5. If Mr. Wilson does not fully comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 3, that immunity is und sour. 1. This agreement between Donald G. Wilson (Mr. Wilson) and the United States Department of Justice (the Department of Justice) constitutes the granting of transactional immunity from criminal prosecution by the federal prosecutor in exchange for comprehensive and truthful information from Mr. Wilson on certain documents that Mr. Wilson allegedly recovered from James Earl Ray`s car in 1968. In states where defendants have the right to testify on their own behalf in a trial of grand jurors, the lifting of immunity is a precondition for that right. Transactional immunity or general immunity provides more protection to individuals than the Fifth Amendment and total immunity for all transactions revealed by the testimony, even if the government finds independent evidence that the witness committed the crime. Because of its strong protection, transactional immunity is generally granted as part of a plea or as a result of a successful legal action.
In addition, 18 states.C. No. 6002 provides only the exemption of derivatives, transaction immunity is granted only by prosecutors. The immunity of derivative use has the same scope as the Fifth Amendment, which prevents prosecutors from using the immune reaction or information obtained directly or indirectly against the individual. Since immunity from the use of derivatives offers more limited protection than transactional immunity, a person may nevertheless be prosecuted for crimes on which he or she testified under immunity. In any subsequent prosecution of a person with immunity with derivative use, the government bears the essential burden of proving, through an overweight evidence, that all the proposed evidence comes from legitimate sources, regardless of the reported. In order to prosecute an offence that has been the subject of testimony under the immunity from the use of the derivative, the prosecutor of the Republic must obtain written authorization from the Attorney General and a court will normally hold a kastigar hearing to ensure that the government has fulfilled its burden of proof and that the case has not been influenced by forced testimony. (7) If the witness refuses to comply with the order as to whether a contempt procedure has been initiated or contemplated, and the result of the contempt procedure when it is completed.
A literal copy of the testimony, authenticated by the military judge, should be presented to the Advocate General at the end of the hearing. In no criminal proceedings can the testimony or other information of a civilian witness be used against him on the basis of such an order (or information directly or indirectly from such statements or other information), except for a charge of perjury, false or non-deposition. Refusal to testify or testify after obtaining immunity may result in the witness being detained in defiance of the court, with the witness liable to imprisonment and a fine. Non-compliance with the Court is the result of an act of disobedience or contempt of court or interference with its activity. It is an instrument that allows justice to maintain order in the courtroom and ensure justice. In the event of a refusal of deposition under immunity, the district court may impose either civil contempt or criminal contempt. The court should use any power it deems necessary to force testimony, and therefore assess whether civil contempt will be effective before applying criminal contempt.