§
Subdivision 1.Conditions of immunity.
In any criminal proceeding, including a grand jury proceeding, paternity proceeding, or proceeding in juvenile court, if it appears a person may be entitled to refuse to answer a question or produce evidence of any other kind on the ground that the person may be incriminated thereby, and if the prosecuting attorney, in writing, requests the chief judge of the district or a judge of the court in which the proceeding is pending to order that person to answer the question or produce the evidence, the judge, after notice to the witness and hearing, shall so order if the judge finds that to do so would not be contrary to the public interest and would not be likely to expose the witness to prosecution in another state or in the federal courts.
After complying, and if, but for this section, the witness would have been privileged to withhold the answer given or the evidence produced by the witness, no testimony or other information compelled under the order, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information may be used against the witness in any criminal case, but the witness may be prosecuted or subjected to penalty or forfeiture for any perjury, false swearing or contempt committed in answering, or in failing to answer, or in producing, or failing to produce, evidence in accordance with the order.
§
Subd. 2.Testimony required; no use of testimony for prosecution.
In every case not provided for in subdivision 1 and in which it is provided by law that a witness shall not be excused from giving testimony tending to be self-incriminating, no person shall be excused from testifying or producing any papers or documents on the ground that doing so may tend to criminate the person or subject the person to a penalty or forfeiture; but no testimony or other information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except for perjury committed in such testimony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
30
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case:
State v. Morales, 788 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 2010).
State v. Morales, 788 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 12× “During Morales's trial, the State filed a motion under Minn.Stat. § 609.09 (2008), seeking to compel Vega-Larawho was claiming a Fifth Amendment privilegeto testify under a grant of immunity.”
State v. Booker, 770 N.W.2d 161 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 18× “The state promptly moved to compel Duckworth to testify and to grant him use immunity under Minn.Stat. § 609.09, subd. 1 (2006). Duckworth previously had been found guilty of attempted aggravated robbery in a stipulated-facts trial by the same district court judge who was…”
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota, 865 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 14× “Moreover, the court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion, brought under Minn. Stat. § 609.09 , 1 subd. 1 (2014), to grant a witness immunity to testify to overcome a claim of the privilege against self-incrimination.”
In Re the Welfare of S.J.T., 736 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 609.09, subd. 2. Furthermore, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated: Although we find that Minn.”
In Re Contempt of Ecklund, 636 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 18× “Did the district court properly consider the-use immunity statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.09 (1998), even though the prosecutor never made a written request under this section to the court? ANALYSIS I.”
State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 6× “Defendant argues that if the immunity statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.09 (1984), is construed to permit only the state prosecutor to ask for witness immunity, it is unconstitutional, and that for the prosecution to refuse to request and the court to refuse to grant defense witness…”
State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 1981).
· cites it 4× “The court later issued an order compelling Ardys Fischer to testify and granting her immunity from prosecution pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.09 (1980). Mrs. Fischer, however, indicated that she would not comply with the court order and also refused to testify.”
Pederson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 2005).
· cites it 4× “” We first observe that Moses’ use immunity was based solely on the narrow terms set forth by the state, and did not receive formal court approval under Minn.Stat. § 609.09, subd. 1. Under this statute, once the district court has ordered a witness to provide otherwise…”
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota, 872 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Because of this alleged misconduct, McKenzie asked the postconviction court to grant use immunity to the three witnesses under Minn.Stat. § 609.09, subd. 1 (2014), for their testimony.”
In Re the Welfare of S.A.V., 392 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “NOTES [1] Only appellant father contested that part of the dispositional order requiring acknowledgment of the cause of the children's injuries.”
State v. Super, 781 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 609.09, subd. 1 (2008). If the witness’s testimony would have been privileged, it may not “be used against the witness in any criminal case.”
State v. Keeton, 589 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Prior to trial, the state requested use immunity for both Glaze and Peltier pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.09. Both appellant and his attorney were excluded from the use immunity hearing for Glaze, despite objections made to the trial court.”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.09(h) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.