Opinion ID: 2024982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transactional and Use Immunity.

Text: Use immunity is a limited form of immunity for the testifying witness. It compels a witness to testify despite his or her rights against self-incrimination, and prohibits the use of the testimony in a subsequent prosecution. State v. Fox, 491 N.W.2d 527, 533 (Iowa 1992). This type of immunity only protects a witness against the actual use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived directly or indirectly from such testimony. Id. If the testimony or evidence derived therefrom is used in a subsequent prosecution, it is incumbent upon the government to show in any later prosecution an independent source of the immunized testimony. United States v. Harvey, 900 F.2d 1253, 1257 (8th Cir.1990). In contrast, transactional immunity is essentially full immunity from prosecution. It protects a witness from all later prosecutions related to matters about which the witness testifies. Fox, 491 N.W.2d at 533. Allen alleges the trial court lacked jurisdiction or authority to order him to testify without granting him transactional immunity. He presents several reasons why he did not testify without the broader immunity. At the time of the order compelling him to testify, he was concerned his testimony could be used by the government if he were successful on his direct appeal; he was a suspect in another murder which allegedly furnished the motive for the shootout which claimed Davis's life; and he was concerned about other charges which could arise from the incident, including a possession of concealed weapons charge allegedly dismissed without prejudice. [2]