Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.619

Immunity of witness compelled to testify

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      136.619 Immunity of witness compelled to testify. (1) A witness who, in compliance with a court order issued under ORS 33.085 or 136.617, testifies or produces evidence that the witness would have been privileged to withhold but for the court order, may be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any matter about which the witness testified or produced evidence unless the prosecution, penalty or forfeiture is prohibited by section 12, Article I of the Oregon Constitution. The testimony of the witness or evidence produced or information derived from the testimony or evidence may not be used against the witness in any criminal prosecution. However, the witness may nevertheless be prosecuted or subjected to penalty for any perjury, false swearing or contempt committed in answering, or failing to answer, or in producing, or failing to produce, evidence in accordance with the order. If a person refuses to testify after being ordered to testify as provided in this section, the person shall be subject to penalty for contempt of court for failure to comply with the order.

      (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not prevent the use of post-judgment collection procedures, including but not limited to wage withholding, income withholding, benefit withholding, assignment, garnishment or execution, based on matters about which a defendant testifies or produces evidence in compliance with a court order issued under ORS 136.617 in any proceeding for the imposition of remedial or punitive sanctions for contempt. [Formerly 139.200; 1981 c.882 §2; 1985 c.709 §1; 1991 c.724 §25b; 1997 c.313 §22]

 

      136.620 [Amended by 1973 c.836 §242; renumbered 136.455]

 

(Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: State v. Soriano
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Soriano (1984) orctapp · cites it 5× “17 ORS 136.619 is the only Oregon law providing use and derivative use immunity.”
State v. White (1989) orctapp · cites it 5× “Before defendant’s trial, he was called as a witness at Harris’ trial, but he declined to testify, even though he was offered use and derivative use immunity under former ORS 136.619. 1 He was found in contempt and appealed that conviction.”
State v. Kell (1986) orctapp · cites it 2× “617 and ORS 136.619 to Barbara Harris, an alleged co-conspirator who was then awaiting trial, so that she could testify in his behalf.”
State v. White (1987) or “Soriano, 68 Or App 642 , 684 P2d 1220 (1984), in which it was held that the immunity provided in former ORS 136.619 was inadequate under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.”
State v. Herrera (1979) or “” ORS 136.619 provides: "After complying with the order to testify or produce evidence the witness shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any fact or act concerning which, in accordance with the order, he was required to testify or…”
State v. Herrera (1978) orctapp · cites it 2× “2(c) suggests that qualified surveys, opinion testimony offered by individuals, or court evaluation of the nature, timing and frequency of the material are methods for determining when there is a reasonable likelihood that, in the absence of a change of venue, a fair trial…”
State v. Burleson (2007) or “See ORS 136.619 (so stating). 3 ORCP 55 G, operating in conjunction with ORS 136.”
State v. Threet (1982) or “” ORS 136.619 provides: “After complying with the order to testify or produce evidence and if but for ORS 136.”
Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary (1987) or “Additionally, even if the prosecution makes the necessary showing, the court may refuse to compel the witness to testify if it “finds that to do so would be clearly contrary to the public interest.”
State v. Soriano (1984) or “We allowed review of these consolidated cases to determine the validity of ORS 136.619 in light of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.”
State v. Najibi (1997) orctapp “617 and ORS 136.619, allow the state, not a defendant, to move for an order compelling a witness to testify.”
State v. Rodriguez (2019) orctapp “617 [Motion to compel witness who may be incriminated to testify], testifies or produces evidence that the witness would have been privileged to withhold but for the court order, may be pros- ecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any matter about which the witness…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.