBock's reading of Ciravolo is incorrect. We explicitly limited the "unfortunate" reference to lawyers made in Lurie, and held that a grant of immunity under section 914.04 does not immunize an attorney from bar disciplinary proceedings....

...Not only did we explicitly limit Lurie's rational as it applied to attorneys, our opening paragraph in Ciravolo belies DeBock's argument: The question we considered in that case was "whether or not evidence given by an attorney, following a grant of immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), may be used against him in a disciplinary proceeding brought by The Florida Bar;" we answered this question in the affirmative. 361 So.2d at 121. The 1975 version of section 914.04 at issue in Ciravolo provided for the broad grant of transactional immunity and, as stated, extended to any penalty, whether civil or criminal....

...mmunity from disciplinary action to an attorney ..." Id. at 125. Who would have the burden of obtaining such immunity from this Court was not explicitly addressed in Ciravolo. However, our holdings here and in Ciravolo that the immunity conferred by 914.04 does not extend to bar disciplinary proceedings because they are remedial, not penal, and our recognition in Ciravolo that a state attorney is powerless to interfere with this Court's exclusive jurisdiction over members of the bar, easily lead...

...It would not only be inconsistent with our separation of powers concerns to place this burden on a state attorney, it would also needlessly "place a stumbling block in the path" of those whose duty is to investigate and prosecute criminal wrongdoing. Once immunity was granted to DeBock pursuant to section 914.04, he was fully protected from having his testimony used against him in any criminal proceeding....

...He was questioned regarding the transaction for which he was later charged. Petitioner's motion to dismiss two counts of the information because they related to his subpoenaed testimony before the state attorney was granted. The district court reversed, finding that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) did not confer immunity in the absence of petitioner's having asserted his privilege against self-incrimination and the state having compelled his answer over his objection. We quash the decision of the district court. Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution....

...ALDERMAN, Chief Justice, dissenting. I would approve the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, which reverses the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of the information. The Fourth District correctly held that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), did not confer transactional or use immunity on the defendant in the absence of his having asserted his privilege against self-incrimination and in the absence of the state's having compelled his answer over his objection. It further correctly held that the state's failure to first advise defendant of his right against self-incrimination did not relieve him of the necessity to assert this right. Section 914.04 is not self-executing upon the issuance of a subpoena and nonprotesting compliance with the subpoena by the witness's attendance....

...To gain the immunity provided by this state, the subpoenaed witness must assert his privilege against self-incrimination. When he asserts this privilege but is still compelled to furnish incriminating evidence, his answers then may not be used against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution. EHRLICH, J., concurs. NOTES [*] Section 914.04 was amended in 1982 to delete the provision regarding transactional immunity.

...The issue thus becomes one of considering the interrelationship of the witness's Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness who testifies against him, and the Immunity Statute, F.S. 914.04, wherein a person who testifies concerning matters that would incriminate him while under subpoena may be entitled to immunity....

...ided the case under review — and then hold that the District Court's decision conflicted with a previous decision of this Court on the same point of law. And yet, that is exactly what has been done here. MERITS The statute involved here is now Sec. 914.04 Florida Statutes (F.S.A.)....

...The statute is rooted in the criminal law and applies only to criminal law. From the very beginning, this statute was one granting immunity only from criminal prosecution. In Headley v. Baron, supra, we thoroughly analyzed the immunity statute, formerly 932.29 and now Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., not only on the question of the immunity statute, but also the "forfeiture rule", which is not involved in this case and therefore is not before this Court....

...cond brief on the merits [4] relies heavily upon the overruled case of Florida State Board of Architecture v. Seymour, 62 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1952). The statutes at that time should be examined. The opinion there sets forth Sections 838.08 and 932.29 (now 914.04), Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., and said Section 838.08 was set forth as follows: "838.08....

...tement or confession is suppression. It is manifest that appellant has failed to distinguish that situation from the one at bar. Here, we are dealing not simply with the taking of a statement but more importantly with the waiver of immunity statute, § 914.04 F.S....

...h Amendment to the United States Constitution. We will discuss Dr. Tsavaris' self-incrimination claim as a Fifth Amendment claim. As noted above, Dr. Tsavaris first asserted that he was immunized from prosecution for the murder of Sally Burton under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) by reason of his secretary's compliance with the subpoenas duces tecum....

...In its opinion in that case the court discussed the implications of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, but we do not read the opinion as a ruling on whether either of those amendments were violated in this case. In our view the supreme court held only that Section 914.04 conferred no immunity on Dr....

...uccessful if they had, since the summons were narrowly drawn and sought documents of unquestionable relevance to the tax investigation. In Tsavaris v. Scruggs, supra , our supreme court held that Dr. Tsavaris was not immunized from prosecution under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) by reason of the subpoenas duces tecum because he was not asked to say or do anything; in other words, there was no compulsion on Dr....

...Russell Troutman, President of The Florida Bar, Winter Park, and Wilson J. Foster, Jr., Bar Counsel, Tallahassee, for respondent. PER CURIAM. We must decide a most difficult question: whether or not evidence given by an attorney, following a grant of immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), may be used against him in a disciplinary proceeding brought by The Florida Bar....

...In 1974, an investigation was conducted into O'Malley's financial affairs for possible criminal charges. During the investigation, the prosecutor subpoenaed Ciravolo and Feldman to appear with their personal and business records before the Leon County Grand Jury. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 914.04, both were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony....

...rida Bar — [Assistant State Attorney] That's correct. [Petitioner's Counsel] — Or any grievance procedures. [Assistant State Attorney] That's correct. [Petitioner's Counsel] Am I correct so far? [Assistant State Attorney] If you'll examine Statute 914.04, you'll find that it includes the language of any penalty or forfeiture....

...In order to determine whether the state attorney was authorized to grant disciplinary immunity to petitioners, we must review our immunity statute and those cases in which it has been considered in the context of professional disciplinary proceedings. Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) provides: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution....

...of the exclusive jurisdiction of this court over members of the legal profession. Respondents argue that by reviving Seymour, the exception in Massfeller was also revived, and conclude that petitioners were on notice that the immunity granted under Section 914.04 did not extend to disciplinary proceedings brought by The Florida Bar....

...Massfeller, as distinguished above, is not dispositive. Petitioners' reliance on Lurie was not misplaced. The majority's broad sweep of explanatory language and express, but unfortunate, reference to attorneys, supports petitioners' contention that a grant of immunity under Section 914.04 extends to disciplinary proceedings brought by The Florida Bar....

...s strong language in Lurie, and the court's imperfect handling of precedents, we are bound by the understanding reached by counsel in this case. This court supplied the material that misled. We now limit Lurie and hold that a grant of immunity under Section 914.04 does not immunize attorneys from disciplinary proceedings instituted or imposed by or under authority of the rules of this court....

...NOTES [*] It is the State's position that, even absent a subpoena commanding the appearance of Messrs. Ciravolo and Feldman, our proposed discussion will inherently confer upon Messrs. Ciravolo and Feldman full and complete transactional immunity as contemplated by Florida Statute 914.04 as to each and every transaction, matter or thing concerning which they may offer testimony or information....

...personal to him and were files of his personal law practice and that he, through his employees, was compelled to produce evidence that incriminated him. [3] The able trial judge assigned to the case held that Dawson was immune from prosecution under § 914.04, Florida Statutes, [4] and forever abated any further prosecution by the State....

...[B]ring with you any and all books, records, journals, ledgers and other papers and documents within your possession, custody or control pertaining to DAWSON AND HART, P.A., a professional service corporation... ." [3] Immunity was claimed under Sec. 914.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...co-conspirator. After being indicted, petitioners moved for dismissal of the indictment based, inter alia, on a contention that they were immunized from prosecution for the offenses charged, by virtue of the mentioned testimony and pursuant to F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A....

...n evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was sufficient independent, unrelated evidence to justify prosecution, as the State suggests there is, and in the absence of such evidence to dismiss the charges. Petitioners vigorously urge that F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A....

...Mach, 187 So.2d 918 (Fla. App.2d 1966). Thus, if petitioners' testimony given under subpoena concerned the same "transaction, matter or thing" for which they are being prosecuted under the indictments here in question, the indictments must be dismissed pursuant to F.S. 914.04, F.S.A.; if, however, the indictments do not relate to a transaction concerning which they testified pursuant to subpoena, but rather relate to an independent criminal transaction, F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A, provides only "use" immunity....

...fficient independent evidence to justify prosecution on such an independent, different transaction. The record before this Court is insufficient to enable us to determine at this point whether the use immunity or transactional immunity provisions of § 914.04 are applicable to the facts of this case....

...sufficient independent evidence to justify prosecution, the indictments must be dismissed. Accordingly, our writ will issue, requiring the trial judge to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the following issues: (1) Whether the provisions of F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A., as applied to the factual situation presented by the instant cause, provides petitioners a transactional immunity, rather than merely a use immunity; and (2) Whether, if only the use immunity provisions of F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A., apply to the instant cause, there exists sufficient independent evidence to justify prosecution of the petitioners thereon....

...[18] This is in contrast to the purpose behind general immunity statutes, which grant immunity as a prosecutorial and investigatory tool. See In re Buonacoure, 412 F.Supp. 904 (E.D.Pa. 1976); State v. Schell, 222 So.2d 757 (Fla.App. 1969). [19] Interestingly, the general immunity statute in Florida, Fla.Stat. § 914.04, goes beyond the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment, and grants full transactional immunity....

...Hatten and appellant Salem, law partners, were personally involved in the subject of the investigation. Hatten was ultimately indicted by the grand jury for making a false notary's certificate. During the course of the investigation, Salem was granted immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to Florida Statute 914.04, and advised by the trial judge that he was immune as to any and all charges stemming from, and relevant to, the testimony given or to be given, except perjury....

...*390 The state, of course, has authority to confer such immunity on a witness if it chooses to do so. See Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1977); Novo v. Scott, 438 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1984); State v. Schell, 222 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); § 914.04, Fla....

...Statutory immunity is generally that power granted by the legislature to the executive branch through statute which gives a prosecutor authority to confer immunity on a witness in return for the witness's self-incriminating testimony. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 6002 (Supp. 1984); § 914.04, Fla....

...isconduct, a judgment of acquittal is warranted. The state can avoid a judgment of acquittal in an appropriate case, however, if it cures the constitutional violation by means of a grant of use immunity to the appropriate defense witness pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...s, and that violation can be remedied by a grant of statutory use immunity to a defense witness. In that instance, the court may only get involved to the point of presenting the state with the choice of either granting the witness use immunity under section 914.04 of the Florida Statutes to cure the constitutional violation or suffering a judgment of acquittal....

...[8] We note for clarity that even if the requisite prosecutorial misconduct had been established in this case, the proper procedure would have been for the court to allow the state to decide whether to suffer a judgment of acquittal in this case or to grant Downey, the defense witness, use immunity pursuant to section 914.04 and thereby cure the constitutional violation....

...on August 15, 1974. Orosz then filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that incriminating evidence was elicited from him by the state while he was under prosecutorial subpoena which entitled him to immunity pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 914.04....

...ity in finding out what testimony this key defense witness would proffer. We emphasize that this interrogation was not one governed by the Miranda doctrine for Orosz was not a suspect or target at the time of interrogation. Secondly, Florida Statute 914.04 is not self-operating....

...Other points asserted by Orosz have been reviewed and found to be without merit. AFFIRMED. BOYER, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Orosz and Swain were also charged with robbery in an unrelated case. Orosz was incarcerated upon that charge at the time he was deposed on October 2, 1974. [2] Florida Statute 914.04 states: "Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution....

...United States, 281 F.2d 736 (4th Cir.1960); and cf. Salem v. State, 305 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Saunders v. State, 319 So.2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and United States v. Wilcox, 450 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir.1971). The State urges that if King had testified, he would have had immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...State, 920 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So.2d 745 (Fla.1977), the Florida Supreme Court determined that prohibition was available to review before trial whether a defendant was immune from prosecution under the investigative subpoena statute—section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Three individuals, including appellant and Carl Allen McDonald, allegedly raped the prosecutrix. The state tried McDonald first, and he was acquitted. Before appellant's trial, the state subpoenaed and interrogated McDonald about the incident in question pursuant to § 914.04 F.S....

...PER CURIAM. The petitioner was subpoenaed to testify in a criminal investigation and invoked his *478 fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In response, the assistant state attorney advised Mr. Novo that he would extend immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The judge reasoned that such language fails to place restrictions on the use of the fruits of such testimony. Without contesting the basic soundness of this determination, it is readily apparent that the present case is distinguishable. Here, unlike Compton, 914.04 contains the additional language "any investigation". By adding investigation, the legislature intended to include derivative use immunity. This legislative intent is confirmed by the analysis below. Second; 914.04 must be considered in light of basic rules of statutory construction....

...lled to say regarding such charge."); and Orosz v. State, 334 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).[5] [4] Parenthetically, it must be reiterated that the language extending use immunity is not *480 new but was contained in the previous statutes. cf., F.S., 914.04 (1978); and, F.S. 932.29 (1967). The only change in the 1982 Amendment was to delete transactional immunity. [5] (footnote omitted) We adopt the reasoning and analysis of the trial judge and hold that section 914.04 is constitutional and affords a witness derivative-use immunity....

...We think the court was correct in its ruling. Since immunity from prosecution is a creature of statute, City of Hollywood v. Washington, 384 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), we turn our attention to the text of Florida's use immunity statute, which is found in section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...eeding. The supreme court recently addressed the operation of the statute in Jenny v. State, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984). There James Jenny was subpoenaed by the state to testify about a transaction for which he was later charged. The court held that section 914.04 was self-executing and automatically grants use immunity to one who testifies under the circumstances it delineates....

...ly follows that it should apply equally to defense-subpoenaed witnesses. Thus, once subpoenaed by the defense, Powers could not be excused from testifying on the ground of self-incrimination, because he would automatically receive use immunity under section 914.04....

...825, 103 S.Ct. 57, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). Thus, federal courts have concluded that the right to present a defense does not entitle a defendant to demand immunity for his witnesses. Chagra, 669 F.2d at 260. We hold that the self-executing feature of section 914.04 discussed in Jenny is limited to cases where the state subpoenas a witness to testify before the state attorney, grand jury, or before a court having felony jurisdiction....

...tify before the Dade County Grand Jury. The judgment of civil contempt provides, inter alia, (a) that Agrella was lawfully subpoenaed before the Grand Jury; (b) that he appeared, was duly sworn, and was given transactional immunity *1114 pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979); (c) that despite the grant of immunity, Agrella continued to assert his privilege against self-incrimination and continued to refuse to answer questions asked of him; (d) that the court thereafter expressly or...

...ave requested recross-examination, rather than the opportunity to call Revis in the defense case- in-chief, had the court not announced a policy against recross. Revis’s testimony on recross-examination would have been subject to use immunity. See § 914.04, 4 defense explained that Revis’s testimony was needed to make clear for the jury that Revis acted alone when she entered the warehouse and took additional property. The court commented that the...

...Schroeder, 112 So.2d 257 (Fla.1959), and does not implicate any constitutional provisions since Kastigar held that only use immunity is required. See State v. Williams, 487 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also DeBock v. State, 512 So.2d 164 (Fla.1987). Florida Statutes § 914.04 previously provided for transactional immunity, but in 1982 the legislature amended the statute to provide for only use and derivative use immunity....

...The OSP served Grant with a subpoena seeking to take a pretrial discovery deposition concerning the Rachel's case. At the deposition, the assistant statewide prosecutor attempted to question Grant about his activities and observations at Rachel's. Despite the OSP's assertion that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2001), conferred use and derivative use immunity on him, Grant refused to answer the questions asserting his right to remain silent under the United States and Florida Constitutions. The State then filed a motion to compel Grant to answer the questions, and for the costs associated with the failed deposition. Grant responded by asserting that section 914.04 does not give the OSP the authority to confer immunity on a witness....

...compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself." Of course, the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 are not implicated if the witness is granted immunity. In Florida, the statute dealing with immunity from criminal prosecution is section 914.04....

...uch evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed. (Emphasis added). Grant contends that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by holding that the OSP is equivalent to a state attorney, and may grant immunity under section 914.04. Grant argues that because immunity is a creature of statute, section 914.04 must be strictly construed....

...immunity under the statute. The State argues that the trial court correctly found that section 16.56(3), Florida Statutes (2001), confers the powers granted to state attorneys on the OSP, and authorizes the OSP to utilize the immunity provisions of section 914.04. We conclude that the trial court correctly held that the immunity provisions of section 914.04 apply when a party is subject to an investigatory subpoena issued by or at the request of the OSP. Section 914.04 automatically grants use immunity to one who testifies under the circumstances delineated therein. See Jenny v. State, 447 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984). [1] The statute provides that immunity is granted when a person is called before "any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, or trial ...." § 914.04, Fla....

...The rule will be disregarded when an expanded interpretation of a statute will accomplish beneficial results, where its application would thwart the legislative intent made apparent by the entire act, or serve the purpose for which the statute was enacted. Id. at 324. The purpose of section 914.04 is to aid the State in the prosecution of crimes....

...Powers, 351 So.2d 32, 40 (Fla.1977). The doctrine of in pari materia requires courts to construe related statutes together so that they will illuminate each other and are harmonized. Singleton v. Larson, 46 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1950). This rule requires us to construe sections 914.04 and 16.56(3) together and to harmonize them, if possible....

...The logical reading of these statutes is that immunity extends whether the investigation is by a state attorney or the OSP. The inclusion of the power to grant immunity to the OSP in section 16.56(3) should be read to include the self-executing use immunity provided for in section 914.04, when the OSP compels a person to testify in a criminal proceeding or investigation....

...450[, 99 S.Ct. 1292, 59 L.Ed.2d 501] (1979). Thus, a promise of use immunity is binding and the State is "prohibited from making any such use of compelled testimony and its fruits." Murphy, 378 U.S. at 79[, 84 S.Ct. 1594]. (Emphasis supplied). Accordingly, section 914.04 immunity from use and derivative use "is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege." Kastigar v....

...This per curiam denial of certiorari resulted in a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court which held, in Lurie v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 288 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1973), that the immunity attaching under Section 932.29, Florida Statutes (1967), renumbered Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1971), prohibits use of immunized testimony in administrative proceedings to revoke a license to practice dentistry....

...t in the imposition of a penalty or forfeiture depriving the witness of a property right, such as government employment. However, deeming the matter to be of great public importance we hereby certify the following question to the Supreme Court: DOES SECTION 914.04 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN LURIE v....

...to the second aspect of appellee's position. That is, whether there was an effective grant of immunity to appellee, Washington. Immunity from prosecution is a creature of statute. Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1977). The present statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felo...

...The statutory language is clear and explicit that immunity results only from compelled testimony before a court having felony trial jurisdiction, a grand jury, or a state attorney. In State v. Powell, 343 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the court held that the immunity granted by Section 914.04 is, by its terms, limited to that specifically stated in the statute....

...ington. REVERSED. ANSTEAD, J., concurs. LETTS, C.J., concurring specially with opinion. LETTS, Chief Judge, concurring specially with opinion. I am glad the majority has agreed to certify the question of whether the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 914.04 in Lurie v....

...The defendant-appellee, Ralph Weir, was charged by information with two counts of unlawful solicitation of motor vehicle tort claims, in violation of Sec. 627.7375(8), Fla. Stat. (1977). The trial judge entered an order discharging Weir on the ground that he had been immunized from prosecution under Sec. 914.04, Fla....

...At the conclusion of the colloquy, [1] McMaster nevertheless proceeded to question him under oath concerning the very ambulance-chasing incident which formed the basis of the alleged crimes of which he was later accused. We concur with the trial judge's determination that, on these facts, Weir was immunized by the effect of § 914.04....

...Pearce was compelled to attend and testify at grand jury proceedings under a subpoena issued by the State Attorney. Pearce had not been advised that the grievance committee, at the time, was investigating his conduct. By motion to abate, Pearce says that the provisions of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) grant him immunity....

...ed testimony. Kastigar v. United States, supra . " [4] The State argues, however, that although the trial court's order purports to grant use immunity only, a witness who is compelled to testify by court order will by virtue of the immunity statute, § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (1979), automatically receive transactional immunity. This argument may overlook that the witness is not necessarily being called pursuant to Section 914.04, compare Stancel v....

...A court performs a similar function when it resolves a claim involving a different type of immunity under rule 3.190(c)(3), a claim that prosecution is barred because the defendant has transactional immunity. See, e.g., State v. Toogood, 349 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (involving statutory transactional immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975))....

...The two lawyers, Doe and Roe, were originally charged in that disciplinary proceeding, but the complaints against them were dismissed on the authority of Ciravolo v. The Florida Bar, 361 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1978), because a state attorney, pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1973), [2] had purported to grant them immunity not only from criminal prosecution but also from Bar disciplinary proceedings with respect to testimony they had given under oath in 1974 and 1975....

...not available to them because they have been immunized from criminal prosecution. In response, Doe and Roe contend that the recent grants of immunity are not valid and effective because the conditions precedent to the grant of immunity set forth in section 914.04, Florida Statutes, do not exist in the present case....

...discipline. Doe and Roe's situation was identical to that of Ciravolo and Feldman who had likewise relied on a state attorney's purported grant of immunity from Bar discipline. In Ciravolo v. The Florida Bar , we held that a grant of immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), does not immunize an attorney from Bar disciplinary proceedings, but we refrained from applying this holding to Ciravolo and Feldman because their giving of testimony was predicated on a justifiable interpretation of our precedent existing at the time they were given immunity....

...ENGLAND, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and McDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents. NOTES [1] Respondents have been given fictitious names to preserve the confidentiality which was ordered by the circuit court in the contempt proceeding. [2] Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, gra...

...als believed to be conspiring to traffic and trafficking in 10,000 pounds or more of cannabis in violation of sections 777.04(4)(b) and 893.135(1)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (1979). Appellant received both transactional and use immunity [3] pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), which says: 914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution....

...me shall have the same force and effect as if signed by the state attorney. [3] Transactional and use immunity are best described and illustrated in State ex rel. Hough v. Popper, 287 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla. 1973). Petitioners vigorously urge that F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A....

...The state subpoenaed DeBock for deposition, but DeBock asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to answer questions on the ground that his answers might be used against him in Florida Bar disciplinary proceedings. DeBock contended that the immunization flowing from section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), was insufficient to immunize him from Bar disciplinary proceedings; that such protection could only be afforded by the Supreme Court of Florida; and that the burden was upon the state to seek an order of that court immunizing him before the state could compel him to testify....

...h immunity from the Supreme Court of Florida before seeking to compel DeBock to testify. The parties concede that by subpoenaing DeBock for deposition in this criminal proceeding, the state has clothed DeBock with use and derivative use immunity via section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983). Menut v. State, 446 So.2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). It is also clear that section 914.04 provides no immunity from disciplinary proceedings instituted by The Florida Bar and that such immunity can be provided only by the Supreme Court of Florida....

...Brodski, 369 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). One of the issues here is: who should shoulder the responsibility for seeking such immunity from the supreme court? We hold that a witness in DeBock's position must apply therefor because, when the statutory immunity provided by section 914.04 has been granted by a state attorney, the witness is immunized from criminal prosecution and must testify....

...Combs who is charged with the responsibility of prosecuting this case in Gadsden County, but that the state attorney's office in the Second Judicial Circuit, speaking through Mr. White, did in fact inadvertently grant immunity to Mr. Charles Williams. We cannot agree with the court's reasoning. Before its amendment in 1982, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, contained a provision, stating: "[N]o person shall be prosecuted ......

...(emphasis supplied) The effect of the above statute was to grant both "use and transactional immunity to one who testifies under the circumstances it delineates." Jenny v. State, 447 So.2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 1984). The above provision was deleted by Chapter 82-393, Section 1, Laws of Florida. As amended, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), provides: No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felon...

...The basis of the trial court's ruling in dismissing the information was that the subpoena duces tecum was addressed to and served personally on Deems, not in any corporate capacity, but as an individual and having so complied with the subpoena, he was immunized from prosecution under § 914.04, Fla....

...or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, and no testimony so given or produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding." Section 914.04, Fla....

...sale and delivery of foodstuffs. In that situation, the president to whom the subpoena duces tecum was directed and who responded by producing the corporate records *833 called for in the subpoena was not thereby immunized from said prosecution, by § 914.04 Fla....

...The depositions of appellees were taken in relation to the charge of bribery against a third person and not in relation to criminal usury, loansharking or shylocking. Thus, the foregoing statute is not applicable. In their briefs and oral argument, however, both the state and appellees have argued the applicability of § 914.04, Fla. Stat. 1973, the general immunity statute. It is substantially the same as the specific immunity statute set forth in § 687.071(6). § 914.04 provides as follows: " Witness; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution....

...ty under rule 3.190(c)(3), a claim that prosecution is barred because the defendant has transactional immunity. See, e.g., State v. Toogood, 349 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (involving statutory transactional immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975))....

...2d DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In 1980, Virgie Fowler informed the St. Petersburg Police Department that she had information about an insurance fraud committed by her ex-husband. After being granted immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1981), [1] she implicated her ex-husband, a friend and herself in the arson....

...States, contains the following proviso: "A witness shall not be exempt from prosecution for perjury committed while giving testimony or producing evidence under compulsion as provided in this section." Whether this language should also be a part of section 914.04 is a matter only the legislature may address. Doe has been extant since 1980 and section 914.04 has been revised since 1981, but the proviso is still absent....

...Thus, absent any action by the legislature, we have no cause to recede from Doe. The decision of the district court is approved; the certified question is answered in the affirmative as to both sections. It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, gra...

27.04, Florida Statutes (1995). Pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1995), she was accorded

...Wade in order to take their depositions. While the two witnesses appeared at the scheduled time, on the advice of counsel, they declined to testify, despite being advised that they would be given use *1067 and derivative use immunity as provided in section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...The trial court accepted these arguments and denied the State’s motion to compel the witnesses’ testimony. The State now seeks certiorari review of that order. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the State’s petition and quash the trial court’s order. 2 The Florida immunity statute, section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2008), provides, in pertinent part: No person who has been duly served with a subpoena ......

...The witnesses’ first concern is that they might be subject to prosecution for perjury by contradictory statements if they provide sworn testimony at a deposition that materially differed from their earlier statements under oath. 3 This concern is unfounded, provided that their compelled testimony is truthful. Section 914.04 generally prohibits the use of such testimony in any criminal investigation or proceeding against the witness. More specifically, section 837.021(4), provides that a person may not be prosecuted for making contradictory statements if the contradictory statement made in the most recent proceeding was made under a grant of immunity under section 914.04....

...The grant of immunity must leave the witness in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege in the absence of a grant of immunity. Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 458-59 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 ; U.S. v. Schwimmer, 882 F.2d 22, 25 (2d Cir.1989). We conclude that the use and derivative use immunity granted by section 914.04 satisfies any self-incrimination concerns the witnesses may have in this ease....

...BELL, Judge. The state has filed its petition for writ of certiorari asking that this court exercise its jurisdiction to reverse an order of the trial judge which denied the state’s motion to compel testimony after an offer of immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1982)....

...The state then subpoenaed respondent for investigations of other individuals who might have been involved in the offense for which he had been convicted. He refused to answer questions concerning the names of other individuals who might have been involved, even though he was granted immunity pursuant to section 914.04. Respondent argued to the trial court that “use immunity,” provided by section 914.04, was not sufficient to protect his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination....

...It seems clear to us that had the Florida statute been the subject of scrutiny by the United States Supreme Court in the eases cited above, it would have been held not to grant “derivative use” immunity and, therefore, not equal in scope with the Fifth Amendment. The wording of the section 914.04, in regard *504 to the immunity granted, is virtually the same as that disapproved in Counselman v. Hitchcock, and not as broad as that approved by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Sinito. Ohio’s statute in granting immunity refers to “any prosecution based on his testimony” in regard to the immunity that is extended to a witness. Section 914.04 refers to “testimony so given or evidence so produced.” We are urged to construe the “evidence so produced” in section 914.04 as being as broad as that in Ohio’s statute and as interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court....

...oviding that a witness is not excused from “producing any book, paper, or other document” and has nothing to do with derivative information from which “derivative immunity” could be inferred. However, we are not required to strictly construe section 914.04 as apparently would the United States Supreme Court, or even perhaps the Ohio Supreme Court. Regardless of the narrowness of the words employed in section 914.04, the Florida Supreme Court has already, as well it could, broadly construed that language to grant “derivative use” immunity in Popper . In 1973, when Popper was decided, section 914.04 provided for both “transactional immunity” and “use immunity.” By chapter 82-393, Laws of Florida (1982), the Florida legislature amended section 914.04 to delete “transactional immunity.” Except for that deletion, chapter 82-393 made no changes in section 914.04, and it remained exactly the same insofar as it provided for “use immunity.” Our supreme court in Popper said in regard to the “use immunity” provision of section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1973): For this separate offense, the witness may be prosecuted; the statute, however, forbids the use of his compelled testimony in this prosecution even to establish the fact (innocent in and of itself) of ownership of the vehicle....

...roved without the use of the compelled testimony. This is where the State’s contended “independent source” of proof comes in. Such proof, however, must be of the separate, independent transaction. Thus, our supreme court in Popper has declared section 914.04 to grant “derivative use” immunity and we, therefore, adhere to that precedent....

...wholly independent of the compelled testimony.” Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 460 , 92 S.Ct. at 1665 . Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted and the order of the trial judge is quashed. GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. . 914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him....

...A response thereto has been filed and the court in addition has had the benefit of briefs and full argument from the parties. The central question raised by the petition and response is whether an accused can acquire immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), based on testimony given by the accused as a witness at a defense discovery deposition in a criminal proceeding in which he is not charged when such testimony is given in response to questions propounded on cross examination by a state attorney. We hold that the accused cannot acquire statutory immunity for such testimony under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), and deny the prohibition relief herein sought....

...The relators D'Amato and Quick were also charged in separate counts with perjury at Wilkey's preliminary hearing. Finally, all of the relators were charged with perjury at the defense discovery depositions. The relators filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that they were immunized under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), based on their testimony given at the defense discovery depositions in response to questions propounded by the state attorney. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion and the relators have filed the instant suggestion for a writ of prohibition. Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), upon which the relators rely for their claim of immunity, provides as follows: "No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or pro...

...ar state attorney questioning. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.131(a), (b). The same holds true for a witness subpoenaed by the state to give testimony at trial before the county court on a misdemeanor charge. None of these proceedings are covered by Section *1122 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), and in none can a witness ever acquire statutory immunity....

...I disagree with the majority's denial of the relators' suggestion for writ of prohibition with respect to Counts I-IV of the information. [1] The dispositive issue is whether the officers were in fact under investigation by the state attorney at the time they were deposed and therefore received immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...six-year-old daughter Christina, and Loretta's mother. Loretta Sievert's mother was arrested for the murder of *790 O'Neill. Loretta Sievert was questioned by the State Attorney in respect to the case and was granted immunity pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 914.04....

...amended injunction order, Guenther filed a motion to compel discovery to which he attached letters from an assistant state attorney dated November 2, 1994, and October 13, 1994, purporting to confer upon Randall use and derivative use immunity under section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1993), in connection with Randall's deposition in this civil action....

...operly propounded questions, to provide any relevant documents requested during discovery, and to provide a list of all assets which she had acquired from Guenther. Randall has petitioned this court for certiorari review of this order. As pertinent, section 914.04 provides: No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, gran...

...documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to convict him of a crime or to subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (1993). The case law addressing section 914.04 consistently has construed the statute strictly, making it clear that any grant of immunity conferred thereunder must be confined to the statutory parameters....

...Accordingly, the statute does not authorize the immunity conferred by the state attorney in the present case. In so ruling, we reject Guenther's contentions that the immunity purportedly granted is valid as a grant of contractual immunity and that the statutory immunity of section 914.04 does not constitute the sole means through which the state may confer immunity....

...The present order cannot be sustained on this ground because to do so would subject Randall to the burden of establishing equitable estoppel in any future criminal proceeding which the state might initiate. [4] We note that the state is not foreclosed from conferring immunity on Randall pursuant to the provisions of section 914.04 in any criminal investigation, proceeding, or trial, as contemplated by that section, and then eliciting the same information sought by Guenther's motion to compel discovery in this case.

...The victim identified appellee as the other man who robbed him, along with Green. *898 On November 17, 1976, an information was filed charging appellee with armed robbery. Appellee moved to dismiss the information claiming transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statute (1975)....

...the information. This appeal follows. While a number of issues are raised on appeal, we need only consider one, to-wit: whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the information based upon transactional immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...denied, 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 3008, 69 L.Ed.2d 390 (1981). Such a waiver, however, is not supported by the circumstances of this case. 483 So.2d at 422, 423. Similarly, it appears that a claim of transactional immunity is of a fundamental nature. Section 914.04, the immunity statute controlling, provided: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court ha...

...resolution of the immunity issue. The trial court may resolve the issue on the existing record or order further hearings as may appear appropriate in the discretion of the trial court. ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] In 1980, section 914.04 provided for both transactional and use immunity....

...Newsome did not receive transactional immunity when she made her sworn statement on October 21, it is our opinion that she did not receive use immunity either. In order for a witness' testimony to result in either transactional or use immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), the witness must be compelled to testify....

...t for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the interrogation focused on the truthfulness of appellee's October 10 testimony or on McKeehan's actions on October 9 and whether she voluntarily waived her fifth amendment privilege. NOTES [1] Sec. 914.04, Fla....

the indictments must be dismissed pursuant to F.S. 914.04, F.S.A.; if, however, the indictments do not

...On April 22, 1976, appellee filed his pro se motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum constituted a grant of total immunity to appellee. We disagree and reverse. The immunity statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) [1] is not self-executing upon the mere issuance of a subpoena or unprotesting compliance therewith....

...Hall, 230 So.2d 722 (Fla.2d DCA 1970), cited and quoted with approval in Tsavaris v. Scruggs, No. 48,637 (Fla. March 17, 1977), or may require him to testify or turn over the subpoenaed documents, in which event the witness will have immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...n issue we deem unnecessary to decide in view of our disposition of this case. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. McNULTY, Acting C.J., concurs. SCHOONOVER, JACK R., Associate Judge, dissents. NOTES [1] Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) provides: "No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felo...

was the immunity shield conferred upon him by section 914.04, Florida Statutes, as it existed at that time

...In December, 1987, the trial court denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On April 27, 1988, the trial court ruled on a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which appellant contended, for the first time, that upon the authority of section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), he had *1302 transactional immunity and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel in his trial....

...1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). Witt, 387 So.2d at 929 (footnote omitted). Id., 558 So.2d at 6 . Applying the test of Glenn to this case, we hold that Jenny II should be applied retroactively as it constituted a fundamental constitutional change of law by concluding that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), placed a defendant beyond the state’s power to prosecute and impose penalties where the statute granted him immunity regardless of whether he invoked his privilege against self-incrimination....

...Thus, it falls within the first category of cases denoted in Glenn and Witt , not in the second category of cases which must meet the three prong test of Stovall , as the trial court found. We also reject the trial court’s argument, based upon Glenn , that since the legislature amended section 914.04 and abolished transactional immunity, the relief being sought here, Jenny II should therefore not be applied to this case....

...ding that statute, has now indicated was incorrect. We simply fail to see the logic of such a position. Id. at 9 . In Jenny II, the supreme court, acknowledged in a footnote, but still did not take into account, the fact that the legislature amended section 914.04 to delete the provision regarding transactional immunity....

ON MOTION FOR ORDER DISSOLVING STAY MANN, Judge. Gilliam, Beale and O’Brien were convicted of contempt in the Circuit Court after refusing to testify, although they had been granted immunity under Fla.Stat. § 914.04 (1971), F.S.A....

...cising jurisdiction over him, and that his Fifth Amendment rights could there be considered in the light of the immunity contract. Here there is no question of jurisdiction, and the immunity afforded these witnesses complies strictly with Fla. Stat. § 914.04 (1971), F.S.A....

...As to the purported error in permitting the state’s rebuttal witness to testify, appellant argues the witness’s trial testimony was compromised by threats of prosecution. That witness had at first agreed to testify on behalf of the state, and was granted statutory immunity in exchange for his agreement. Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...Subsequent to being granted immunity pursuant to Section 914.-04, Florida Statutes, Anson gave testimony concerning his involvement in a fraudulent scheme to help cover up illegal payments to another architect from Cedars of Lebanon Hospital. Anson, in exchange for immunity from prosecution, penalty or forfeiture pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, gave compelled testimony at the trial of other individuals charged by the state....

PER CURIAM. By this petition for writ of certiorari, the State seeks review of a trial court order refusing to compel Richards and Wilcher, persons who indisputably had been given use immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), to testify at the trial of Wilcher’s brother....

Temple, Murcott Honey and King oranges.” 7 C.F.R. § 914.4.17 Thus, it would appear, initially, that the commodity

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977).

...Appellant was convicted of perjury even though he had been given immunity from prosecution for any statements he made when subpoenaed to testify. Even though he apparently lied regarding the statements he cannot be prosecuted for the perjurious lies. § 914.04, Fla.Stat....

...We held that prosecution was possible but that the immunized statements could not be used as evidence in such prosecution. We see no basis for receding from Doe . *660 The immunity statute has now been changed and adds language which permits prosecution for perjury when one lies while giving an immunized statement. § 914.04, Fla.Stat....

...1 and April 13, 1983. Appellant argued that (1) the statements were inadmissible as violative of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and (2) said statements were protected by the “use immunity” guaranteed by section 914.04, Florida Statutes, whenever one testifies pursuant to a section 27.04, Florida Statutes (State criminal investigation) subpoena....

...Colonel Burkette testified that appellant admitted to the instant crime in the conversation which immediately followed the September 29 deposition. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and fined $300. This appeal followed. Appellant maintains that his statements are entitled to “use immunity.” As noted, section 914.04, Florida Statutes, provides that whenever one testifies pursuant to a section 27.04, Florida Statutes, subpoena, such testimony cannot later be used as evidence against deponent....

...Although deponent may be prosecuted for the “transactions” to which he refers, the State is required to use evidence which is totally independent of deponent/defendant’s statements. Appellant contends that since he testified in response to a State subpoena, under section 914.04, Florida Statutes, all statements made in response thereto are automatically inadmissible at trial....

...Daniels was being prosecuted for perjury based on the statement which was suppressed. He argues the statement should have been suppressed because the deputy failed to give him any Miranda 1 warnings and the deputy was not empowered to require him to answer pursuant to section 27.04 or section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), and thereby to grant him “transactional immunity” from prosecution for the subject matter of his responses....

...ese matters. In Daniels v. Kirkland, 379 So.2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), we ruled that Daniels could not be prosecuted for burglary charges, which was the subject matter of Daniels’ statement. However, we held that the immunity afforded pursuant to section 914.04 did not preclude prosecution for any false statements made by Daniels during the investigation....

...“This Court does not condone the procedure utilized by the assistant state attorneys in calling these defendants in, under subpoena, and eliciting information from them without placing the defendants under oath. Nevertheless, the Court does not believe that immunity attaches under Florida Statute § 914.04 for any information thus obtained....

...preme Court. See Constantino v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 341 ; Royal Flair, Inc. v. Cape Coral Bank, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 895 ; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1975, 309 So.2d 248 ; Montalvo v. State, Fla.App.3d 1975, 323 So.2d 674 . Affirmed. . “914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him ; immunity from prosecution “No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from at...

McCORD, Judge. Appellant appeals his robbery conviction. He filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the information on the ground that he was immune from prosecution because he had been granted immunity pursuant to the operation of § 914.04, Fla.Stat.1975....

...Appellant informed the state that McKinney had his (appellant’s) automobile on the night in question. This was the only pertinent information given by appellant relative to the robbery. More than five months later, on September 9, 1975, the state filed an amended information naming appellant as a co-defendant. § 914.04, Fla.Stat.1975, provides as follows: “Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution....

information on the basis of statutory immunity. § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1975). When this motion was denied

the operation of Florida’s immunity statute, section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), based on testimony

...lations, which may be revealed by her testimony, the order requiring her to testify cannot stand. 6 Moreover, since the case below was not an “investigation, proceeding or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state,” see Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979); State ex rel....

...and continuing until after jury selection. In its motion and again at the hearing, the State explained its position that Ms. Logan had statutory use and derivative use immunity for her deposition testimony because the State had subpoenaed her. See § 914.04, Fla. Stat....

criminal prosecution pursuant to the provisions of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977). In response to these

...AS TO QUESTIONS 2, 3, and 4: As your first question has been answered in the negative, your second, third, and fourth questions need not be addressed. AS TO QUESTION 5: This question may be answered by reference to AGO's 073-150 and 075-219, construing s. 914.04 , F.S., which constitutes the statutory authority by which immunity from state criminal prosecution may be granted. Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, gran...

...immunity from prosecution to a witness appearing before it, and in the absence of such a statute, no legal power to grant immunity exists . (Emphasis supplied.) In accord is AGO 060-168, construing former s. 932.29, F. S., the predecessor of current s. 914.04 , F....

PER CURIAM. The defendant appeals an adjudication of contempt entered because of his refusal to answer questions in a state investigation after being granted transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...On each occasion he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, was granted immunity, refused to testify and was held in contempt. The two judgments of contempt are the subject of this consolidated appeal. Appellant argues first that the immunity defined in Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), is not coextensive with the scope of the Fifth Amendment because it does not provide derivative use immunity....

...Alford, filed a petition for writ of prohibition to this court. He urges that he was compelled, over his Fifth Amendment objection, to testify in a criminal proceeding involving another person, and therefore he should have been given immunity from prosecution pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...f various kinds, and he identified and explained his business records concerning the July 1978 sale. The July hub caps were not involved in the April hub cap transaction in any way. It is clear that the petitioner would have “use” immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) for his testimony but no “transactional” immunity for anything other than the July hub cap transaction....

...713 ; Richardson v. United States, 273 F.2d 144 (8th Cir. 1959). Next, the appellant has argued that the trial court’s direction that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against him *410 violated the immunity granted to him by the State under Fla.Stat. § 914.04, F.S.A....

...versible error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed. Affirmed. . On each occasion in which the appellant testified before the Grand Jury, he was immunized under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 914.04, F.S.A.

...Woodsmall appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence based on a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery. He contends that because he was subpoenaed to appear at the trial of an accomplice in a robbery, and was brought into the courtroom for identification during the trial he was immunized under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes....

...Woodsmall timely moved the court to-dismiss the charge against him because of transactional immunity under Section 914.-04, Florida Statutes. The motion was renewed immediately before the trial. Both motions were denied. Woodsmall bases his contention on that part of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, which provides that a person who, pursuant to a subpoena, produces evidence, documentary or otherwise, which may tend to convict him of a crime shall not be prosecuted for that transaction....

...) (1) (i), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, authorizes the court to order a defendant to appear in a lineup. Even if we assume that the compulsory appearance of Woodsmall at Kinsey’s trial resulted in the production of evidence contemplated by Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, it did not incriminate Woodsmall. It merely incriminated Kinsey. Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, clearly states that the evidence must incriminate the person who is compelled to give the testimony or produce the evidence....

...Relator then refused to answer any further questions and the interrogation ceased. Subsequently, an information was filed which charged the relator with soliciting Michael Karichkowsky to commit arson. Relator filed a motion to dismiss contending that he had received transactional immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...MacMillan, 194 So.2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); State ex rel. Lurie v. Rosier, 226 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). In State ex rel. Hugh v. Popper, 287 So.2d 282 (Fla.1973), the Supreme Court interpreted our immunity statute as follows: “Petitioners vigorously urge that F.S. § 914.04, F.S.A....

afforded full immunity under Florida Statute, Section 914.04 by the State Attorney’s Office for testimony

...Law Enforcement, to any venue in which his testimony is required, both criminal and civil, in connection with the Menorah Gardens Palm Beach case. The State agrees that testimony given pursuant to this section in any venue is given pursuant to F.S. Section 914.04 as set forth herein....

...in order to obtain assurances or clarification that such testimony is indeed given pursuant to the above terms. McKay and the prosecutor negotiated to include in the agreement the language providing that testimony under the agreement was pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2003). Section 914.04 grants use and derivative use immunity to a witness compelled by subpoena to testify in a criminal proceeding: No person who has been duly served tuith a subpoena or subpoena duces te-cum shall be excused from attending and testifying...

...stigation or proceeding. (Emphasis added.) During discovery proceedings in this civil case, which relates to the offenses at the cemetery, McKay objected on Fifth Amendment grounds when the plaintiffs sought to take his deposition. McKay argued that Section 914.04 does not apply to testimony given in a civil proceeding and that the state lacked authority to grant statutory immunity....

...substantial connection with the subject of the inquiry), rev. denied, 389 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1980). The statute was amended, and transactional immunity was no longer authorized. Meek v. State, 566 So.2d 1318 , 1321 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“In 1980, section 914.04 provided for both transactional and use immunity....

..., The trial court granted Randall’s motion and restricted the discovery because of the Fifth Amendment issues. In response, Guenther filed a motion to compel discovery attaching letters from the state attorney purporting to grant Randall use and derivative use immunity under section 914.04 for deposition testimony in the civil case....

...The court, however, went on to reject Guenther’s contentions that the state’s letters were a valid grant of contractual immunity. In so holding, the court made some broad statements suggesting there can be no contractual immunity in Florida. The court seemed to hold that Section 914.04 is the sole means by which the state can grant immunity....

...nt failed polygraph tests), rev. denied, 817 So.2d 850 (Fla.2002). Unlike the situation in Randall, the state’s grant of “immunity” in this case is based on a negotiated plea agreement and not solely on a purported “gift” of immunity under section 914.04....

...nt. Id. Thus, Stancel acknowledges the existence of contractual immunity. The due process clause of our state and federal constitutions requires enforcement of plea agreements and resulting contractual immunity. STATUTORY VERSUS CONTRACTUAL IMMUNITY Section 914.04 does not eliminate a prosecutor’s discretion in granting *673 immunity in connection with a valid plea agreement....

...The immunity contemplated by the statute serves different purposes than immunity which might be extended as part of a plea bargain. The purpose of the statute is to facilitate the state’s ability to prosecute crimes by making witnesses more likely to testify. Section 914.04 automatically grants the witness use and derivative use immunity even in the absence of a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. Grant v. State, 832 So.2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 980 , 123 S.Ct. 1808 , 155 L.Ed.2d 670 (2003). Grant finds that section 914.04 applies to the office of the statewide prosecutor, the prosecuting agency in McKay’s case....

...4th DCA 1996) (holding that the Fifth Amendment requires a second sovereign to afford a person use and derivative use immunity for testimony originally “compelled” under statutory grant of immunity by. another sovereign). Although McKay is correct that section 914.04 does not shield his testimony in this civil proceeding, McKay is protected, and essentially granted transactional immunity, by the separate promise-not-to-prosecute provision of the plea agreement....

...me against him. Thus, the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in compelling McKay’s testimony in accordance with the plea agreement. CONCLUSIONS McKay cannot receive immunity for his testimony in this civil case under section 914.04, Florida Statutes....

duly served with a trial subpoena by the state. § 914.-04, Fla.Stat. (1983). Under these circumstances this

...Does a legislative committee have the power to immunize a witness testifying before it and producing books, papers, or other documents pursuant to a committee subpoena, having been apprised of his Miranda rights? SUMMARY: A witness appearing before a legislative committee is not immunized under s. 914.04 , F.S., and a legislative committee is not authorized to grant a witness appearing before it immunity from subsequent criminal prosecution. The answer to the questions presented is in the negative. Section 914.04 , F.S., provides: 914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution....

...produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, and no testimony so given or produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. (Emphasis supplied.) In AGO 060-168, my predecessor was asked whether s. 932.29, F.S., now s. 914.04 , supra, applied to witnesses appearing before a legislative committee....

...My research reveals no relevant change in the Florida Statutes since AGO 060-168 was written and that said opinion disposes of the question as to whether the immunity statute applies to persons appearing before a legislative committee. In AGO 073-150, it was held that under s. 914.04 , supra, only a prosecuting attorney could immunize a witness from subsequent criminal prosecution....

...to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section IX of the Florida Constitution. Melanson filed a motion to dismiss in the circuit court on grounds that when he complied with the subpoena duces tecum he gained immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...cause the court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss and thus is acting in excess of its jurisdiction. We issued our order to show cause and the Attorney General has responded. We hold that Melanson is not entitled to immunity under the statute. Section 914.04 provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces te-cum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, gr...

...of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, and no testimony so given or produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. The purpose of Section 914.04 is to aid criminal prosecutions by allowing the state to elect to immunize one offender to secure the offender’s self-incriminating testimony for use in prosecuting another....

UPCHURCH, Judge. This is an original proceeding on suggestion for Writ of Prohibition which raises questions under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...By order dated July 20, 1979, the felony charges and the misdemeanor were consolidated in the Circuit Court for trial. Petitioner Daniels, by motion, sought to have all charges dismissed on the grounds that he had been granted immunity under Florida Statute 914.04....

...y waive the immunity granted by the Statute? Second, does the immunity also apply to the perjury? At the time of filing the information in the Circuit Court, petitioner had not been convicted of perjury, or the misdemeanor, false official statement. Section 914.04 is specific: ....

...immunity as advanced by Polnac, and, accordingly, we reverse. In its Order granting Polnac’s motion to suppress, the trial court correctly determined that a DBR investigator could not grant immunity from criminal prosecution under Florida Statute, Section 914.04....

...Scruggs, 360 So.2d 745 (Fla.1977); State v. Schroeder, 112 So.2d 257 (Fla.1959); Fountaine v. State, 460 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), review denied, 464 So.2d 554 (Fla.1985). The Florida statute dealing with immunity from criminal prosecution is Florida Statutes, Section 914.04. See § 914.04, Fla. Stat. (1995). The courts have consistently adhered to the principle that immunity from prosecution under Section 914.04 may only be granted by those persons or entities named in the statute and under the precise *1097 parameters delineated in the statute. E.g., Randall v. Guenther, 650 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Accordingly, in those instances, such as the instant case, where claims of immunity do not come under the confines of Section 914.04, the courts have repeatedly struck down a litigant’s claim of immunity....

...She *1312 engaged an attorney who advised the ASA that his client would claim certain privileges against testifying. Appellant appeared as scheduled. Prior to questioning, the ASA informed her that she was entitled to limited immunity for her testimony by virtue of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...self of contempt by answering the prof-erred questions. On motion by appellant, sentence was stayed and this appeal followed. Debra Valdez does not dispute that the subpoena and grant of immunity were properly issued and that under the provisions of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes, she can be required to testify or be held in criminal contempt for refusal to do so....

...As a result of that information, the State Attorney’s Office conducted a formal investigation in September 1981 and compelled Fowler to testify. In exchange for her testimony and cooperation in the investigation, Fowler was granted immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...ion. She cites The Florida Bar v. Doe, 384 So.2d 30 (Fla.1980), for support of that proposition. The state makes no attempt to distinguish Doe , but instead responds that a grant of immunity does not extend to a perjury which the witness may commit. Section 914.04 provides that when a witness is compelled to testify under a grant of immunity, “no testimony so given or produced shall be received against [the witness] upon any criminal investigation or proceeding.” In return for Fowler surrend...

...refore, because it not only immunizes the witness for any use of his or her testimony or its fruits in a subsequent trial, but it also provides absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offense to which the question relates.”). See also § 914.04, Fla....

had been immunized from prosecution through Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), and the applicable

...Jones filed a motion for rehearing in which he argued that the trial court overlooked the fact that only the prosecuting attorney can offer immunity, but the trial court denied the motion. The lengthy contempt judgment was silent as to whether the state had agreed to grant Jones immunity for his testimony. While section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2010) (providing immunity for one served with a subpoena), does not appear to limit its application to persons who are subpoenaed by the state, case law makes it clear that the purpose of the statute is to aid the state; a defendant cannot immunize a witness in order to secure the witness’s compulsory testimony. Fountaine v. State, 460 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming conviction and explaining that section 914.04 is designed to insulate witness against incriminating effect of testimony compelled by the state). The Fountaine court explained as follows: We hold that the self-executing feature of section 914.04 discussed in Jenny [v....

...witness, and to have the witness available as the defendant finds the witness, is violated by prosecutorial misconduct, then a judgment of acquittal is warranted, unless the state agrees to cure the constitutional violation with a grant of use immunity pursuant to section 914.04....

...official is entitled to legal representation at public expense. 9 See, s. 905.16 , Fla. Stat. 1993. See, generally, 33 Fla. Jur.2d "Juries" s. 127. 10 See, 33 Fla. Jur.2d "Juries" s. 141. 11 See, Dinnen v. State, 168 So.2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). 12 Section 914.04 , Fla....

probation in view of the immunity statutes. See § 914.04, Fla.Stat. (1993); § 837.021, Fla.Stat. (1993)

...2010) (evidentiary hearing required for motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 3.190(b) based on Stand Your Ground immunity); State ex rel. Hough v. Popper, 287 So. 2d 282, 285 (Fla. 1973) (issuing writ to compel trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the transactional immunity or use immunity provisions of section 914.04, Florida Statutes, were applicable); Owen v. State, 443 So....

...2010) (evidentiary hearing required for motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 3.190(b) based on Stand Your Ground immunity); State ex rel. Hough v. Popper, 287 So. 2d 282, 285 (Fla. 1973) (issuing writ to compel trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the transactional immunity or use immunity provisions of section 914.04, Florida Statutes, were applicable); Owen v. State, 443 So....

...and that the warrant was illegally executed. As a result of the alleged illegal search resulting in the seizure of his personal property and the improper use of such property thereafter, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides: No person, having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court havin...

...Although Tsavaris was a 4-3 decision with Justice Sundberg filing a specially concurring opinion with the majority, the court in essence decided that a physician whose personal records were obtained through execution of a subpoena on his employee was not entitled to immunity under Section 914.04, and that suppression rather than prohibition was the appropriate remedy for Tsavaris even if his contentions as to the illegality of the seizure were sustained....

...presents no obstacle to his prosecution. Yarbrough did not testify before the grand jury or the state attorney nor was he personally compelled to produce any records. Hence, pursuant to Tsavaris , neither our *1179 state or federal constitution nor Section 914.04 entitles petitioner to immunity....

...The State of Florida appeals from an order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the charges against him. We reverse. The issue here is whether Appellee, by appearing before the state attorney and testifying under oath pursuant to subpoena, was entitled, by virtue of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979), 1 to immunity as to *143 the transactions concerning which he so testified, where Appellee (1) was not first informed of his right against self-incrimination, and (2) did not at any time assert such right....

...such right. In State v. Perkins, 349 So.2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the court, in reversing an order which, on substantially similar facts, had dismissed an information on the basis of the immunity statute, stated, at page 803: The immunity statute, Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) is not self-executing upon the mere issuance of a subpoena or unprotesting compliance therewith....

...2d DCA 1970), cited and quoted with approval in Tsavaris v. Scruggs, No. 48,637 [ 360 So.2d 745 ] (Fla. March 17, 1977), or may require him to testify or turn over the subpoenaed documents, in which event the witness will have immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...1st DCA 1979), involving the effect of the immunity statute on one served with a subpoena duces tecum commanding appearance instanter before a state attorney, the court, in denying petition for writ of prohibition against the trial court, stated at page 1192: The purpose of Section 914.04 is to aid criminal prosecutions by allowing the state to elect to immunize one offender to secure the offender’s self-incriminating testimony for use in prosecuting another....

...stimony to result in immunity under the statute, citing State v. Newsome, 349 So.2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). In the latter case the court stated, at page 772: In order for a witness’ testimony to result in either transactional or use immunity under Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975), the witness must be compelled to testify....

quash the trial court’s order which held that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982) is unconstitutional

was granted immunity from prosecution under section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1987), for his dealings

...3d DCA 2003). The order at issue is precisely such an order, because it prejudicially impairs or effectively negates the State’s ability to prosecute. State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla.1988). The order departs from the essential requirements of section 914.04, Florida Statutes (2012), which subjects the respondent to the court’s contempt power following the grant of immunity. State v. Mitrani, 19 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Grant v. State, 832 So.2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Section 914.04 also squarely addresses and eliminates the respondent’s vaguely-referenced concerns 3 regarding perjury; the respondent’s only exposure from the testimony sought by the State would relate to “perjury committed while giving such testimony” or for later perjury....

HALL, Judge. Appellees were subpoenaed to testify before the Pasco County Grand Jury, which was investigating abuse of legal authority by the Pasco County Sheriff’s office. Ap-pellees were granted use immunity pursuant to section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), by virtue of their testimony before the grand jury on August 22, 1984....

...The State of Florida appeals an order of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss an information charging the defendant with aggravated assault and obstructing civil process, on the ground that the defendant was immune from prosecution under § 914.04, Fla.Stat....

...ainst Harold Gordon before a committing magistrate as to an incident in which he had been involved, he was forced to incriminate himself. The basis of the motion to dismiss was that this testimony rendered the defendant immune from prosecution under § 914.04, Fla.Stat....

...re, find that there was no basis for the trial court to order dismissal of the information. Assuming arguendo that defendant Montgomery had presented evidence in support of the motion, we would be inclined to agree with the State’s contention that § 914.04, Fla....

...The primary issue on appeal is whether a state attorney, or assistant state attorney, has authority under the law to release a witness from a subpoena, thereby enabling the witness to testify to a grand jury voluntarily without a resulting cloak of transactional immunity. Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1979) provided: Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution.— No person having been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, shall be excused from attending and testifying ......

...ence, documentary or otherwise, and no testimony so given or produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. (emphasis added). This statute was amended in 1982 to delete the transactional immunity provision. See § 914.04, Fla.Stat....

...imony, notwithstanding the fact that the subpoena was expressly cancelled with the witness’ knowledge and consent. Appellant asserts that the subpoena triggers automatic immunity from prosecution for the offense concerning which he testified under section 914.04....

...exculpatory of another defendant under the threat of the court imposing a greater sentence in a case pending against him or under the threat of prosecution of the witness for other crimes amounts to suppression of evidence by the state. Also, under § 914.04, Florida Statutes, the state can grant immunity to compel a witness to give testimony that would incriminate him, but it prostitutes justice for the state, by a plea bargain agreement, to promise a witness immunity from prosecutions on condition that he not testify in a case....

...evant to a robbery, just prior to going to trial, but adjudication and sentencing were withheld. Later that same afternoon, he (Brownlee) was subpoenaed by the State to testify at a deposition pursuant to the Florida Immunity Statute which provides: 914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him; immunity from prosecution....

...of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may so testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, and no testimony so given or produced shall be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Florida Statute 914.04 (1975)....