Opinion ID: 1257677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: lankford's immunized testimony and its use in sentencing.

Text: Lankford and the prosecuting attorney entered into an immunity agreement concerning his testimony at his brother's trial. The agreement recited that Lankford would refuse to answer questions if he were called to testify, on the ground that he might incriminate himself. The agreement granted Lankford immunity from prosecution and penalty co-extensive with Idaho Code § 19-1114. The trial court found that there was good cause for the agreement and approved it. At his brother's trial Lankford testified that his brother killed the Bravences. After his brother was convicted, Lankford was called to testify at a hearing on his brother's motion for a new trial. His attorney told the trial court in that hearing that on the basis of the fifth amendment she had advised Lankford not to testify. She said that she did not want him testifying on matters to which he had testified previously, because she did not believe that his testimony at his brother's trial was voluntary, but was coerced. After extended discussion between the trial court and counsel, the trial court accepted the agreement of the prosecuting attorney and Lankford's attorney that Lankford's testimony at the hearing would be used for purposes of his brother's motion for new trial and for no other purpose. Lankford then testified about a conversation he had with a newspaper reporter from the Lewiston Tribune. He told the reporter that he alone killed the Bravences. He testified at the hearing on his brother's motion for a new trial that this was a lie and that he had told the reporter he committed the murders because his brother told him to do it. In sentencing Lankford to death the trial court considered both his testimony at his brother's trial and his testimony at the hearing on his brother's motion for a new trial. Under the title Reasons Why Death Penalty Was Imposed in the trial court's findings considering the death penalty, the trial court referred to this testimony and concluded by stating: Suffice it to say that the defendant has failed to take any responsibility whatsoever for his actions. This court specifically finds that the defendant has no capacity for rehabilitation. Fifteen lines later the trial court imposed the death penalty.