GRANTING IMMUNITY TO WITNESSES
Act 289 of 1968
780.701 Order granting immunity; application by prosecuting attorney; verified statement; determination to grant immunity.
Sec. 1.
(1) The prosecuting attorney may apply to the following, as applicable, for an order granting immunity to any person designated by name and address in the application who might give testimony concerning the violation charged in the complaint and warrant or alleged in the petition:
(a) The examining magistrate at a preliminary examination.
(b) The trial judge at a trial for a felony or misdemeanor.
(c) The judge at an adjudication for a juvenile alleged to be within the court's jurisdiction under section 2(a)(i) of chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.2, or a probable cause hearing or trial in a case designated as a case in which the juvenile is to be tried in the same manner as an adult under section 2d of chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.2d.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by the prosecuting attorney's verified statement setting forth the facts upon which the application is based.
(3) If the judge determines that it is in the interest of justice that immunity be granted, the judge shall enter an order granting immunity to the witness if the witness appears before the court in the proceeding and testifies truthfully under oath concerning any matter or thing of which the witness knows concerning matters charged in the complaint and warrant or alleged in the petition, as set forth in the prosecuting attorney's application.
History: 1968, Act 289, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 249, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1999
Notes of Decisions
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Miskinis, 344 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Immunity may be granted in Michigan pursuant to MCL 780.701; MSA 28.1287(101), MCL 767.6; MSA 28.”
People v. Canter, 496 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
“2 On the petition of the prosecutor, Payton was granted transactional immunity by the trial court pursuant to MCL 780.701; MSA 28.1287(101), relative to perjured testimony in either defendant’s case or the case of codefendant Walter Moore.”
People v. Watkins, 259 N.W.2d 381 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The statutory basis for granting of immunity in a criminal prosecution is MCLA 780.701; MSA 28.1287(101), which provides: "In any case of a felony or a circuit court misdemeanor the prosecuting attorney may apply at the preliminary examination to the circuit court for the county…”
Commonwealth v. Swinehart, 664 A.2d 957 (Pa. 1995).
“2d 430 (1990) interpreting Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 780.701; Nev.Rev.Stat.”
People v. Bassage, 733 N.W.2d 398 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “3 The order specifically directed the parties to brief whether defendant was entitled to dismissal because the prosecutor, in the interests of justice, should have offered defendant immunity, MCL 780.701 et seq., or because the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony at…”
People v. Julian, 429 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“11 MCL 780.701; MSA 28.1287(101); People v Watkins, 78 Mich App 89, 94-95 ; 259 NW2d 381 (1977).”
People v. Castaneda, 265 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“Nor was it required that the prosecutor grant Velasquez immunity under MCLA 780.701; MSA 28.1287(101). See People v Towlen, 66 Mich App 577, 579-580 ; 239 NW2d 668 (1976).”
People v. Parsons, 371 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“The witness immunity act in MCL 780.701; MSA 28.1287(101) is very similar.”
People v. Iaconnelli, 317 N.W.2d 540 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“Defendants failed to justify such grants of immunity during trial and have failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the denials of immunity on appeal. *759 By legislative mandate, authority to request a court order granting immunity from criminal, prosecution rests…”
People v. Oaks, 290 N.W.2d 70 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“The Court added that the prosecutor was not required to grant Velasquez immunity under MCL 780.701; MSA 28.1287(101), citing People v Towlen, 66 Mich App 577, 579-580 ; 239 NW2d 668 (1976).”
People v. Tillman, 271 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The court stopped the proceedings and was going to appoint counsel to advise her during her testimony when the prosecutor agreed that there was a problem and announced that he was willing to *431 grant immunity, apparently under MCL 780.701 et seq.; MSA 28.1287(101) et seq.”
People v. Pacholka, 549 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. 1996).
“Since intermediate appellate courts are not empowered to adopt rules of evidence, Const.”
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.