Illinois Compiled Statutes
725 ILCS 5/106-1 (2026)
Granting of immunity
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/106-1)
(from Ch. 38, par. 106-1)
Sec. 106-1.
Granting of immunity.)
In any investigation before a Grand Jury, or trial in any court, the court
on motion of the State may order that any material
witness be released from all liability to be prosecuted or punished on
account of any testimony or other evidence he may be required to produce.
(Source: P.A. 79-1360.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Scatchell v. Bd. of Fire & Police Commissioners for Melrose Park, 2022 IL App (1st) 201361 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
Scatchell v. Bd. of Fire & Police Commissioners for Melrose Park, 2022 IL App (1st) 201361 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “See 725 ILCS 5/106-1 to 106-3 (West 2018). Once their testimony is immunized, it cannot be used as the basis of a prosecution against the witness.”
People v. Sneed, 2023 IL 127968 (Ill. 2023). “A Ruling in Favor of Sneed Will Not Foreclose the Government From Obtaining Decryptions in Appropriate Circumstances ¶ 209 In cases where the government especially needs the decrypted contents of a cell phone, it has one means always available for overcoming the restrictions of…”
People v. Hall, 882 N.E.2d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Thus, for material witnesses our legislature has required affirmative action by the State to take advantage of the rule that it may compel testimony in a civil action where that testimony might be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding.”
In Re Drs, 643 N.E.2d 839 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “106-1 (now 725 ILCS 5/106-1 (West 1992)).) The court granted Victor immunity "for all liability for which he may be prosecuted or punished as a result of any testimony or evidence he may produce.”
People v. Hall (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Thus, for material witnesses our legislature has required affirmative action by the State to take advantage of the rule that it may compel testimony in a civil action where that testimony might be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding. The State must file a motion with the…”
People v. Ousley (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “" 725 ILCS 5/106-1 (West 2006). However, the word "shall" does not control the outcome and is not determinative.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|