Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or to provide other information in a criminal proceeding or investigation before a court, a grand jury, the Auditor of Public Accounts, the Legislative Council, the Legislative Oversight Committee, or a standing committee or a special legislative investigative or oversight committee of the Legislature, the court, on motion of the county attorney, other prosecuting attorney, Auditor of Public Accounts, chairperson of the Executive Board of the Legislative Council, chairperson of the Legislative Oversight Committee, or chairperson of a standing or special committee of the Legislature, may order the witness to testify or to provide other information. The witness may not refuse to comply with such an order of the court on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination, but no testimony or other information compelled under the court's order or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information may be used against the witness in any criminal case except in a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or failing to comply with the order of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1982–2020 · leading case:
State v. Lotter, 586 N.W.2d 591 (Neb. 1998).
State v. Lotter, 586 N.W.2d 591 (Neb. 1998).
· cites it 6× “§ 29-2261 (Reissue 1995); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Reissue 1995); Neb.”
State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 3× “This is not an improper ex parte communica- tion that would give rise to a need for a judge’s recusal.”
State v. Munoz, 303 Neb. 69 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 4× “In response, the State informed the judge that it planned to offer use Nebraska Advance Sheets 782 289 NEBRASKA REPORTS immunity to Nancy pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Reissue 2008), which provides that a court may grant a wit- ness use immunity “[w]henever a witness…”
State v. Banks, 771 N.W.2d 75 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 3× “During his testimony at trial, Bowling stated that he was testifying under a use immunity order issued pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Robinson, 715 N.W.2d 531 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 2× “In a criminal proceeding, a court’s authority to grant immunity to a witness who refuses to testify on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination comes from Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Copple, 401 N.W.2d 141 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 3× “§§ 6002 and 6003 is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Reissue 1985): Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or to provide other *687 information in a criminal proceeding before a court or grand jury, the court, on motion of…”
State v. Robertson, 366 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 4× “As authorized by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Cum.Supp.1984), the prosecutor asked and received immunity for Carr, and questioning continued.”
State v. Brunzo, 532 N.W.2d 296 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 2× “He argues that the district court should have ordered Carrera and Huerta to waive their Fifth Amendment privilege and compel their deposition testimony or should have prohibited the State from calling Huerta and Carrera as witnesses.”
State v. Thurman, 730 N.W.2d 805 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The State offered her use immunity pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Reissue 1995) in return for her testimony against Thurman.”
State v. Jones, 328 N.W.2d 166 (Neb. 1982).
· cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-2011.02 (Cum. Supp. 1982).”
State v. Starks, 427 N.W.2d 297 (Neb. 1988).
· cites it 4× “The trial court then stated that in light of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2011.02 (Reissue 1985), the court did not have the authority to grant immunity and order a witness to testify absent a motion to do so by the county attorney or other prosecuting attorney.”
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.